I share your views. Notice that the case for having public conversations applies not just to conversations between elite researchers, though of course the associated opportunity cost there is highest.
My background is in philosophy, not in math, but in this profession there are a few group blogs, such as PEA Soup, that feature many top academics in the relevant subfields as regular participants (in the case of PEA Soup, the subfield is moral philosophy) . These blogs seem to succeed largely because they manage to exclude comments below a certain quality threshold. This of course connects to point #2 above.
these blogs succeed … because they … exclude comments whose quality falls below a certain threshold.
I see an opportunity for philanthropy. Identity the elite people that one hopes will blog, and then pay for somebody else to do the comment moderation for them.
The problem I foresee is that this turns out to be big-money philanthropy. Who do you hire as your moderator? They probably need a PhD in mathematics, and the right personality: agreeable yet firm. People like that have lots of well paid options in which they are not playing second fiddle. The philanthropist backing this may have to come up with $150,000 a year to pay the wage bill.
Turning this round, it answers the question of why so few elites blog. Hoping that they take on the task of doing their own comment moderation and community building is hoping that they engage in some serious philanthropy and tolerate getting little credit (because they are paying in kind rather than in big wodges of cash).
Although those other motivations might not be the kind you want. You probably don’t want a moderator driven by a desire to lord their power over other people.
I share your views. Notice that the case for having public conversations applies not just to conversations between elite researchers, though of course the associated opportunity cost there is highest.
My background is in philosophy, not in math, but in this profession there are a few group blogs, such as PEA Soup, that feature many top academics in the relevant subfields as regular participants (in the case of PEA Soup, the subfield is moral philosophy) . These blogs seem to succeed largely because they manage to exclude comments below a certain quality threshold. This of course connects to point #2 above.
I see an opportunity for philanthropy. Identity the elite people that one hopes will blog, and then pay for somebody else to do the comment moderation for them.
The problem I foresee is that this turns out to be big-money philanthropy. Who do you hire as your moderator? They probably need a PhD in mathematics, and the right personality: agreeable yet firm. People like that have lots of well paid options in which they are not playing second fiddle. The philanthropist backing this may have to come up with $150,000 a year to pay the wage bill.
Turning this round, it answers the question of why so few elites blog. Hoping that they take on the task of doing their own comment moderation and community building is hoping that they engage in some serious philanthropy and tolerate getting little credit (because they are paying in kind rather than in big wodges of cash).
Or, you get grad students to do it. The experience is mostly there, the personality perhaps not.
Money isn’t the only thing that motivates people. Most people who moderate forums on the internet aren’t payed to do so.
Although those other motivations might not be the kind you want. You probably don’t want a moderator driven by a desire to lord their power over other people.