Talk:Consumerium Process: Difference between revisions
(dealing with Dan's concerns) |
(moved from article for discussion here) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''THIS PAGE IS FOR DISCUSSING THE [[Consumerium Process|CONSUMERIUM PROCESS]]. USE THIS PAGE AS A FOCUS POINT FOR FIGURING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCESSES ENABLING [[Consumerium Services]] and [[Features]]''' | '''THIS PAGE IS FOR DISCUSSING THE [[Consumerium Process|CONSUMERIUM PROCESS]]. USE THIS PAGE AS A FOCUS POINT FOR FIGURING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCESSES ENABLING [[Consumerium Services]] and [[Features]]''' | ||
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 page]]s that they sign and [[edits, votes and bets|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 [[Campaign]]s 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?--[[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: | |||
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.'' | |||
::The difference between [[Campaign]] and not, might be, a campaign signal must be passed or failed, and cannot be edited. While one can edit a non-campaign signal. Note that [[advertising]] for [[green light]] products would work on the same grounds, and we might be able to charge for those to make the whole [[healthy signal infrastructure]] [[self-funding]]. Just one of many ideas to make us less dependent on [[volunteer labour]], which always comes with biases. | |||
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. | |||
---- | |||
This is just as I imagined it would work since you introduced "proper" descriptions and distinguishation between [[Signal Wiki]] and [[Research Wiki]]. I agree we should go on using these terms and adopt the stuff from [[Opinion Wiki]] and [[Content Wiki]] to these articles. | This is just as I imagined it would work since you introduced "proper" descriptions and distinguishation between [[Signal Wiki]] and [[Research Wiki]]. I agree we should go on using these terms and adopt the stuff from [[Opinion Wiki]] and [[Content Wiki]] to these articles. | ||
Revision as of 11:15, 14 March 2004
THIS PAGE IS FOR DISCUSSING THE CONSUMERIUM PROCESS. USE THIS PAGE AS A FOCUS POINT FOR FIGURING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCESSES ENABLING Consumerium Services and Features
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.
- The difference between Campaign and not, might be, a campaign signal must be passed or failed, and cannot be edited. While one can edit a non-campaign signal. Note that advertising for green light products would work on the same grounds, and we might be able to charge for those to make the whole healthy signal infrastructure self-funding. Just one of many ideas to make us less dependent on volunteer labour, which always comes with biases.
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.
This is just as I imagined it would work since you introduced "proper" descriptions and distinguishation between Signal Wiki and Research Wiki. I agree we should go on using these terms and adopt the stuff from Opinion Wiki and Content Wiki to these articles.
I suggest that Campaigns and TCE functionality should go to the Signal Wiki for the Campaign-functionality is briefly described as facts about somebody expressing an opinion about something or facts about someones support for some opinion
Now the strict multilevel security measures described in Opinion Wiki will have to be played down to make Signal Wiki operation more feasible. --Juxo 22:13, 11 Mar 2004 (EET)
- Also we should rethink everything about Signal Wiki to accomodate the concerns User:DanKeshet raised. The idea of printing a book is a good one, and it's now dealt with in Consumerium buying signal directly. It is lower tech than the audio stuff even. And it would certainly serve for instance purposes like the Big Carrot's, they could print the book and go through to figure out if they really had to stock a product, or if they could ditch it and there was sufficient competing substitutes (something a human has to figure out). Remember, getting the crap off the retail shelf entirely has the biggest impact! Anyone willing to be friendly retail might also be quite willing to vet their products this way!