There's an interesting opportunity to _meaningfully_ "open-source the algorithm" by just letting each person define their own curation, at least on top of the provider's initial curation.
The internet of that world looks different from our world, probably in better ways for consumers.
So this may be true. But if it is it is still a skill that is not widely held. So there is either a need for a simple-to-use curation utility, or an inexpensive curation service. I don't have a specific idea how to create or implement this, but I think there is a market for it
His suggestion sounds more like human curated data sets rather than automated curation like you're assuming, although this is a good distinction to make.
I love the idea of these crowd-sourced systems, but is there any appetite to open source the data behind them?
In theory the collective knowledge of all of these platforms could converge on a single data-source that's freely available to analyse in any way we see fit, but more often the knowledge is behind the platform and ends up gated behind a Pro or commercial edition and the crowd is left to rebuild it again on some other platform...
interesting. I think of these data are freely available, then there ought to be more people using it and making competing versions so that google will not have a monopoly on provision of such data apis.
I'm starting to think that it's time to make an open source and open-data platform for this.
Similar in scope to OSM, but for all people.
The goal of the project would be to reveal to the average person how much data is being collected about them, and how easy it is - with the end goal being to influence legislation to curb these practices.
As long as it remains in the shadows, it doesn't really affect the average person, and the convenience of digital devices will outweigh the privacy concerns.
The question seems very reasonable. It's certainly not comfortable, but in this context I would expect an answer definitely (the question was not childish or foolish as far as I can tell)
Indeed the overall project seems quite fine, but I think it has no chance of getting near Wolfram's aspirations due to its closed nature. It's just a really big proposition that couldn't fit a project like this. (If I recall correctly Wolfram described it himself as the equivalent of Google but storing all structured data of the world within). Google can do it because they don't make many promises on their data. But clearly they seem to want to make promises (i.e. structure) the data, so data collection and data cleaning might need manual curation (even with deep learning advances) which is just fit for a communitarian effort. A single company can't have experts in all fields curating datasets of everything, can it? (and if it can, should it?)
Strongly disagree, institutions have an advantage in having the data, but they do not have the capability of creating more.
An intentional open source dataset could target new domains that there was no institutional will to pursue. I strongly believe that the open source community's capabilities far exceed that of any single large corporation.
I'm very interested. Can you point to specific examples?
And did the original contributors fork the project to a new successful initiative? Or if not, why not?
I'm also curious why companies feel the need for this -- if the data is all open in the first place, why do the companies even need to bother? Why don't they just use the data directly?
Without specific examples it's hard to understand.
This might be very interesting if it's implemented in a sane way. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a very widely-adopted standard in the world of open data for now..
I'd like to open source at least a portion of the data to see if it is possible to build a community driven database. Could connect works back to museums and auction records as well as articles and research and potentially build a crowd sourced provenance.
Open Data is a thing, I can imagine some PeerTube instances would publicly share their data (anonymously etc), in order to build open recommendation systems.
Personally, I would gladly donate my (anonymous etc) data for this noble goal.
I still cannot get my head around on to why the world is not embracing open sourcing of data. One way or other people get what the want so you might as well give open access and reinvent the entire business model altogether. Harnessing the power of community could be the key for this reinvention.
Interesting point, though I more or less disagree about the level of curation necessary to make a minimally useful product. I think data.gov is FAR below that level, and is just noise so far. But these are practical questions, and I think we agree in principal about a lot.
The internet of that world looks different from our world, probably in better ways for consumers.
reply