Editing Consumerium talk:Intermediate page format

The big choice is whether we want the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] to be supervising changes to [[ConsuML]] data or not.  If not, then, we take option 2, and everything stated as true in ConsuML goes through to the [[Signal Wiki]] for only legal clearing.

If we are however untrusting of [[ConsuML]] data, however assembled, then we have to express it all in this [[Consumerium:intermediate page format]] to let people update and fix the facts that are wrong or untrustworthy or believed only by one [[faction]] or something.  This may help feedback to get better ConsuML and more honest factions, but, it means we take on the burden of always editing the ConsuML before the consumer sees it.

It's a big decision.

Also it's not clear that Criticism/Praise is necessarily the right way to divide comments - that seems [[factionally defined]], since comments that one party might take as a compliment are possible to take as degradation by some other.  So maybe we need [[green]] criticism, [[pink]] praise, etc.

Also, it seems that Consensus, Criticism, Praise, or whatever, apply equally well to types of commodity, product, company, country, region or marketing/sale/feedback channel.  So we probably have a generic format that is specialized in six ways.  A fairly simple inheritance problem.
----
Hey how about arranging the pages so that there is

*[[Object X]] - "Neutral"
*[[Object X/for]] - "Points of endorsement"
*[[Object X/against]] - "Points of avoidance"

where "Object" is one of the following [[company]], [[regulator]], [[commodity]], [[product]], [[production method]], [[extraction method]], [[transport method]], [[region]], [[waste disposal method]], [[channel]], 

then [[Campaign:Save The Great Apes]] could be linked from [[Company X/against]] with a [[score]] and brief free-form explanation why and how this [[campaign]] is connected to [[Company X]] or to be more precise how [[Company X]] is connected to the [[Campaign]]. The same campaign could be also linked from [[Company Y/for]] with a [[score]], wherein [[Company Y]] is providing a similar product in a responsible way thus implying a [[product substitution]]

The order of [[campaigns]] could be manually managed or by software if the [[voting]] schemes discussed earlier on are applied in practice. Naturally the [[campaign]] with broadest support should be listed on top. Perhaps we should develop [[wiki code]] for campaign linking. 

One idea is as follows <nowiki>to link from the "against" page to [[Campaign:Campaign Name-3]] and [[Campaign:Campaign Name-3]] would be #REDIRECT [[Campaign:Campaign Name]]</nowiki>

I believe that terms "for" and "against" are more easily translatable then "praise for" and "critisisms against" --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 23:34, 2 Mar 2004 (EET)

:Would rather see "pro" and "con" since these are based on Latin terms and so are more recognizable in all languages.  Also they're the same length.  And it leaves the word "for" meaning "towards a goal" which can be more specific... We should be careful about overloading words, especially those on the [[glossary]].