Consumerium Process: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:48, 11 March 2004

The Consumerium Process is how data gets from unreliable anonymous trolls to the Consumerium buying signal to bring down major transnats as the CGO fends off their lawsuits. It is not going to be easy to figure out.

Vaguely, the idea so far is:

1. Anonymous trolls dump unreliable crap data into the Research Wiki claiming it has excellent credentials and is true beyond reasonable doubt. Actual researchers investigate these claims to the best of their ability and refine this crap into Consumerium:intermediate pages that they sign and somehow stake something on so we know they believe it. The crap and quality must co-exist in the same wiki, this is where it gets sorted out.

There may or may not be Campaigns in this same wiki. If not, then we have separate Opinion Wiki

IMHO Campaigns are essential to the generating the Consumerium buying signal so I think they should be in Signal Wiki. Not sure though. Any arguments against?--Juxo 23:31, 11 Mar 2004 (EET)

Things that campaigns claim are true should be fact-checked, like any other research. So there's an argument to require them to encounter "the other side", i.e. opposing factions, fairly early. Though, for a campaign to be effective, it would have to be able to propagate its own idea of its message into the Signal Wiki, so, probably, it has a presence in both of these. One can think of it as somewhat higher integrity advertising, perhaps. Besides, the Campaign is just another entity that can sign a page, so:

2. Signed pages are assumed correct by default. But because this information is not factually reliable, and there might be serious implications of releasing it, it goes through a final stage at the Signal Wiki where the Consumerium Governance Organization makes its standard disclaimers and if necessary edits out stuff that it can't release, perhaps per country. We don't say that anything is necessarily a "fact", for legal reasons, Note that the Content Wiki conception assumed that we could. But, really, we can't.

3. Every problem ends up back at this Development Wiki where more trolls gnaw on it.

See also Talk:Development Wiki for more on this.

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 :: IMHO [[Campaigns]] are essential to the generating the [[Consumerium buying signal]] so I think they should be in [[Signal Wiki]]. Not sure though. Any arguments against?--[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 23:31, 11 Mar 2004 (EET)
+:::Things that campaigns claim are true should be fact-checked, like any other research.  So there's an argument to require them to encounter "the other side", i.e. opposing [[faction]]s, fairly early.  Though, for a campaign to be effective, it would have to be able to propagate its own idea of its message into the [[Signal Wiki]], so, probably, it has a presence in both of these.  One can think of it as somewhat higher integrity [[advertising]], perhaps.  Besides, the [[Campaign]] is just another entity that can sign a page, so:
 . Signed pages are assumed correct by default.  But because this information is not factually reliable, and there might be serious implications of releasing it, it goes through a final stage at the [[Signal Wiki]] where the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] makes its standard disclaimers and if necessary edits out stuff that it can't release, perhaps per country.  We don't say that ''anything'' is necessarily a "fact", for legal reasons, ''Note that the [[Content Wiki]] conception assumed that we could.  But, really, we can't.''