Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,854
edits
Voting: Difference between revisions
The trick is in the counting, open voting, closed ( tuneable ) counting. For resilience to information warfare ( i.e. skewing attempts are in the visible and anti-skewing can be composed based on the skewing )
(To vote or not to vote? - restating that the "policy" ( that the article used to start with ) is "don't vote" on the rationale that we don't want any sort of census effect à la facebook) |
(The trick is in the counting, open voting, closed ( tuneable ) counting. For resilience to information warfare ( i.e. skewing attempts are in the visible and anti-skewing can be composed based on the skewing )) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
#) Voting is unwiki | #) Voting is unwiki | ||
#) ... | #) ... | ||
== The trick is in the counting == | |||
So by closed and tuneable counting we mean that you can ( if you wish to ) have a personalized vote counting result because no consensus outcome is required. | |||
The most simple way to achieve a vote counting result that is customized is to use '''automatic amplification''', a one-check-box-solution, which is to say that the people who voted similar to you get more voting power ( say +30% ) ( amplification ) and those who voted conflicting with your votes get less ( dampening ) ( say -30% ) | |||
With the '''open voting, tuneable counting''' we are making sure that we have the highest resiliency to information warfare . Every time a skewing effort ( usually by paid trolls ) is detected proper counter measures ( parametrization of the vote counting ) can be formulated and distributed. The loss in this set-up is exposure to consumption pattern profiling for those who vote ( then again this happens in twitter and facebook too if you talk / like about your consumption habits ). | |||
As in all highly-political wikis we expect a [[paid trolls vs. unpaid trolls]] situation. We are also optimist and hope that a healthy dynamic equilibrium(s) will form. :D :D | |||