User talk:Shiftchange/Wikipedia and the Web 3.0

Copyedit[edit]

I would appreciate any assistance in this manner as I am preoccupied with design matters. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I had this[edit]

I swear I would come back to Wikipedia more often. I would come back to see my reward, to see if the amount changed, to see if my edits were appreciated or not. After a while I would be more certain that this indication is a true value of my merit. This is why it is semantic. It enhances the meaning of the web, greatly, for everyone involved. It means I don't have to attach as much hope to my work, hope that it is appreciated. It brings certainty from just the presentation of a simple number. It means visitors coming to Wikipedia will be more certain in it because they know there is a real economic system reinforcing the underlying machinations. This means visitors will not just have to hope its reliable. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

I would like to request a role in the design of the graphics for this project. I would also prefer that the token used is maintained in an energy efficient manner or at least that this be given some consideration. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finished here[edit]

I've finished here. I don't know what else to add. I want to move on to another invention as many people are not interested in what happens online. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Test your assumptions[edit]

The decline in raw edit numbers ended in late 2014. Your assumption of " a declining active editor rate" is no longer valid. Pre 2014 we don't know whether the vandalism and vandalism cleanup edits lost to the edit filters exceeded the drop in raw edit numbers, so it may well be true that not just the raw edit figure but the actual editing figures dropped 2007-2014. You might want to read this signpost article I wrote in 2015. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-08-26/In_focus. Ϣere SpielChequers 06:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will try to do that. Think about the rise of fake news and Internet manipulation. The timing with this roughly correlates, doesn't it? - Shiftchange (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though I note that your page still erroneously states that there is " a declining active editor rate". Fake news has been a problem since at least the Zinoviev letter, in the US at least it has become more of a problem in recent years, but I'm not convinced that in this case correlation implies causation. Our readership may be a huge part of the internet community, but our editorship really isn't and I doubt that the dishonest part of the online conservative movement is either - so the only connection may be that both are side effects of the internet getting more mature and sophisticated. Edit filters on Wikipedia and plausible fake news sites elsewhere. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork[edit]

Before I invented this I painted it, without even knowing what it was. At the time, all I knew was that I had an image in my mind that I wanted to paint. This is the unconscious mind. I didn't know what it would mean or of its consequence. The World Wide Web combined with cryptocurrencies in the way I designed is the path to the sum of all knowledge. This is what my abstract art represented. Only after I had invented the Semantic Web did I understand what my artwork meant. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

7102017[edit]

Meaning and consequence. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Hello Shiftchange. I would not like to criticize your ideas and work because they could potentially be useful. I would like to mention that running such experiments a while is possible even without community support by using your own databases and monitoring the flood of recent changes, which could allow to accumulate interesting statistics and be used at future proposals to demonstrate any effectiveness. Also, even if it had nothing to do with remuneration, if it can determine good edits from bad edits and evaluate an editor's "worthiness", this could ultimately serve other purposes like helping award project members to issue barnstars, WikiProject managers to chose/invite constructive editors that edit in their project area, etc. Just food for thought. A last thing: it's possible that some of the text could be improved; I had the impression that it claims that you invented the Semantic Web, when this appears to be an early 2k concept (i.e. of tagging web pages with metadata for AI tools). —Paleo Neonate – 22:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing n[edit]

 In the third line, one can read the phrase "the Sematic (sic.) web". Should this not be the semantic web? Vorbee (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]