Talk:142.177.X.X: Difference between revisions - Consumerium development wiki

Line 60:

It's got security issues, legal issues, administrative issues, image issues and it's unegalitarian. These are off-handedly my main points why it's not a good idea.

::And that is still just wishing. The fact is, people can buy votes, they can pay others to enter their opinions, and if you try to keep money out of the picture, that's where it will go. That will eventually destroy the credibility. Only by providing a cleaner way to influence or signal with money, one that has *some* accountability and transparency, will we be able to *choose* the balance between monied and non-monied interests in the weight of opinions.

Care to explain here how it _could_ work in practice???

::Not here, but maybe [[Consumerium Prediction Market]]?

And why, why oh why did you have to troll the [[Opinion Wiki]] just now when i have really pressing non-consumerium issues i have to attend to? [[Talk:Opinion Wiki]] was good stuff, thanks for it.

:Because we have a good chance right now to work out the way we look at troll-type comments and other 'distributed identities'. Over at [http://www.metaweb.com www.Metaweb.com] there is now active discussion of [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Metaweb:some body "some body"] versus [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Metaweb:no body "no body"] status, and questions about [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Metaweb:glossary glossary] and how [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Metaweb:faction faction]s might compete to define very basic terms, and allocate credibility to articles there. If the discussion happens over at Consumerium at the same time, well, it will very much more likely result in compatible ways.