Proposal: Freecyclopedia contest Stage 1: Wikipedia Decentralized & Partitioned Governance Specification

Freecyclopedia contest Stage 1: Wikipedia Decentralized & Partitioned Governance Specification

Contest dates

30 June - 18 August 2021, 23:59 UTC.

Voting time

20 days

The general problem

The current rules and social mechanics of Wikipedia discourage people from contributing. The existing community is much smaller than it potentially could be. Many Wikipedia mechanics and bureaucratic procedures are easy to abuse. That leads to a lack of trust between community members. These problems lower user engagement and turn potentially very experienced and seasoned professionals and knowledgeable individuals away.

Reference & motivation

This document was used as a reference piece to help identify the requirements listed below. Please familiarize yourself with the major problems it illustrates with the current state of Wikipedia. This will help you get a better understanding of the background behind the need for this contest.

This BFTG consensus PDF can give you some great insight about how such a problem can be approached in order to solve it. Please download and read it.

Requirements: straightforward

  1. Your solution must take into consideration that Freecyclopedia must continue working over the course of many years and retain high quality work at all times; thus, your solution must present a means for longevity and sustainability, while also maintaining high quality community work over the long term.

  2. Your solution must be resistant to political and commercially motivated attacks.

  3. Maintain an uncomplicated (“soft”) entry threshold for new experts who want to contribute while retaining and maintaining quality requirements through a community-driven work analysis that is unbiased. Please also reference point 5 below under “Specific requirements”.

  4. Your submission should take into account that all Freecyclopedia discussions and statistics must remain transparent.

  5. Freecyclopedia authors, users and readers must have a simple channel of communication with one another at all times.

  6. In the event – and ONLY in the event – of community deadlock on any particular subject, your solution should allow for varying articles to be written about the subject in dispute and causing said deadlock.

  7. Your submission should provide a means of qualifying reputation against expertise; for instance, through tags… or think of a better way if you know of one.

  8. Your Freecyclopedia solution should also address and solve the issue of differing article versions based on varying languages, i.e., they should be consistent across all languages despite misinterpretations, and also be resistant to cultural differences as well as politically and commercially motivated influence. Also see point 2 above.

Requirements: descriptive

  1. Grandfathered-in “old timer” bias.

Wikipedia logs every action and stores every version of every page but provides little statistical data for analysis. As of May 2021, no publicly available software provided deep knowledge of what’s going on. That leads to a situation when decision-making is based on individual experience and personal bias of those who have been grandfathered in and are difficult (if not impossible) to remove, as well as those of administrators, WMF officials, etc., and nothing that is based on the actual, factual data.

  • Find a way to permanently remove this issue in a decentralized way.

  • Please also reference point 7 of this section below and take that into consideration when creating your submission.

  1. Uneven development.

The coverage of topics varies a lot because people don’t contribute to articles outside of their interests. The Wikipedia-style solutions are edit-a-thons (editorial marathons) and other scoring competitions with virtual and real-world rewards.

The problems are: such events are short-term, take lots of time and effort to organize, and often result in quality vs. quantity issues since participants are ranked based on the number of articles created. The outcome varies a lot and is often low.

  • In solving this issue, please address how to focus community efforts on underdeveloped topics without dedicating too much time to the organization of events and contests.
  1. Low quality of articles.

Good articles take a lot of time and effort. Good articles are usually found in most popular topics where many people cooperate to make one good text. But many Wikipedia articles are poorly written, incorrect, or outdated. Not because of the sabotage, but because the minimal standards for article quality are actually low.

Wikipedia has almost nothing to offer to motivate people to write better articles. In the current meta, Wikipedia offers a carrot and a stick. First is an opportunity to earn virtual medals for improved articles. The second is the article deletion procedure. It’s actually being misused to find someone to improve a weak article. Both the carrot and the stick are borderline ineffective.

  • Solve this issue!
  1. Low value of contributions.

People who actually create content are the most valuable contributors to any content project. But Wikipedia takes editorial work for granted, and the most productive writers have the same influence in the community as anyone else, and all to often, perhaps even less than a person who socialized through the forums and climbed up the Wikipedia hierarchy. That’s a major issue that dismantles a necessary system of checks and balances.

  • How can the most valuable members of the encyclopedia community be rewarded for their contributions? How should the different productive work (writing, editing, cleaning up, illustrating) be graded?
  1. Real expertise with no way to influence.

Proven experts in certain subject areas have a hard time contributing to Wikipedia. They have to follow rules that may seem often times illogical; for example, when it comes to notability and/or significance, Wikipedia’s notability ≠ real-world experience notability. Discussing complicated subject matter with amateurs who are pushing their own points of view and who are more focused on formalism and bureaucracy make for toxic Wikipedians. That ultimately demotivates real experts from contributing.

  • How can we make a community-driven online encyclopedia a comfortable place for real experts eager to share their knowledge to come and engage, participate, add their expertise and continue to do so?

  • Think of a way to make the hold of entry and participation simple enough to make it attractive to new experts.

  1. Significance.

Wikipedia has a set of rules to decide what’s significant enough to warrant an article, and what isn’t.

The basic rule is great:

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a standalone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

But as the subject-specific significance guidelines come into the realm of authority, things start to get complicated.

A good example are the notability (significance) guidelines for companies and organizations. To prevent attempts to game the rules via marketing and public relations professionals, it provides a detailed list of what works toward notability and what doesn’t. In practice it becomes a formal list of reasons not to allow an article about an actually notable/significant organization on Wikipedia because its coverage doesn’t fit some generalized standard.

  • Significance requirements can be replaced by format requirements that limit the way a subject may be described, or come up with your own ideas.
  1. Bureaucracy.

Wikipedia is a bureaucracy with unreasonably complicated rules and ineffective procedures that make improvement extremely hard and sometimes borderline impossible. Mastering them is a key to success in Wikipedia disputes while being a good writer is much less important. An experienced bureaucrat can literally claim ownership of articles and topics. One example are blockchain/cryptocurrency-related topics on English Wikipedia, strictly controlled by Wikipedia old-timers and cryptocurrency haters like David Gerard. Such people have large support groups that allow them to push their agenda using particular pages.

  • Present a solution using meritocracy and consensus instead of bureaucracy.

  • Please reference point 7 above in this same section in your approach.

  1. Consensus.

Wikipedia is obsessed with walking about consensus mechanics, but doesn’t implement them well. It’s good on paper, but every discussion in Wikipedia can grow almost out of control and consume absurd amounts of time and effort that could be used for better things.

The longest disputes such as naming Danzig v. Gdansk on the English version of Wikipedia, and Kiev Rus v. The Old Russian State on the Russian version of Wikipedia. These disputes have gone on for years. A more subtle discussion can still be several hundred replies long with zero outcome. A disagreement over the content of an article can literally turn into a war of attrition, which only ends when one of the sides gives up and switches focus to something else.

  • Your solution should emphasize consensus while considering points 1 through 7 of this section above.
  1. Lack of onboarding.

Wikipedia isn’t a friendly place to newcomers. The old-timers expect new users to read and understand all the complex rules, master encyclopedic writing style, and follow the local norms of behavior that were set by them. With no onboarding and little assistance, newcomers are prone to make rookie mistakes and receive inadequate punishment as a result.

  • Kill the “grandfathered-in” seniority complex from point 1 while maintaining and retaining real talent that deserves it.
  1. No truly collaborative effort.

Collaboration on projects were designed to help editors with similar interests work together more effectively. The idea was to create small groups with more knowledge on the subject matter at hand in order to resolve disputes within the scope of the project and develop guidelines. In practice however, none of this happens. These “projects” are mere clubhouses and most of them have zero activity.

  • Free TON has sub-governances.

  • How can we use our community resources to make collaboration more useful and fun, but most of all productive, so that they will help focus participants on the subjects that they enjoy participating in?

  1. Patrolling.

The idea of patrolling was to let users check new and recently edited articles for rule violations, false statements, and markup mistakes. For some reason patrolling was considered a privilege that only the more experienced users should request through an additional procedure. In the end, it just didn’t work as intended.

As Wikipedia grew, the number of edits greatly exceeded the capabilities of the patrolling system. Articles left unpatrolled for some time became unpatrollable, because they would require the patroller to proofread, fact-check, and correct the text (and patrolling unworthy articles can be sanctionable).

  • Free TON has a decentralized system of governance. We DO NOT patrol! What we can do is implement a social validation-like system by pooling groups of interested participants. How can we accomplish this in a decentralized ecosystem, and what is the best approach to organize something like this?.. Or, let’s not make suggestions on how to do this. How would YOU do this keeping it decentralized? Please provide your solution to this issue.

Evaluation metrics

This Stage 1 contest: Create a Freecyclopedia specification that best addresses all of the above requirements. Best specs win!

Stage 2: Implementation contest TBA after stage 1 is complete

Voting requirements

  • Jurors must have a solid understanding of the described technology to provide a score and feedback. If you are a juror and feel that you do not completely comprehend any given submission, you should choose to “Abstain”.
  • Jurors or whose team(s) intend to participate in this contest by providing submissions lose their right to vote in this contest.
  • Each juror will vote by rating each submission on a scale of 1 to 10 or can choose to reject it if it does not meet requirements or vote “Abstain” if they feel unqualified to judge.
  • Jurors must provide feedback on submissions or forfeit their reward.
  • The Jury will reject duplicate, sub-par, incomplete, or inappropriate submissions, as well as any submission that do not meet the listed requirements.
  • Any disagreements, misinterpretations or ambiguities concerning the requirements by participants in chats and on the forum should be addressed by members of this jury BEFORE voting. This will require that you monitor the respective chats and the forum thread on a regular basis throughout the life span of this contest. Please reference “The jury” section below for help in identifying which Free TON chats and sub-governances will be involved in voting.
  • Each contestant has the right to provide several submissions if they are all original and differ from one another significantly enough to be considered different. This scale of difference has to be determined by the jury subjectively as there is no clear way to define it; however, here the operative phrase is “common sense shall prevail”. If multiple submissions seem too similar, or if they in any way appear to be partially the same work done twice, or if they appear to be one whole body of work divided into parts to create the illusion of several submissions, jurors have the right to reject such submissions without question, as long as feedback is provided to explain the decision.
  • If a contestant makes an additional submission or submissions to replace a previously published submission, the contestant must inform the jury about this fact and indicate which submission is the one to be judged. In this case, only the indicated work will count. If the contestant fails to indicate which submission to judge, only the first submission made will count. The Jury will reject all others.

Stage 1 Rewards

1st place…………………………………. 30,000 TONs
2nd place…………………………………27,000 TONs
3rd place………………………………… 24,000 TONs
4th place………………………………… 21,000 TONs
5th place………………………………… 18,000 TONs
6th place………………………………… 15,000 TONs
7th place…………………………………. 12,000 TONs
8th place…………………………………. 9,000 TONs
9th place…………………………………. 6,000 TONs
10th place………………………………… 3,000 TONs

The minimal score threshold to pass in order to qualify for a reward is a score of equal to or greater than 4.99

Jury rewards

An amount equal to 10% of the total sum of all total tokens awarded to contest winners will be distributed among jurors who vote and provide feedback. This percentage will be awarded on the following basis:

  • The percentage of tokens awarded to the jury will be distributed based on the number of votes each juror casts. For example, if one juror votes 50 times and another juror votes 5 times, the juror who votes 50 times will get 10 times more tokens than the juror who votes 5 times.
  • Feedback is mandatory to collect any rewards.

Procedural requirements

Accessibility. All submissions must be accessible for the jury to open and view, so please double-check your submission. If the submission is inaccessible or does not fit the criteria described, jurors may reject the submission.

Timing. Contestants must submit their work before the contest clock for submissions runs out. NO EXCEPTIONS!.

Content. Please submit in PDF format. If all or a portion of the original content cannot be in the form of a PDF, simply submit a PDF with links to your original content.

Contact. Each submission must have an identifiable contact that can be matched with your description. If you have not provided a forum description for discussion, then your submission should contain links to your online persona, for example, a Telegram ID (preferred) or other direct contact information that can confirm that the submitted work is yours. In the absence of confirmation by the contestant of the authorship of the submitted work, the submission is rejected.

Multiple submissions.

  • Each contestant has the right to provide several submissions if they are all original and differ from one another significantly enough to be considered different. This scale of difference will be judged by the jury subjectively as there is no clear way to define it. The operative phrase here is to “use your common sense”. If multiple submissions are deemed to be too similar by the jury, or if they in any way appear to be partially the same work done twice, or if they appear to be one whole body of work divided into parts to create the illusion of several submissions, jurors have the right to reject such submissions without question. Again, common sense and honesty will prevail in the event of discrepancies.
  • If the contestant makes an additional submission or submissions in order to replace a previously published submission, the contestant must inform the jury about this fact in their correct submission PDF, indicating which submission is the correct one to be judged. In this case, only the indicated work will count. If the contestant fails to indicate which submission is to be judged, then said contestant leaves it in the jury’s hands. NO EXCEPTIONS!
9 Likes

сейчас в WIKI некоторые участники получают оплату привязную к $, не повторяйте эти ошибки !

1 Like

What does that have to do with this contest?

A very interesting idea for а modern world. How many likes do we need to collect to start the contest on the described dates?

It’s not about collecting likes )))))) Although they are certainly appreciated. It’s about discussion and seeing how and if there’s something to improve in the description, etc. Overall it’ll go to a vote if there isn’t a lot of controversy and then we see whether or not it gets accepted.

2 Likes

who can vote on a proposal ?
what eligibility test are to compete to vote on a idea ?

I want to draw your attention to something and say that this is a discussion about the contest. Please try to stick to the subject matter. If you want to get community questions answered, please go to Telegram: Contact @TONCRYSTAL or any one of the many chats that Free TON has. We have many groups with thousands of members where you can ask any general questions you want. Out of respect for others, please kindly try to stick to the subject of this thread. Huge thank you! :pray:

Additionally, please carefully read the declaration of decentralization here Free TON Community and then go through all the headings and read them all very carefully as well. Everything is laid out there in black and white.

In short however, initial members vote and there is no such thing as “eligibility”. Most proposals are evaluated for value and comments that are not platitudes and baseless one-liners or bot farm-generated likes and comments, which will usually be ignored by the community, which is great! That means the community is vigilent and seeks out the bullsh*t and keeps it from clogging up the queue. It helps filter out the nonsense. Sending stuff like that to a vote is a huge waste of everyone’s time, because the likelihood that they’ll pass is probably zero. Probably! I don’t know. Nevertheless, yes those too should be voted on at some point unless they’re completely absurd and supported only by bots and fake accounts. But there are only a few that can be processed on a weekly basis before full automation.

Hope that answers your questions.

Please leave your thoughts about this contest.

1 Like

Thankful to you for the information.
I support modernization of old-aged digital infrastructure.

1 Like

Статья поможет в выполнении работ! «Децентрализованные сетевые структуры в научном сообществе, системе образования, гражданском обществе и бизнесе: модель хирамы» | Сайт С.П. Курдюмова "Синергетика"

Добавил свою работу, заходите пользуйтесь.
Эта википедия никогда не закроеться, так что можете не бояться потерять свои публикации.

Социальный чат прямо внутри

Freecyclopedia contest Stage 1:

Wikipedia Decentralized & Partitioned Governance Specification

Freecyclopedia operating instructions

  1. This instruction provides the basic processes of creating publications and articles, translating them into different languages ​​of the peoples of the world, promoting on the Internet, as well as monetizing Freecyclopedia.
  2. All Freecyclopedia materials created by authors and translators on the basis of receiving awards after passing the preliminary approval procedure of editors who are selected based on the principle of drawing up professional competence and at the same time serve on the Freecyclopedia jury.
  3. The professional competence of the editor is fluency in the language of publication and article (minimum requirement), as well as knowledge of the material being checked. The highest degree of editorial competence lies in the availability of specialized education and practical experience.
  4. Verification of the texts of publications for grammatical errors and other editorial deficiencies is carried out by proofreaders.
  5. After preliminary review of the publication by the editor and proofreader, the publication is posted on the Freecyclopedia website. In parallel, the author of the publication submits it to the next competition of the jury of the Freecyclopedia community for evaluations and final approval.
  6. Creators are rewarded in proportion to the average grade of their work (for example, from 1 to 10 points, where 1 point = 10% of the rate, and 10 points = 100% of the rate).
  7. The remuneration rates for Freecyclopedia members are set at the same rate as for members of the Free TON Wiki community. Establish that the fair value of 1 TON = 1 USD. In this case, the correction factor for the payment of more TON Crystal tokens at the target equivalent in US dollars.
  8. To create publications for authors a free choice of topics. At the same time, the priority areas of articles in the Freecyclopedia are: Personalities, Companies, States, History, Glossary of Terms, Science, Technology, Geography, Biology, Religion, Medicine.
  9. It is allowed to write several publications in the Freecyclopedia on the same topic, while the texts should differ in different texts and wording.
  10. When describing various companies and their top managers, providing referral links leading to their corporate sites.
  11. The Freecyclopedia project is being developed thanks to grants from the Free TON community head office, as well as monetization of native advertising placed on its pages. Advertising on the pages of the Freecyclopedia should be unobtrusive and appropriate (the themes of the advertising materials should be combined as much as possible with the themes of the pages of the publications). As an example of the structure of advertising placement, you can take LinkedIn (at the top of the page there is a text line with an advertisement, a single scrolling banner, at the bottom there is already a strip with banners of noticeable sizes).
  12. Authors and translators of publications post content in Freecyclopedia, after going through the approval procedures for their work, they become beneficiaries of part of the advertising revenue on the pages they create. The proportion and frequency of payments are regulated by the Free TON community. This order of participation in the advertising revenue of the Freecyclopedia will stimulate the promotion of content through SMM and SEO tools, as well as the creation of new Freecyclopedia content.
  13. It is not allowed to copy and paste the texts of publications and translations from other previously posted materials on the Internet. Deep rewriting of texts is allowed. At the same time, the creation of unique content is encouraged.
  14. Updating previously posted information is an essential part of Freecyclopedia’s work. The rate for refreshing articles is at the level of the rate for correcting the text and eliminating editorial deficiencies.
  15. Questions that are not considered in this Instruction are subject to discussion by the Free TON community and are accepted in the established order of the community.

Information about the author of the concept Freecyclopedia

Photo “Against the background of professional interests”. Overchuk Oleksandr Petrovych at the window of the operating hall of the National Bank of Ukraine with the inscription “Financial instruments in UAH (credit, securities)” 25.10.2019, Kyiv, Ukraine.

Overchuk Oleksandr Petrovych (far left in the second row) in the operation hall at National Bank of Ukraine past conferension with Ukrainian business respondents (in the center “bald” - Tomash Fiala, investment banker, CEO Dragon Capital - the investment partner, among others, is the American financier, stock market investor George Soros. 25.10.2019, Kyiv, Ukraine.

Overchuk Oleksandr Petrovych, born on February 20, 1980 in Kyiv, Ukrainian citizen, education higher. I have no insiders among the initiative jury members of the FT Academy community. I am fluent in Russian and Ukrainian, as well as English with the help of a dictionary.

I am interested in modern blockchain technologies. The main goal of my research is to study the options of the Free TON ecosystem from an economic point of view. In October 2020, I joined the Free TON Wiki team and immediately started translating Wiki publications from Russian, which I had mastered since childhood, into my native Ukrainian language. When translating texts, Wiki studied in detail the materials on the Free TON blockchain. You can find a detailed list of redeemed articles on the website https://uk.freeton.wiki/Free_TON_Wiki (my username is Medco)

Working with the materials of the FT Wiki and studying thematic publications in the field of DeFi, at the moment I have a good understanding of the principles of decentralized finance. I am well-versed in the market for DeFi solutions.

With the advent of the staking option, he actively participated in TON Labs pools through their TON Surf. Thus, he invested his “contribution” in supporting the viability of the FT ecosystem.

I have experience in trading on a decentralized exchange (DEX) TON SWAP (co-implemented the exchange of WTON for other crypto assets, which I then used to create liquidity pools, I participate in farming).

I understand the essence of decentralized insurance, as well as decentralized options (Call Option and Put option), as well as an automatic market maker mechanism.

Currently, I am actively exploring the possibilities of introducing Free TON blockchain technologies into modern fintech services (banking, insurance, corporate voting, accounting for ownership of tokenized assets and their circulation, HR, etc.), about which I am preparing relevant publications. One of them has already been published in Russian on the advantages of voting procedures in the blockchain https://ru.freeton.wiki/Преимущества_процедур_голосования_с_помощью_Free_TON

In early 2021, I became a member of the Free TON Wiki jury to assess the quality of new materials for the blockchain encyclopedia.

Launched the “Free TON Crystals popularizer” Telegram channel.

Launched a new project PeopleNetWork where materials on FT from an economic point of view will be published.

I have formulated the themes of the main directions for teaching and research within the framework of the FT Academy: “An overview of the economic aspects of the Free TON ecosystem”

https://freeton.academy/courses/обзор-экономических-аспектов-экосис/ (Russian)

https://freeton.academy/courses/an-overview-of-the-economic-aspects-of-the-free-ton-ecosystem/ (English)

While researching the economics of the FT blockchain, I created subforums on this topic on the site of my SUPERFINA project, and I am gradually engaged in SMM promotion.

SUPERFINA (Financial Supermarket) Supermarket of Finance (Russian)

SUPERFINA (Financial Supermarket) Supermarket of Finance (English)

He also published his article in Russian about the integration of the FT ecosystem options “into the real sector of the economy”.

Адаптация опций экосистемы Free TON в DeFi - 20 May 2021 - Блог - SUPERMARKET OF FINANCE: banking, insurance, travel, shopping, health and beauty (Russian)

He also published his article in Russian about the FT voting procedures with SEO links to Wiki.

Преимущества процедур голосования с помощью Free TON - 21 January 2021 - Блог - SUPERMARKET OF FINANCE: banking, insurance, travel, shopping, health and beauty (Russian)

Since my student days (late 20th century), I began to explore alternative ways of calculating. The most common instrument for non-cash non-cash settlements in those years were paper bills (simple and transferable). While studying at the institute, he first prepared a thematic report on bills of exchange, which he made at an institute seminar on the subject “Money and Credit”. Further, this essay was transformed into a bachelor’s term paper. And the course work served as the basis for the successful defense of the master’s thesis on the topic: “Bill of exchange form of payments and its impact on the activities of enterprises in Ukraine” (2004).

The acquired academic knowledge helped me a lot in working in different banks in servicing clients in the field of securities and documentary operations (2004-2009).

However, when working with small farms and private farmers (2008-2018), I noticed a great inconvenience when paying with them for agricultural products (they prefer to pay in cash), since it was not always possible to quickly settle by bank transfer. This circumstance prompted me to study more deeply the possibilities of the blockchain.

In modern conditions, with the active development of the Free TON blockchain project, there is a huge potential for studying this technological platform in the context of its application in various spheres of international socio-economic relations.

Taking into account the graphic symbol of the Free TON community in the form of a crystal in the form of a symmetrical cut, symbolizing the value of this project, like the gem of a large diamond stored in the treasury of a diamond mining company, I want to emphasize the great opportunities for promising research and training within the Free TON Academy on various topics and directions of our multifaceted “crystal”.

At the initial stage of the Free TON Academy’s activities, I consider the following topics to be appropriate areas for research and training:

  • technological foundations of the Free TON ecosystem;
  • promising areas of application of the Free TON blockchain options;
  • the history of quasi-money as the predecessors of tokens issued on the blockchain for a deeper understanding of the economic essence of settlement instruments;
  • prospects for the creation of financial structures (communities) that could provide financial and banking services based on the Free TON (DeFi) blockchain;
  • legal adaptation of technological solutions (options) developed on the basis of the Free TON blockchain for widespread use in different countries.

The basic digital coin TON Crystal of the Free TON (FT) ecosystem has the basic properties that are necessary for its circulation as a settlement instrument. As of summer 2021, FT Crystals are listed on about 10 trading platforms (crypto exchanges and crypto exchanges). Their liquidity (the ability to quickly buy and sell) gives them the properties of a cash equivalent. However, there is a major factor negatively affecting FT tokens - significant volatility (variability) in their value. The FT project is at an early stage of development and the ecosystem tokens are not completely distributed among the participants taking part in the development of this blockchain platform, and this does not make it possible to objectively assess the cost value of the entire FT ecosystem in terms of technological value (by analogy with classic IT companies).

Significant exchange rate volatility is inherent in all cryptocurrencies. Under the condition of a simple payment for goods, work performed or services provided with TON Crystal tokens, a conflict of interest arises between the buyer and the seller (with a further decrease in the rate, the buyer wins, the seller - a loss, with an increase in the rate: the seller gains, and the buyer overpays).

There are many options for leveling the volatility of TON Crystal tokens and their detailed consideration is planned in stages as part of the course: “Researching the possibilities for carrying out calculations in the Free TON ecosystem”.

At the next stage, you can consider the possibility of the formation of faculties, for example, information technology (IT), economics and law. Where students could comprehend the wisdom of the blockchain in more depth, depending on their priorities, looking at our “crystal” in 3D :slight_smile:

Education:

In 1995 he graduated from 9 classes of high school #156 in Kyiv.

In 1998 he graduated with honors from the Vocational Technical School #40 in Kyiv and received his qualification “Electrical Installer for repair and maintenance of electrical equipment” 4 category and received a complete secondary education.

In 2001 he graduated with honors from the Kyiv Industrial College, majoring in Stock Exchange Activity, got the qualification of “Accountant-financier” with the diploma of junior specialist.

In 2003 he graduated from the Ukrainian Institute of Finance and Economics (Kyiv) with a basic higher education in majoring in Economics and Entrepreneurship and earned a Bachelor of Science in Economics - Finance.

In 2004 he graduated from the magistracy of the Ukrainian Financial and Economic Institute (Kyiv) specialty “Finance” and obtained the qualification “Master of Finance” (specialization: “Financial Management”).

Employment:

10/25/2004 - 23/02/2006 - worked in the branch #25 of JSCIB “UkrSibbank” Branch “KIEV REGIONAL MANAGEMENT” in the position of sales specialist and specialist of small and medium business.

02/22/2006 - 01/06/2006. - specialist of category 2 of the sector of support of calculations and active-passive

operations of the Customer Support Division of the First Kyiv Department of the Kiev Regional Department JSCIB “UKRSIBBANK”.

2006/06/02 - 23/03/2007 - expert in working with light, processing and food enterprises, enterprises of transport and communication of the First Kyiv Regional Corporate Center of Kyiv the corporate center of the BNP Paribas Group, the Kiev regional department of JSCIB “UkrSibbank”.

03/26/2007 - 03/07/2007 - Leading economist of the Credit Department of the “Pivdeny” (Southern) Bank Branch in the city of Kiev.

07/04/2007 - 08/15/2007 - Chief Specialist of the Documentary Business and Securities Division of the Office of active operations of corporate business of the First Kyiv Branch of OJSC “ALL-UKRAINE SHAREHOLDER BANK”.

08/16/2007 - 05/02/2008 - Head of the Documentary Business and Securities Division of the Management of Active of corporate business operations of the First Kiev Branch of OJSC “ALL-UKRAINE JOINT STOCK BANK”.

02/07/2008 - 09/07/2009 - Head of Corporate Business Development Division, Service Management Legal entities Branch “Kyiv Regional Department” PJSC (formerly OJSC) “RODOVID BANK”.

05/24/2008 - 09/07/2009 - worked part-time at LLC “MEDKO-AVANTAGE” (code 16477431) in the position of Director.

From 10/07/2009. and till now I work at the main place of work in LLC “MEDKO-AVANTAGE” (code for EDRPOU 16477431) as Director.

From 01/04/2010 and to date I work part-time in a PRIVATE ENTERPRISE “GROUP “KATRINIKA” (code 36830043) in the position of Director.

From 07/12/2009. I am a member of the “DIBROVA” FARMER’S FARM (code 22672243), and since 2012 I have been engaged in personal peasant farming in the territory of Kharkiv area.

Marital status: Married (2008), I have a son (2018) and a daughter (2009).

With respect and hope for cooperation,

Overchuk Oleksandr Petrovych

+380 (93) 745-43-12

+380 (68) 288-01-46

+380 (66) 963-39-84

E-mail: medcoav@gmail.com

Telegram: @olexandroverchuk

Forum Free TON: Medco

Instagram

LinkedIn

Public key:

250c06176202848b6c51c0cc424a37a826594b5aacfc908e84e7095eff0d237a

Free TON address:

0:c14492b03e136c4a1c0adf502ad2eeb60e0a6f1ab9281534cfb33be0e787f95d

Hello FreeTonians! It was a pleasure for me to take part in this contest!

Feel free to ask questions and leave feedback!

Telegram - @OleksiiZa

Best regards!

3 Likes

This is a very good job! I even want to write articles in your Freecyclopedia :smiley:

2 Likes

Но есть пара моментов связанных с рейтингом, которые мне кажется можно отточить. иногда необходимо найти информацию, которая не особо популярна или малоизвестна. Например, студентам, школьникам, в процессе обучения.
А в рейтинговой системе коэффициент значимости напрямую зависит от популярности. Однако о популярном явлении, персоне или событии и так можно найти много информации, таким образом ценность редкой информации высока.
Коэффициент значимости наверное можно сделать более сложным, учитывающим ценность редкой информации. И кстати, что думаете насчет такого параметра для расчетов рейтинга как цитирование? Т. е. цитирования в интернете из текстов фрициклопедии.
И коэффициент сложности вероятно не стоит полностью ставить в зависимость от объема статьи. Там же может быть бессодержательная вода. Это в некоторой степени почва для конфликта автора и жюри.
Но это субъективное впечатление, и к тому же в целом это мелкие нюансы.

Я не понял что имелось ввиду под поиском не популярной информации… Я даже не думал что поиск как то связан с рейтингом… В главе 13 описан вариант, когда на странице может быть много статей и возможно что статья с более низким рейтингом будет отображаться выше… Вообще я думал что рейтинг статьи важен исключительно для расчета величины вознаграждения, величины залога и определения соответствия с репутацией автора.

Это отличная мысль! Я не думал об этом, ну однозначно это логично и правильно!

Я надеюсь что не может… По тому что оценивают жюри, а от оценки зависит вероятность публикации или штрафа и величина вознаграждения. Мне кажется это слишком невыгодно, если добавить бессодержательной воды для повышения коэффициента сложности, но средняя оценка опустится к примеру с 9 до 7…

Hello Team,

I am thankful to participate in the stage 1 of Wikipedia Decentralized & Partitioned Governance Specification contest.
I have placed my submissions.
I welcome comments/clarifications/questions.
Telegram Username: @TimK254
TON Surf Wallet: 0:083f5ffc9580ade8531cbbc6c29ed8057ee6271b3d3b950f1d32d20fa2811e80

Thank you

Почитал заявки для интереса. В жюри конкурса не состою, потому имею право писать тут субъективное мнение.
1 - просто сайт. Где там новая система, ради которой этот конкурс, не понял. Но готовый сайт - это хорошо.
2 - по конкурсу - общие слова. Далее 90% текста - биография и подробнейшее описание карьеры конкурсанта. Не скажу что не интересно, но написано суховато для мемуаров.
3 - лучшая заявка из тех, что поданы на сей момент.
4 - на двух станицах ошибок больше чем слов. Понять о чем вообще речь - не удалось.
5 - не читал, уже лень вникать. Жюри почитают.

P.S. понятия не имею кто все эти конкурсанты, не аффилирован ни с кем.

Я изначально думал сайт нужен а не какое то там описание :slight_smile:
Просто странный конкурс в чем смысл описания реализации без реализации?

by the end of time, everything will be done now, 30+ works from 1-3 people will fly in

Насколько я понимаю, первый этап - это только спецификации, затем второй этап будет фактической реализацией. Но присяжные судят соответственно. Спасибо