[etoys-dev] Re: [squeakland] Re: the reasons for ranking
karlramberg at gmail.com
Wed Sep 30 15:25:44 EDT 2009
On 2009-09-30 17:20, Kim Rose wrote:
> Hey, John,
> Nice to see you are still around and interested -- hope you are doing
> well. Thanks for the comments.
> As for me and Viewpoints -- there is one reason only for ranking and
> that is filtering in an attempt to bring the best educational examples
> and those illustrative of etoys' strengths to the attention of the
> community. So, I, for one, am hoping that those "voting" are not
> voting for any particular child, author or person, but for the example
> itself -- I hope those voting/ranking are asking "is this a fine
> exemplar to help teach a concept, principle, or powerful idea?". The
> more the example answers back with a "yes" the higher the rank. Also,
> the more complete an example the higher the rank. How disclosing of
> what the Etoy is meant to do is in the example? Does it have an
> explanation of what it is? If it is a game does it have instruction
> on how to play and the goal of the game?
A googlish way of ranking is to use links/ references to a projects.
If teachers/users could make a group or curriculum of projects on the
site, we could rank from the refs to projects.
I tried to rank a few project, but it's quite hard to do. There are to
many things to consider.
I'm not a teacher, so for me to rank appropriateness of a project for a
classroom situation is not really realistic
> I hope that teachers who encourage their students to upload projects
> will *only* allow sharing if their student provides an "About" flap,
> or some intro/explanation of the Etoy and some instruction on where to
> start, the aim of the project, etc. The most beautiful simulation of
> something will fall completely flat with someone if they have no real
> idea of what they are looking at or what the script they are playing
> with is meant to do. Etoys are intended to teach and help us learn;
> learning cannot occur without context. No author should assume their
> project will be self disclosing; it will not. Our users have a
> variety of levels of expertise in both Etoys and subject matter areas;
> providing more context can only help.
> If there is no "ranking" in place and everything is posted the
> offerings soon get overwhelming and most difficult to navigate. We
> found this years ago when we had an active "super-swiki". Projects
> that were no more than a single sketch with no script at all were
> posted and only "muddied the waters" for those wading in an attempt to
> find something with some meaningful content.
> I hope the community will bear this in mind when "ranking" what gets
> uploaded and understand that not everyone can be represented in a
> featured showcase.
> -- Kim
> On Sep 30, 2009, at 7:58 AM, voiklis wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> I apologize for joining this conversation so late; I am a longtime,
>> though recently quiet, member of the community.
>> I understand that the ranking system is an attempt to enable people
>> to judge the quality of a contribution (or contributor) based on some
>> directly observable measure of reputation. On first sight, one could
>> argue that such a system overcomes the problem that in the
>> face-to-face world reputation is not directly observable. In order to
>> get an honest assessment of a person's reputation, one has to invest
>> a lot of time building trust with the people familiar with that
>> person. Even then, a trustworthy assessment requires direct
>> observation of the person's actions.
>> A ranking system would appear to reduce that effort by half; knowing
>> the person's reputation among his/her peers, one only needs to assess
>> the work.
>> The problem with that reasoning is that electronic ranking systems
>> are highly susceptible to manipulation. Building reputation becomes
>> the goal of the activity for many people and they use all sorts of
>> seemingly harmless social and technological means to inflate their
>> numbers. Our lab has been studying this phenomenon through both
>> observational studies of online communities and laboratory
>> experiments. The two papers below report on the phenomenon as it
>> presents itself in Digg, the news aggregation site.
>> The first paper demonstrates that a tit-for-tat game of reciprocity
>> inflates the reputation of contributors and their contributions
>> without reflecting anything substantive about their contributions.
>> The second paper really brings out the negative consequences of this
>> phenomenon. The paper reports on an experiment where people judged
>> how interesting they found the contribution. The ranking values of
>> the articles were set by the investigator; sometime the rank of the
>> article was set high, at other times low. Experimental subjects rated
>> higher-ranked contributions as more interesting than lower ranked
>> contributions. The same article was rated as highly interesting when
>> its rank was set high and uninteresting when ranked low. Duncan Watts
>> (of small-world networks fame) observed the same phenomenon with
>> music rating.
>> What this means in the present discussion is that people will likely
>> ignore low ranking contributions. Worse still, when they do actually
>> look at those contributions they are likely to see what the ranking
>> value led them to expect rather than the qualities of the
>> contribution itself.
>> Unless we can find scientific research that demonstrates any benefits
>> to ranking, I think we should be wary of using such systems.
>> All best,
>> Sadlon, E., Sakamoto, Y., Dever, H. J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2008).
>> The karma of Digg: Reciprocity in online social networks. In R. Gopal
>> and R. Ramesh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Annual Workshop on
>> Information Technologies and Systems.
>> Sakamoto, Y., Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2009). 2377 people like
>> this article: The influence of others' decisions on yours. In N.
>> Taatgen, H. van Rijn, L. Schomaker, and J. Nerbonne (Eds.),
>> Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science
>> Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., and Watts, D. J. (2006). Experimental
>> study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural
>> market. Science, 311(5762):854-856.
>> -------------------- m2f --------------------
>> (from forum)
>> -------------------- m2f --------------------
>> squeakland mailing list
>> squeakland at squeakland.org
> Viewpoints Research is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to
> improving "powerful ideas education" for the world's children and
> advancing the state of systems research and personal computing. Please
> visit us online at www.vpri.org
> Squeakland mailing list
> Squeakland at squeakland.org
More information about the etoys-dev