Design paradigm

Syntax and software

Store most of the information information in Wiki format with embedded XML where ever it's necessary. Example: [[GTIN:1234567890]] would redirect to [[Product:Product name]] and [[Company:Company name]] can also be decoded from the GTIN. It could be possible to create automated assesments from plain wikicode, but this would require very strict syntax and if you don't use the syntax, your information will be excluded from automated information refining.

This way the implementation process will be speeded up by the fact that Mediawiki (as the software is nowerday know as) can be used as the storage engine with only minor modifications (add signee and signature to the DB) and gathering and dispensing the actual content can be begun sooner. Mediawiki maintains the historical state of articles, which is one key requirement.

So if mediawiki is used as the primary Content Management engine, there needs to be some Delievery engine that is licenced under Consumerium Software License that takes care of the price and other sensitive information that cannot afford to leak from the system. Primary UI for the Consumer will be HTML browser, fancier UI can be created at later time if someone is up to the task.

---

Resolving the "Who gets to say what about what on what grounds?"-issue

Default to the Last Signed Version Signed By the Default Signee

Consumerium default will most likely be that Consumers don't see the live version from the wiki, but the last signed version signed by whoever you deem as an authority on the article in question. Since anyone can make their own defaults file and pass it along as "the real deal" the Consumerium defaults don't matter much.

Autodetection of Controversiality of an Article

There is lots of information that can be stored and assessed about the edit/sign/view ratios of articles, editors and signers.

The Consumer decides

Maybe anyone can sign any version of any article, thus leaving up to the Consumer to decide

who to trust or

who to trust on who to trust or

who to trust on who to trust on who to trust or

who to trust on who to trust on who to trust on who to trust or

who to trust on who to trust on who to trust on who to trust on who to trust or

who to trust on who to trust on who to trust on who to trust on who to trust on who to trust

...need I go further?

Governance and integrity would be resolved very much the usual Wikipedia way (by edit war ;)

Multiple Point Of Views

If an edit war persists too long it'll be decided through some govenance process that we need to have Multiple Point Of Views MPOV on the issue the article is about. Then we just split the article and force the versions to be listed on The Consumerium Exchange, where people can begin trading their opinions on which article is closest to the truth at a certain period of time. Signing one version of the split articles will be taken into account automatically by The Consumerium Exchange.

There are always at least two points of view, one being the producer's, another being those who are questioning the producer's integrity. Finding out the truth is an adversarial process where only consumers can ultimately decide who to trust.