User:Quickwik/E-consensus-talk

Has anyone ever heard of this concept or is this original research? None of the hits google returns seem to be referring to this concept, and the article gives no citations or references of any sort. Radicalsubversiv 21:32, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are several isomorphic uses of E-consensus which are contemporanious and all apply to the same mathemetical concept.

One common application is the mathematical process of matching up various overlapping peices of genes (spliced in different ways) for instance: ACGATC ATTGCA CGATGA TCGAT CAACG

This also pertains to the overlap of in profile methods for Recomendation systems where not all reviewers will identically agree, hence the metafore of "noisy" genetic "segments".

E-consensus most notabily refers to analysis of voting over series of differing topics to reduce the conflict entropy in peer review. While, in genetics it assumes non noisy data, it voting populations asumes some noise in the "segments".

A significant aspect is that the multiple interpretations of the term represent the same mathematitical principle in which complexity can be reduced using the E-consensus concept and it's related computational methods.

I'll look for some genetic links.. Quickwik


 * Clarification -- I'm not asking if any of the ideas you present in this article are original/relevant/valid/useful, I'm asking whether the concept, named and presented as such, exists anywhere else. Radicalsubversiv 06:45, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why? Do you want to delete it without even going a google search? Are you the guy that deleted United Holyland?


 * United Holyland was deleted by a vote of the community (see Deletion policy),

No votes don't delete things.. I think you also deleted that article.


 * because it was not encylcopedic. The discussion drew my attention to this article, which appears to have the same problem, and is why I posted here asking.

United Holyland like e-consensus was specifically encycolpedic description of the concept and use of that term. E-consensus is the same way. If you did'nt read or search the term as it is commonly used then why argue about it? There's an uncontrovercial entery for tolken's "dark land" but somehow the idea of "e-consensus" is just disturbing in a way that the mythological entries are not..

It is a salient topic that some people just don't get and apparently you like deleting such things.Quickwik 14:35, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Radicalsubversiv 17:03, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"In the show "Who Wants To Be A millionaire" it seems the audience, when asked, is always right. " No it isn't. I've peronally seen episodes where the audience was wrong. The reason it is usually right is that the contestants are well aware of the sort of questions that the audience is good at answering - easy ones where the subject is a popular one. You never see the audience being asked at the end stages of the game. DJ Clayworth 19:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Spelling
The spelling has been mentioned on the vote for deletion, and I'm not inclined to fix it right now until that has completed, but there are quite a few mistakes: "deliniate expertice collalition meaningfull detailes detailes detailes accomidate prevailance publics colalitions principels cohearant seperate consistancy sugestion tendancy fourm leting merrit opertunity aproximations partipation accomidate Representitives committies sugests expantion comitties voteing expertice dificult expencive sugests consistant Constutional precident recomendation" is what my spell checker found in the current version. Andrewa 20:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)