This "question": Jeff, have you thought about how to use reputation mechanisms to improve the quality of published scientific results? I'm asking in the context of John P. A. Ioannidis' famous paper. It seems to me one fix for this (horrible) problem might be an online reputation mechanism where scientists could rate the reproducibility of published results. Thoughts? (thanks for inventing Stack Exchange - you've done the world a big favor).
When I say it in the original thread, I was sure it would be picked. But apart from the grovelling, it's a foolish idea.
> Atwood: It certainly seems applicable.
Where's the supporting argument? There isn't. It's just "we're so cool, we could do better than science". Ugh.