The Consumerium Exchange - Revision history

142.177.106.190 at 01:16, 25 June 2004

2004-06-25T01:16:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:16, 25 June 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
			''this page is old - most of its issues are covered more generally in [[edits, votes and bets]]; a more general name for this type of scheme is [[answer recommendation]]''

	==Purpose==		==Purpose==

Jukeboksi: reorganize for less incoherence. link to Opinion Wiki

2003-10-13T10:42:23Z

reorganize for less incoherence. link to Opinion Wiki

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:42, 13 October 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
			==Purpose==

	'''The [[Consumerium]] Exchange''' is where people can voice their opinion on which [[disputed article]] or [[campaign]] is closest to the [[truth]] at or over a certain period of time. All such opinions can change, so there is a need for ex-change, to help them evolve. This must happen quickly so that those who improve their practices are quickly rewarded, and to make it difficult to exploit a good reputation to do hidden harm - which is a common problem.		'''The [[Consumerium]] Exchange''' is where people can voice their opinion on which [[disputed article]] or [[campaign]] is closest to the [[truth]] at or over a certain period of time. All such opinions can change, so there is a need for ex-change, to help them evolve. This must happen quickly so that those who improve their practices are quickly rewarded, and to make it difficult to exploit a good reputation to do hidden harm - which is a common problem.

	Thus, the purpose of The Consumerium Exchange is to provide a weighting or combined measurement for different opinions, which determines the default opinion shown to the [[consumer]] on each issue.		Thus, the purpose of The Consumerium Exchange is to provide a weighting or combined measurement for different opinions, which determines the default opinion shown to the [[consumer]] on each issue.
			----
	This opinion may be of various types, each with their own rules. For instance, an opinion of the use of a [[resource]] (like [[mahogany tree]]s or [[mangrove tree]]s) or a [[commodity]] (like [[cocoa]]) is ~~different than an opinion of the [[process]] by which a [[product]] or [[service]] comes to the market, e.g. via a [[sweatshop]] or [[prison labour]]. An opinion of~~ a ~~[[company]] or [[country]] will also have its own rules. Each of these can be stated in a [[Consumerium Contract]] by which users accept obligations to meet the specific terms of~~ the [[~~social contract~~]] ~~that they expect all suppliers (to them) to follow~~.		==Current Approach on Development==
			There is ongoing research work into fulfilling this need as a Wiki under the working title '''[[Opinion Wiki]]'''.
	Each consumer can override the view of a given [[interest group]] with her/his own [[preferences]] automatically or manually. One important preference is the slider to set how much weight direct and indirect votes get. Enabling automatic exclusion of votes based on preferences should also be possible.		----
			==Voting==
	===~~Distribution of power~~===
	Every person gets two votes on each issue:		Every person gets two votes on each issue:
	*An [[Indirect Vote]].		*An [[Indirect Vote]].
Line 17:		Line 18:

	Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated. "The [[stock market]]" does this with [[bet]]s - multiple votes and vote buying are easy, but expensive. A better solution may be out there, but if so, no one seems to have found it yet.		Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated. "The [[stock market]]" does this with [[bet]]s - multiple votes and vote buying are easy, but expensive. A better solution may be out there, but if so, no one seems to have found it yet.
			----
			==Evaluation of Results==
			===Subjective Preferences===
			The consumers opinion may be of various types, each with their own rules. For instance, an opinion of the use of a [[resource]] (like [[mahogany tree]]s or [[mangrove tree]]s) or a [[commodity]] (like [[cocoa]]) is different than an opinion of the [[process]] by which a [[product]] or [[service]] comes to the market, e.g. via a [[sweatshop]] or [[prison labour]]. An opinion of a [[company]] or [[country]] will also have its own rules. Each of these can be stated in a [[Consumerium Contract]] by which users accept obligations to meet the specific terms of the [[social contract]] that they expect all suppliers (to them) to follow.

			Each consumer can override the view of a given [[interest group]] with her/his own [[preferences]] automatically or manually. One important preference is the slider to set how much weight direct and indirect votes get. Enabling automatic exclusion of votes based on preferences should also be possible.

	===~~Social network weighting~~===		===Peer review===
	Registered members are able to set [[score]]s (with [[comment]]s) on each other extended-FOAF style (Friend Of A Friend/Foe). For instance one may track only foes, using only negative scores. This would be by far the best way to proceed - since [[groupthink]] sets in when any group confuses [[social capital]] with instruction.		Registered members are able to set [[score]]s (with [[comment]]s) on each other extended-FOAF style (Friend Of A Friend/Foe). For instance one may track only foes, using only negative scores. This would be by far the best way to proceed - since [[groupthink]] sets in when any group confuses [[social capital]] with instruction.

Line 28:		Line 35:
	:The anwser being no, not campaigns, because it would lead to all sorts of conceptual unclarities, problems with infinite recursion and besides if party A has an view on party B that view is a private matter of Party A, not party C		:The anwser being no, not campaigns, because it would lead to all sorts of conceptual unclarities, problems with infinite recursion and besides if party A has an view on party B that view is a private matter of Party A, not party C
	----		----
	~~===~~See also:~~===~~		'''See also:'''
	*[[Talk:The Consumerium Exchange\|The Talk Page for Discussion on this facility]] which outlines the [[bet]] issue in some great depth.		*[[Talk:The Consumerium Exchange\|The Talk Page for Discussion on this facility]] which outlines the [[bet]] issue in some great depth.

142.177.93.101: the cuts make this too abstract to be useful - restoring with better explanation, and acknowledging issues that we simply haven't resolved, and maybe can't resolve

2003-10-09T17:26:01Z

the cuts make this too abstract to be useful - restoring with better explanation, and acknowledging issues that we simply haven't resolved, and maybe can't resolve

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:26, 9 October 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''The [[Consumerium]] Exchange''' is where people can voice their opinion on which [[disputed article]] or [[campaign]] is closest to the [[truth]] at or over a certain period of time.		'''The [[Consumerium]] Exchange''' is where people can voice their opinion on which [[disputed article]] or [[campaign]] is closest to the [[truth]] at or over a certain period of time. All such opinions can change, so there is a need for ex-change, to help them evolve. This must happen quickly so that those who improve their practices are quickly rewarded, and to make it difficult to exploit a good reputation to do hidden harm - which is a common problem.

	~~The~~ purpose of The Consumerium Exchange is to provide a weighting or combined measurement for different opinions, which determines the default opinion shown to the [[consumer]] on each issue.		Thus, the purpose of The Consumerium Exchange is to provide a weighting or combined measurement for different opinions, which determines the default opinion shown to the [[consumer]] on each issue.

			This opinion may be of various types, each with their own rules. For instance, an opinion of the use of a [[resource]] (like [[mahogany tree]]s or [[mangrove tree]]s) or a [[commodity]] (like [[cocoa]]) is different than an opinion of the [[process]] by which a [[product]] or [[service]] comes to the market, e.g. via a [[sweatshop]] or [[prison labour]]. An opinion of a [[company]] or [[country]] will also have its own rules. Each of these can be stated in a [[Consumerium Contract]] by which users accept obligations to meet the specific terms of the [[social contract]] that they expect all suppliers (to them) to follow.

	Each consumer can override the view of a given [[interest group]] with her/his own [[preferences]] automatically or manually. One important preference is the slider to set how much weight direct and indirect votes get. Enabling automatic exclusion of votes based on preferences should also be possible.		Each consumer can override the view of a given [[interest group]] with her/his own [[preferences]] automatically or manually. One important preference is the slider to set how much weight direct and indirect votes get. Enabling automatic exclusion of votes based on preferences should also be possible.
Line 14:		Line 16:
	The dual voting (direct+indirect) system provides improved reliability and flexibility for The Consumerium Exchange at the same time. Due to the dual voting system the exchange is less susceptible to distortion. It is propably better left unknown how people value these different votes on each issue or in general because it provides the intrigue and safety of not-knowing		The dual voting (direct+indirect) system provides improved reliability and flexibility for The Consumerium Exchange at the same time. Due to the dual voting system the exchange is less susceptible to distortion. It is propably better left unknown how people value these different votes on each issue or in general because it provides the intrigue and safety of not-knowing

	Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated.		Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated. "The [[stock market]]" does this with [[bet]]s - multiple votes and vote buying are easy, but expensive. A better solution may be out there, but if so, no one seems to have found it yet.

	===Social network weighting===		===Social network weighting===

Jukeboksi: removing some of 142.177.X.X's edits for clarity

2003-10-09T10:04:05Z

removing some of 142.177.X.X's edits for clarity

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:04, 9 October 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''The [[Consumerium]] Exchange''' is where people can voice their opinion on which [[disputed article]] or [[campaign]] is closest to the [[truth]] at or over a certain period of time ~~(to some [[time horizon]], e.g. as stated in a [[Consumerium Contract]])~~.		'''The [[Consumerium]] Exchange''' is where people can voice their opinion on which [[disputed article]] or [[campaign]] is closest to the [[truth]] at or over a certain period of time.

	The purpose of The Consumerium Exchange is to provide a weighting or combined measurement for different opinions, which determines the default opinion shown to the [[consumer]] on each issue.		The purpose of The Consumerium Exchange is to provide a weighting or combined measurement for different opinions, which determines the default opinion shown to the [[consumer]] on each issue.

Jukeboksi: removing some of 142.177.X.X's edits for clarity

2003-10-09T09:58:34Z

removing some of 142.177.X.X's edits for clarity

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:58, 9 October 2003
Line 3:		Line 3:
	The purpose of The Consumerium Exchange is to provide a weighting or combined measurement for different opinions, which determines the default opinion shown to the [[consumer]] on each issue.		The purpose of The Consumerium Exchange is to provide a weighting or combined measurement for different opinions, which determines the default opinion shown to the [[consumer]] on each issue.

	Each consumer can override the view of a given ~~[[resource]], [[process]], [[company]],~~ [[interest group~~]] or [[industry~~]] with her/his own [[preferences]] automatically or manually. One important preference is the slider to set how much weight direct and indirect votes get. Enabling automatic exclusion of votes based on preferences should also be possible.		Each consumer can override the view of a given [[interest group]] with her/his own [[preferences]] automatically or manually. One important preference is the slider to set how much weight direct and indirect votes get. Enabling automatic exclusion of votes based on preferences should also be possible.

	===Distribution of power===		===Distribution of power===
Line 14:		Line 14:
	The dual voting (direct+indirect) system provides improved reliability and flexibility for The Consumerium Exchange at the same time. Due to the dual voting system the exchange is less susceptible to distortion. It is propably better left unknown how people value these different votes on each issue or in general because it provides the intrigue and safety of not-knowing		The dual voting (direct+indirect) system provides improved reliability and flexibility for The Consumerium Exchange at the same time. Due to the dual voting system the exchange is less susceptible to distortion. It is propably better left unknown how people value these different votes on each issue or in general because it provides the intrigue and safety of not-knowing

	Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated. One such measure is to simply [[bet]] on the integrity of a given item with a [[Consumerium Contract]]. Since it costs money to bet, the multivoting and vote buying gets expensive. This is the only way known to work at present. We are seeking alternatives.		Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated.

	===Social network weighting===		===Social network weighting===
Line 21:		Line 21:
	Such direct [[social network]] support would provide more strongly differentiated views on the issues if FOAF-aggregation is enabled in the preferences of the [[consumer]].		Such direct [[social network]] support would provide more strongly differentiated views on the issues if FOAF-aggregation is enabled in the preferences of the [[consumer]].

	Of course the consumer has to decide on a few organisations (minimum being one) s/he chooses to trust the most and the value of other participants is then relative to what organisations are saying about each other. It is not necessary to trust anyone completely - one might for instance trust [[Greenpeace]] the most but only to a "0.7" level. All other organisations could then be trusted to some number proportional to them, but less than 0.7.		Of course the consumer has to decide on a few organisations (minimum being one) s/he chooses to trust the most and the value of other participants is then relative to what organisations are saying about each other.

	One could ask well why not full campaigns on other campaigners?		One could ask well why not full campaigns on other campaigners?

142.177.82.161: noting issues

2003-10-08T18:00:19Z

noting issues

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:00, 8 October 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''The [[Consumerium]] Exchange''' is where people can voice their opinion on which [[disputed article]] or [[campaign]] is closest to the [[truth]] at a certain period of time.		'''The [[Consumerium]] Exchange''' is where people can voice their opinion on which [[disputed article]] or [[campaign]] is closest to the [[truth]] at or over a certain period of time (to some [[time horizon]], e.g. as stated in a [[Consumerium Contract]]).

	The purpose of The Consumerium Exchange is to provide ~~an popularity~~ measurement for different opinions, which determines the default opinion shown to the [[consumer]] on each issue.		The purpose of The Consumerium Exchange is to provide a weighting or combined measurement for different opinions, which determines the default opinion shown to the [[consumer]] on each issue.

	~~The~~ consumer can override the view of a given company, interest group or industry with her/his own [[preferences]] automatically or manually. One important preference is the slider to set how much weight direct and indirect votes get. Enabling automatic exclusion of votes based on preferences should also be possible.		Each consumer can override the view of a given [[resource]], [[process]], [[company]], [[interest group]] or [[industry]] with her/his own [[preferences]] automatically or manually. One important preference is the slider to set how much weight direct and indirect votes get. Enabling automatic exclusion of votes based on preferences should also be possible.

	===Distribution of power===		===Distribution of power===
Line 14:		Line 14:
	The dual voting (direct+indirect) system provides improved reliability and flexibility for The Consumerium Exchange at the same time. Due to the dual voting system the exchange is less susceptible to distortion. It is propably better left unknown how people value these different votes on each issue or in general because it provides the intrigue and safety of not-knowing		The dual voting (direct+indirect) system provides improved reliability and flexibility for The Consumerium Exchange at the same time. Due to the dual voting system the exchange is less susceptible to distortion. It is propably better left unknown how people value these different votes on each issue or in general because it provides the intrigue and safety of not-knowing

	Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated.		Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated. One such measure is to simply [[bet]] on the integrity of a given item with a [[Consumerium Contract]]. Since it costs money to bet, the multivoting and vote buying gets expensive. This is the only way known to work at present. We are seeking alternatives.

	===~~Other functions in the exchange~~===		===Social network weighting===
	Registered members are able to set [[score]]s (with [[comment]]s) on each other extended-FOAF style (Friend Of A Friend/Foe).		Registered members are able to set [[score]]s (with [[comment]]s) on each other extended-FOAF style (Friend Of A Friend/Foe). For instance one may track only foes, using only negative scores. This would be by far the best way to proceed - since [[groupthink]] sets in when any group confuses [[social capital]] with instruction.

	~~This~~ would provide more strongly differentiated views on the issues if FOAF-aggregation is enabled in the preferences of the [[consumer]].		Such direct [[social network]] support would provide more strongly differentiated views on the issues if FOAF-aggregation is enabled in the preferences of the [[consumer]].

	Of course the consumer has to decide on a few ~~organsations~~ (minimum being one) s/he chooses to trust the most and the value of other participants is then relative to what organisations are saying about each other.		Of course the consumer has to decide on a few organisations (minimum being one) s/he chooses to trust the most and the value of other participants is then relative to what organisations are saying about each other. It is not necessary to trust anyone completely - one might for instance trust [[Greenpeace]] the most but only to a "0.7" level. All other organisations could then be trusted to some number proportional to them, but less than 0.7.

	One could ask well why not full campaigns on other campaigners?		One could ask well why not full campaigns on other campaigners?
Line 27:		Line 27:
	----		----
	===See also:===		===See also:===
	*[[Talk:The Consumerium Exchange\|The Talk Page for Discussion on this facility]]		*[[Talk:The Consumerium Exchange\|The Talk Page for Discussion on this facility]] which outlines the [[bet]] issue in some great depth.

Jukeboksi: moved notes on the upsides of the dual voting system here from the talk page

2003-10-07T22:44:01Z

moved notes on the upsides of the dual voting system here from the talk page

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:44, 7 October 2003
Line 11:		Line 11:

	Where issue is a disputed article or a [[campaign]].		Where issue is a disputed article or a [[campaign]].

			The dual voting (direct+indirect) system provides improved reliability and flexibility for The Consumerium Exchange at the same time. Due to the dual voting system the exchange is less susceptible to distortion. It is propably better left unknown how people value these different votes on each issue or in general because it provides the intrigue and safety of not-knowing

	Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated.		Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated.

Jukeboksi: linking to the talk-page

2003-10-05T13:20:48Z

linking to the talk-page

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:20, 5 October 2003
Line 23:		Line 23:
	One could ask well why not full campaigns on other campaigners?		One could ask well why not full campaigns on other campaigners?
	:The anwser being no, not campaigns, because it would lead to all sorts of conceptual unclarities, problems with infinite recursion and besides if party A has an view on party B that view is a private matter of Party A, not party C		:The anwser being no, not campaigns, because it would lead to all sorts of conceptual unclarities, problems with infinite recursion and besides if party A has an view on party B that view is a private matter of Party A, not party C
			----
			===See also:===
			*[[Talk:The Consumerium Exchange\|The Talk Page for Discussion on this facility]]

Jukeboksi: extended FOAF-style peer review of participants

2003-10-05T13:03:33Z

extended FOAF-style peer review of participants

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:03, 5 October 2003
Line 3:		Line 3:
	The purpose of The Consumerium Exchange is to provide an popularity measurement for different opinions, which determines the default opinion shown to the [[consumer]] on each issue.		The purpose of The Consumerium Exchange is to provide an popularity measurement for different opinions, which determines the default opinion shown to the [[consumer]] on each issue.

	The consumer can override the view of a given company, interest group or industry with her/his own preferences automatically or manually. One important preference is the slider to set how much weight direct and indirect votes get. Enabling automatic exclusion of votes based on preferences should also be possible.		The consumer can override the view of a given company, interest group or industry with her/his own [[preferences]] automatically or manually. One important preference is the slider to set how much weight direct and indirect votes get. Enabling automatic exclusion of votes based on preferences should also be possible.

			===Distribution of power===
	Every person gets two votes on each issue:		Every person gets two votes on each issue:

	*An [[Indirect Vote]].		*An [[Indirect Vote]].
	*A [[Direct Vote]].		*A [[Direct Vote]].
Line 13:		Line 13:

	Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated.		Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated.

			===Other functions in the exchange===
			Registered members are able to set [[score]]s (with [[comment]]s) on each other extended-FOAF style (Friend Of A Friend/Foe).

			This would provide more strongly differentiated views on the issues if FOAF-aggregation is enabled in the preferences of the [[consumer]].

			Of course the consumer has to decide on a few organsations (minimum being one) s/he chooses to trust the most and the value of other participants is then relative to what organisations are saying about each other.

			One could ask well why not full campaigns on other campaigners?
			:The anwser being no, not campaigns, because it would lead to all sorts of conceptual unclarities, problems with infinite recursion and besides if party A has an view on party B that view is a private matter of Party A, not party C

Jukeboksi: more moving

2003-10-05T12:41:40Z

more moving

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:41, 5 October 2003
Line 11:		Line 11:

	Where issue is a disputed article or a [[campaign]].		Where issue is a disputed article or a [[campaign]].

	~~Whether the direct votes are anonymized or visible or whether decision on this is left up to the voter on each issue is yet unclear.~~

	Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated.		Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated.