> jupyter-comment supports a number of commenting services [...]. In helping users decide which commenting and annotation services to include on their pages and commit to maintaining, could we discuss criteria for assessment and current features of services?
> Possible features for comparison:
> * Content author can delete / hide
> * Content author can report / block
> * Comments / annotations are screened by spam-fighting service
> * Content / author can label as e.g. toxic
> * Content author receives notification of new comments
> * Content author can require approval before user-contributed content is publicly-visible
> * Content author may allow comments for a limited amount of time (probably more relevant to BlogPostings)
> * Content author may simultaneously denounce censorship in all it's forms while allowing previously-published works to languish
#ForScience
> JupyterLite is a JupyterLab distribution that runs entirely in the browser built from the ground-up using JupyterLab components and extensions
With JupyterLite, you can build a static archive of a repo2docker-like environment so that the ScholarlyArticle notebook or computer modern latex css, its SoftwareRelease dependencies, and possibly also the Datasets can be run in a browser tab with WASM. HTML + JS + WASM
Furthermore, a user searching for “reviewed” data and papers would normally filter for items with enough “endorsement” metadata items signed by known WOT actors.
I haven’t figured a mechanism to prevent “review rings”, although being totally transparent it should be easy to spot them.
Also at the time I was considering IPFS.
But I guess the real trick is implementing a WOT to implement peer review and filter out the inevitable junk that will be published