Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Institutional Antifragility Grading #6

Open
dyokomizo opened this issue Sep 7, 2020 · 1 comment
Open

Institutional Antifragility Grading #6

dyokomizo opened this issue Sep 7, 2020 · 1 comment

Comments

@dyokomizo
Copy link
Owner

“Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.”
Clay Shirky

We should grade institutions based on their vulnerability against fraud, corruption, etc.. We have independent grading for financial instruments and currencies, there's no reason against a Consumer Reports but for Institutions.

Independent security experts assess the attack surface, using standard threat modelling analysis.
e.g. peer review gets a C, but JAMA's is a bit better so it's a B-.

All sources of information are good candidates for this process.

Specific issues and vulnerabilities are pointed out and discussed.

Scale includes robustness, resilience, and antifragility.

@dyokomizo
Copy link
Owner Author

Many of the messages presented in respectable scientific publications are, in fact, based on various forms of rumors. Some of these rumors appear so frequently, and in such complex, colorful, and entertaining ways that we can think of them as academic urban legends. The explanation for this phenomenon is usually that authors have lazily, sloppily, or fraudulently employed sources, and peer reviewers and editors have not discovered these weaknesses in the manuscripts during evaluation.

-- Academic urban legends

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant