Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,854
edits
Talk:Consumerium Process: Difference between revisions
moved from article for discussion here
(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. | ||