Hi, Jem --
> Why don't we trust our colleagues and admit that if they submit
> data that they believe is illustrative of the particular word/sense
> then this is as valuable data as any other. My firm belief and hope
> is that overall the central tendency will be towards a "correct"
> interpretation despite some percentage of "wayward" submissions.
I agree -- especially since tolerance of noise is necessary even when
working with purportedly "quality controlled" data. And one can
always post-process to clean things up if quality becomes an issue
(pace the good points you made about keeping things available to
everyone). I think this will be an interesting experiment.
Now all we need to do is figure out how to get the humans out of the
loop and get the project up on <www.distributed.net>. :-)
Philip
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 11 2000 - 18:22:33 MET DST