6 ms·

Any plans to degrade votes over time, so that new or updated facts can more quickly gain precedence?

by timdorr 14y ago

christophe971 14y ago
Actually yes, but in a different way, I was thinking of accelerating the power of sudden downvotes, but nothing is set in stone yet. So yes it will happen, how exactly is yet to be decided. Thanks for your question!
DanWaterworth 14y ago
Facts don't change.
- oelmekki 14y ago
  It's thursday.
  - DanWaterworth 14y ago
    Your very clever. Do you really think I hadn't considered a statement like that? Facts are verifiable statements and things that are verifiable are verifiable repeatably. This is not a verifiable statement.
    - jacalata 14y ago
      'Yugoslavia is a country'. Are you really going to exclude that? So, no statements about political geography at all, then. Same problem for physical geography ('New Moore Island exists'). Nothing about climate (because 'the rain in Spain' could change at any time), nothing about population levels. Even the sample 'average weight of an apple' is pretty suspect. I think your database is going to be quite limited.
      - DanWaterworth 14y ago
        > 'Yugoslavia is a country'. Are you really going to exclude that? Yes, of course. > So, no statements about political geography at all, then. Absolutely not, you just have to make time explicit.
        msellout 14y ago
        What calendar will you use? Edit: It seems we're arguing about what a priori knowledge is capable of serving as a base for factual deductions. The Kantian approach is to say that we all agree on time and space and everything can be based off of these self-evident truths. I think there is not such a clear boundary between objective truth and induction. Edit2: I'd also like to take this moment to point out that "you're" is the proper contraction of "you are", since we're getting all semantic.
        DanWaterworth 14y ago
        This has suddenly become very philosophical. My view is that a database of facts should contain things that are believed to be facts. It should be possible to remove facts that are shown to be incorrect, but those things should never have been true. > I'd also like to take this moment to point out that "you're" is the proper contraction of "you are", since we're getting all semantic. I know, it annoys me too. By the time I'd realized it was too late to edit. Typos happen.
        jacalata 14y ago
        "My view is that a database of facts should contain things that are believed to be facts. It should be possible to remove facts that are shown to be incorrect, but those things should never have been true." But they definitely were true. I thought you were making a distinction between 'something that is true' and 'something that is a fact (ie: is unchangingly true)' which I don't think most people make.
      - msellout 14y ago
        It'd be the solipsist's database: "I exist" would be the only entry.
    - hnriot 14y ago
      It's pretty obvious you'd didn't consider statements like that. There are a large number of examples that make your statement of the invariance of facts absurd.
  - BoyWizard 14y ago
    It's still a fact, the context affects the meaning of the statement.
- christophe971 14y ago
  In the absolute sense, you're right they don't; but in the practical sense they do, especially open time-dependent statements. The easiest example is this: We're in 2010. X has been married to Y since 2009; In the DB it would be represented exactly like that: a "from" time period, no "to" time period, meaning "it is still true now". They divorce in 2013. X married to Y from 2009 to "now" isn't true. It should be downvoted. but X married to Y from "2009" to "2013" is actually true. It should be created and upvoted. That fact surely won't change overtime.
  - Buttons840 14y ago
    How can you say how the data will be structured? I thought you weren't enforcing any type of data structure? I like the new approach though. You appear to be focused on simplicity and ease of use, and hopefully your find ways to fix the resultant problems. For example, some fancy graph theory might be able to determine that the graph node "Apple" refers to two different ideas.
    - christophe971 14y ago
      You're right, nothing is enforced, if people choose a different way to present the data, it's totally fine.
  - hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
    > The easiest example is this: We're in 2010. X has been married to Y since 2009; In the DB it would be represented exactly like that: a "from" time period, no "to" time period, meaning "it is still true now". This is not a fact database. This is: X Married Y 2009-01-01 X Divorced Y 2013-01-01 This way you can represent any number of facts: X Married Y 2013-02-01 Think how convoluted it would be for you to represent X and Y marrying again in your example, if not outright wrong (because you update/delete information).
    - christophe971 14y ago
      I can be wrong, but being in a state of marriage with Y is a fact. And since the DB handle time periods, with my way you can actually search who X is married to with one request, without checking if he divorced, if Y is dead, disappeared, or else.

Any plans to degrade votes over time, so that new or updated facts can more quickly gain precedence?

by timdorr 14y ago

Any plans to degrade votes over time, so that new or updated facts can more quickly gain precedence?

Actually yes, but in a different way, I was thinking of accelerating the power of sudden downvotes, but nothing is set in stone yet. So yes it will happen, how exactly is yet to be decided. Thanks for your question!

DanWaterworth 14y ago

Facts don't change.

oelmekki 14y ago
It's thursday.
- DanWaterworth 14y ago
  Your very clever. Do you really think I hadn't considered a statement like that? Facts are verifiable statements and things that are verifiable are verifiable repeatably. This is not a verifiable statement.
  - jacalata 14y ago
    'Yugoslavia is a country'. Are you really going to exclude that? So, no statements about political geography at all, then. Same problem for physical geography ('New Moore Island exists'). Nothing about climate (because 'the rain in Spain' could change at any time), nothing about population levels. Even the sample 'average weight of an apple' is pretty suspect. I think your database is going to be quite limited.
    - DanWaterworth 14y ago
      > 'Yugoslavia is a country'. Are you really going to exclude that? Yes, of course. > So, no statements about political geography at all, then. Absolutely not, you just have to make time explicit.
      - msellout 14y ago
        What calendar will you use? Edit: It seems we're arguing about what a priori knowledge is capable of serving as a base for factual deductions. The Kantian approach is to say that we all agree on time and space and everything can be based off of these self-evident truths. I think there is not such a clear boundary between objective truth and induction. Edit2: I'd also like to take this moment to point out that "you're" is the proper contraction of "you are", since we're getting all semantic.
        DanWaterworth 14y ago
        This has suddenly become very philosophical. My view is that a database of facts should contain things that are believed to be facts. It should be possible to remove facts that are shown to be incorrect, but those things should never have been true. > I'd also like to take this moment to point out that "you're" is the proper contraction of "you are", since we're getting all semantic. I know, it annoys me too. By the time I'd realized it was too late to edit. Typos happen.
        jacalata 14y ago
        "My view is that a database of facts should contain things that are believed to be facts. It should be possible to remove facts that are shown to be incorrect, but those things should never have been true." But they definitely were true. I thought you were making a distinction between 'something that is true' and 'something that is a fact (ie: is unchangingly true)' which I don't think most people make.
    - msellout 14y ago
      It'd be the solipsist's database: "I exist" would be the only entry.
  - hnriot 14y ago
    It's pretty obvious you'd didn't consider statements like that. There are a large number of examples that make your statement of the invariance of facts absurd.
- BoyWizard 14y ago
  It's still a fact, the context affects the meaning of the statement.
christophe971 14y ago
In the absolute sense, you're right they don't; but in the practical sense they do, especially open time-dependent statements. The easiest example is this: We're in 2010. X has been married to Y since 2009; In the DB it would be represented exactly like that: a "from" time period, no "to" time period, meaning "it is still true now". They divorce in 2013. X married to Y from 2009 to "now" isn't true. It should be downvoted. but X married to Y from "2009" to "2013" is actually true. It should be created and upvoted. That fact surely won't change overtime.
- Buttons840 14y ago
  How can you say how the data will be structured? I thought you weren't enforcing any type of data structure? I like the new approach though. You appear to be focused on simplicity and ease of use, and hopefully your find ways to fix the resultant problems. For example, some fancy graph theory might be able to determine that the graph node "Apple" refers to two different ideas.
  - christophe971 14y ago
    You're right, nothing is enforced, if people choose a different way to present the data, it's totally fine.
- hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
  > The easiest example is this: We're in 2010. X has been married to Y since 2009; In the DB it would be represented exactly like that: a "from" time period, no "to" time period, meaning "it is still true now". This is not a fact database. This is: X Married Y 2009-01-01 X Divorced Y 2013-01-01 This way you can represent any number of facts: X Married Y 2013-02-01 Think how convoluted it would be for you to represent X and Y marrying again in your example, if not outright wrong (because you update/delete information).
  - christophe971 14y ago
    I can be wrong, but being in a state of marriage with Y is a fact. And since the DB handle time periods, with my way you can actually search who X is married to with one request, without checking if he divorced, if Y is dead, disappeared, or else.