Edits, votes and bets - Revision history

Jukeboksi: + Category:Voting

2021-04-12T14:25:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:25, 12 April 2021
Line 14:		Line 14:

	However, when designing something complex like [[Consumerium]], complex choices have to be made. ''See [[life exchange]] for an example of tough choices that are expressed directly and honestly in such a system, to get an idea of how controversial it might be to relate edits, votes and bets to life and death decisions.''		However, when designing something complex like [[Consumerium]], complex choices have to be made. ''See [[life exchange]] for an example of tough choices that are expressed directly and honestly in such a system, to get an idea of how controversial it might be to relate edits, votes and bets to life and death decisions.''

			[[Category:Voting]]

142.177.106.10 at 21:39, 21 March 2004

2004-03-21T21:39:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:39, 21 March 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	How '''[[edits]], [[voting\|votes]] and [[betting\|bets]]''' affect the [[Consumerium buying signal]] (via the [[Signal Wiki]] directly and the [[Research Wiki]] indirectly) is up for debate. ''See [[Opinion Wiki]], the old name for the research wiki, for a more complete description of functions, though it includes some that may have to be separated, like [[Campaign]]s.''		How '''[[edits]], [[voting\|votes]] and [[betting\|bets]]''' affect the [[Consumerium buying signal]] (via the [[Signal Wiki]] directly and the [[Research Wiki]] indirectly) is up for debate. ''See [[Opinion Wiki]], the old name for the research wiki, for a more complete description of functions, though it includes some that may have to be separated, like [[Campaign]]s.''

			This applies to [[controversial edit]]s almost exclusively: Non-controversial edits don't need any one else to edit them afterwards. They don't need to be voted on. And they don't need anyone betting on them or against them with a [[revert currency]]. But if it's controversial, one or more of those things will happen!

	This is probably the design issue that is hardest to resolve, as different [[faction]]s typically view these in quite a different manner.		This is probably the design issue that is hardest to resolve, as different [[faction]]s typically view these in quite a different manner.

142.177.82.76: expanding a bit, turning into a list of possibly non-exclusive options

2004-03-11T03:40:32Z

expanding a bit, turning into a list of possibly non-exclusive options

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:40, 11 March 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	How '''[[edits]], [[voting\|votes]] and [[betting\|bets]]''' affect the [[Consumerium buying signal]] (via the [[Signal Wiki]] directly and the [[Research Wiki]] indirectly) is up for debate. ''See [[Opinion Wiki]], the old name for the research wiki, for a more complete description of functions.''		How '''[[edits]], [[voting\|votes]] and [[betting\|bets]]''' affect the [[Consumerium buying signal]] (via the [[Signal Wiki]] directly and the [[Research Wiki]] indirectly) is up for debate. ''See [[Opinion Wiki]], the old name for the research wiki, for a more complete description of functions, though it includes some that may have to be separated, like [[Campaign]]s.''

	This is probably the design issue that is hardest to resolve, as different [[faction]]s typically view these in quite a different manner. It is possible to manage it as a trusted [[priestly hierarchy]] as [[Wikipedia]] does, but this degrades the [[dissensus]]. It is possible to have [[faction]]s compete in a '''voting''' system, but this values poor contributors as much as good ones. It is possible to create a [[revert currency]] and do [[betting]] in it, or in cash even, but this is just another system suitable for hacking. None of these options is perfect, and combining them in any way creates something new that the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] can't be quite sure will work.		This is probably the design issue that is hardest to resolve, as different [[faction]]s typically view these in quite a different manner.

			*It is possible to manage it as a trusted [[priestly hierarchy]] as [[Wikipedia]] does, but this degrades the [[dissensus]], annoys [[trolls]] and is very fragile, as it can easily be infiltrated by a [[funded troll]] who can [[block IP]] of those who oppose eir client.

			*It is possible to have [[faction]]s compete in a '''voting''' system, but this values poor contributors as much as good ones based on [[politics as usual]]. It could degrade to a simple popularity contest, and popular companies that do extremely nasty things championed by popular people will evade much scrutiny.

			*It is possible to create a [[revert currency]] and do [[betting]] in it, or in cash even, but this is just another system suitable for hacking.

			None of these options is perfect, and combining them in any way creates something new that the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] can't be quite sure will work.

	However, when designing something complex like [[Consumerium]], complex choices have to be made. ''See [[life exchange]] for an example of tough choices that are expressed directly and honestly in such a system, to get an idea of how controversial it might be to relate edits, votes and bets to life and death decisions.''		However, when designing something complex like [[Consumerium]], complex choices have to be made. ''See [[life exchange]] for an example of tough choices that are expressed directly and honestly in such a system, to get an idea of how controversial it might be to relate edits, votes and bets to life and death decisions.''

142.177.108.49: making this a real article too, moving stuff from voting

2004-03-02T16:22:18Z

making this a real article too, moving stuff from voting

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:22, 2 March 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~#REDIRECT~~ [[Opinion Wiki]]		How '''[[edits]], [[voting\|votes]] and [[betting\|bets]]''' affect the [[Consumerium buying signal]] (via the [[Signal Wiki]] directly and the [[Research Wiki]] indirectly) is up for debate. ''See [[Opinion Wiki]], the old name for the research wiki, for a more complete description of functions.''

			This is probably the design issue that is hardest to resolve, as different [[faction]]s typically view these in quite a different manner. It is possible to manage it as a trusted [[priestly hierarchy]] as [[Wikipedia]] does, but this degrades the [[dissensus]]. It is possible to have [[faction]]s compete in a '''voting''' system, but this values poor contributors as much as good ones. It is possible to create a [[revert currency]] and do [[betting]] in it, or in cash even, but this is just another system suitable for hacking. None of these options is perfect, and combining them in any way creates something new that the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] can't be quite sure will work.

			However, when designing something complex like [[Consumerium]], complex choices have to be made. ''See [[life exchange]] for an example of tough choices that are expressed directly and honestly in such a system, to get an idea of how controversial it might be to relate edits, votes and bets to life and death decisions.''

142.177.103.239: redirecting better name

2003-12-22T00:54:32Z

redirecting better name

New page

#REDIRECT [[Opinion Wiki]]