Read on Twitter
Magic the Gathering development demonstrates how weak expert review is compared to crowdsourcing. A thread: 1/5
Wizards of the Coast releases new MTG sets every couple months or so. They have team of a half dozen experts working full time to ensure that no new cards are created that are unfairly powerful. And yet, within a couple days of new cards being made public, there's almost 2/5
always a new card that's revealed to be too powerful, or part of a broken interaction with older cards. 22 cards have been banned from Standard over the past 4 years (Standard is the format that developers do the most testing for). 3/5
The hive mind of the player base is just vastly better than the expert team at finding cracks and in the format.
We can possibly exploit this same dynamic in academic review. 4/5
We can possibly exploit this same dynamic in academic review. 4/5
@zeynep adresses this in point #3 from her piece here: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/03/three-ways-pandemic-has-bettered-world/618320/
Open science can accelerate and hone the review process. Putting more minds with more different perspectives into the mix can make it work better. 5/5
Open science can accelerate and hone the review process. Putting more minds with more different perspectives into the mix can make it work better. 5/5
