Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in or
create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| How can we '''audit''' Consumerium to make sure it is accurate and reliable? Who is the [[auditor]]? What is the [[audit process]]? When does it happen? How can we audit content from outside providers, or providers themselves? | | How can we '''audit''' Consumerium to make sure it is accurate and reliable? Who is the [[auditor]]? What is the [[audit process]]? When does it happen? How can we audit content providers? |
|
| |
|
| We may set up some democratic administration organisation to see that all is done with as little foul-play as we can arrange. ''See [[governance]] where [[Consumerium Council]] is outlined as possibility.'' We can't avoid bad things happening, by setting rules we can't enforce. So there must be an enforcement mechanism for daily routine, perhaps some auditing happens day by day using the trust in, or "[[social capital]] of" the board. In a very real way, the "good name" of Consumerium, the social capital it has with consumers themselves, is dependent on the trust they have in its board, council or governing mechanism.
| | :These are all problematic questions. I suppose we'll set up some democratic administration organisation to see that all is done without foul-play. [[Consumerium Counsel]]?? |
|
| |
|
| Given that mechanism or board or council, the audit is just a process they apply, often carried out over a short period of time when claims, evidence, and sources are investigated without mercy. A closely related issue is the [[inventory]] when everything is "counted", but how it got there is not considered. This is usually relevant only to the [[infrastructural capital]].
| | :Since '''ideally''' the Consumerium team doesn't actually input any information on their own, but just provide the possibility for others to put their content available to consumers. Most of the reliability issues can only be solved by agreeing on '''rules that define what different participators can input''' |
|
| |
|
| [[Content verification]] will always be problematic. ''Ideally'' the Consumerium team doesn't actually input any information on their own, but just provide the tools for others to put content up for consumers who trust in it and make decisions by it. This is about the integrity of [[instructional capital]].
| | :Problems like: |
|
| |
|
| Some reliability issues can only be solved by agreeing on ''rules that define what different participators can input'' but this still leaves the question of the '''audit''' itself, which validates that such rules were followed.
| | #It doesn't make any sense that [[Company X]] employees put some accusations about [[Company Y]]. |
| | #It doesn't make any sense that we assume we could avoid such things happening, by setting rules we can't enforce. |
|
| |
|
| Trust in individuals may well be the bottom line, but it can be the case that there is economic pressure people to exaggerate their own opinions. Imagine [[Company X]] employees put some accusations about [[Company Y]]. This can be questionable, especially if the two of them are [[direct competitor]]s, and the employees are being paid to do it on company time, or have stock options etc..
| | : This question of [[Content Verification]] is the most problematic ones we face. I've thought about it a long time and I still don't have a working proposal. Any ideas? |