Trusted auditor: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:12, 7 November 2003

Who is a trusted auditor for Consumerium's content wiki?

One view is that it depends on who you, personally, choose to trust. Content Wiki lets anyone sign any version of any article. Setting preferences lets the buy signal reflect what / who you believe, and ignore who you don't.

However, we will have to offer some sane default values. So we need a default on how to set the default and so on. And, beyond that, someone really has to review all the mechanics of signing and signalling, and disputes and protests, and the way score is handled, and make what amounts to a proof that the instructional capital we have been provided by Consumerium:contributors are trustworthy.

What other user roles must support auditors? How can we avoid becoming Enron, which also had trusted auditors looking out for shareholders (not!)?

This function is so important, betting against the auditor finding problems might have to be supported directly, so there is maximum incentive for auditors to find all problems, and for trolls to keep maximum eye on the auditors. The bureaucratic view is that process works perfectly and never needs outside auditors. This was the view at Enron too. Sure, double or nothing.

Auditors are a critical part of any Market Model.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Who is a '''trusted auditor''' for [[Consumerium]]'s [[content wiki]]?
-:Depends on who you choose to trust. Looking at [[Content Wiki]] you'll note that anyone can sign any version of any article and you just have to set your [[preferences]] to reflect what / who you believe.
+One view is that it depends on who you, personally, choose to trust.  [[Content Wiki]] lets anyone sign any version of any article.  Setting [[preferences]] lets the [[buy signal]] reflect what / who you believe, and ignore who you don't.
-:Then again we will have to offer some sane default values. So we need a default on how to set the default and so on. I have no clue about how to do this without high likelyhood of combusting spontaneously. So the short anwser would be beats me.
+However, we will have to offer some sane default values. So we need a default on how to set the default and so on.  And, beyond that, someone really has to review all the mechanics of signing and signalling, and disputes and protests, and the way [[score]] is handled, and make what amounts to a proof that the [[instructional capital]] we have been provided by [[Consumerium:contributor]]s are trustworthy.
-How do we know when to believe the [[instructional capital]] we have been provided by [[Consumerium:contributor]]s?
+What other [[user role]]s must support auditors?  How can we avoid becoming [[Enron]], which also had '''trusted auditor'''s looking out for shareholders (not!)?
-:You are referring to here and now? Have you slept enough? Are you eating well?
+This function is so important, [[betting]] against the auditor finding problems might have to be supported directly, so there is maximum incentive for auditors to find all problems, and for [[troll]]s to keep maximum eye on the auditors.  The bureaucratic view is that process works perfectly and never needs outside auditors.  This was the view at [[Enron]] too.  ''Sure, double or nothing.''
-What other [[user role]]s must support auditors?
-:Enron accountant consultant role?
-This function is so important, [[betting]] against the auditor finding problems might have to be supported directly, so there is maximum incentive for auditors to find all problems, and for [[troll]]s to keep maximum eye on the auditors.
-:I believe I owe you one KitKat McFlurry already. Care to double or nothing?
 Auditors are a critical part of any [[Market Model]].