CypherGraph: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Cypherpunk]] | [[Category:Cypherpunk]] | ||
= Graph Traversal = | = Discussion Graph Traversal = | ||
The primary mission for this project is to make it possible for people to share information science actions. To make it easy for them to publicly describe, demonstrate, and encode mechanisms for curating information to resist disinformation and toxic infectious memes. | The primary mission for this project is to make it possible for people to share information science actions. To make it easy for them to publicly describe, demonstrate, and encode mechanisms for curating information to resist disinformation and toxic infectious memes. | ||
Revision as of 09:11, 19 October 2023
Discussion Graph Traversal
The primary mission for this project is to make it possible for people to share information science actions. To make it easy for them to publicly describe, demonstrate, and encode mechanisms for curating information to resist disinformation and toxic infectious memes.
Graph traversal becomes a super-important element in those mechanisms.
Consider a message m, which is a node in a discussion graph D. There are various cases where I would want to incorporate or avoid that message.
Incorporate
- Root Nodes m, a vector of all the nodes m that make up the first level of discussion. To be included they would need to satisfy an inclusion criteria.
- The node itself is desirable.
- A descendant node is sufficiently interesting that it merits inclusion of this node to anchor the branch.
- Child Nodes c, a collection of nodes that have a parent, but are not root nodes.
- Node Itself: The node itself is desirable.
- Descendant Node: A descendant node is sufficiently interesting that it merits inclusion of this node to anchor the branch.
- Ancestor Node: An ancestor node becomes worth of inclusion only with this added context.
Traversing:
If I start from a node m and want to decide whether to include its parent branch, under the "ancestor node" rule above, I might consider the following:
If node m is coded with the "supporting data" tag, and the parent node is mildly interesting but a citation is needed, m might justify inclusion of both nodes.
If node m is coded with the "counterpoint" tag, and the parent node is compelling but in need of challenge, m might justify the inclusion of both nodes (and perhaps suggests the inclusion of sibling and niece/nephew nodes).