Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:FACTS, not "truth". (Score 1) 385

by Wickethewok (#26566341) Attached to: Britannica Goes After Wikipedia and Google
I agree that arbitrary notability guidelines (like are a waste of time. All that's really needed is the primary notability criterion: something "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Though, even the primary criterion isn't necessary; it's just a way of saying that something meets Wikipedia's verifiability policy.

Can We Create Fun Games Automatically? 198

Posted by Soulskill
from the sounds-much-easier,-i-like-it dept.
togelius writes "What makes games fun? Some (e.g. Raph Koster) claim that fun is learning — fun games are those which are easy to learn, but hard to master, with a long and smooth learning curve. I think we can create fun game rules automatically through measuring their learnability. In a recent experiment, we do this using evolutionary computation, and create some simple Pacman-like new games completely without human intervention! Perhaps this has a future in game design? The academic paper (PDF) is available as well."

Comment: Re:Financial Reward (TM) (Score 1) 412

by Wickethewok (#26280149) Attached to: Wikipedia Almost Reaches $6 Million Target
Maybe most edits by QUANTITY are generated by anonymous users, but the actually GOOD articles are generated by people who actually sit down and take a bunch of hours to research/write/edit. You don't get something fairly reliable, readable, and well-organized by having a hundred different anonymous editors each contribute a sentence. That isn't to say there aren't valuable anonymous editors, just that when people start contributing quality information regularly, they tend to register for the sake of convenience.

"Catch a wave and you're sitting on top of the world." - The Beach Boys