Consumerium talk:Intermediate page format

The big choice is whether we want the Consumerium Governance Organization to be supervising changes to ConsuML data or not. If not, then, we take option 2, and everything stated as true in ConsuML goes through to the Signal Wiki for only legal clearing.

If we are however untrusting of ConsuML data, however assembled, then we have to express it all in this Consumerium:intermediate page format to let people update and fix the facts that are wrong or untrustworthy or believed only by one faction or something. This may help feedback to get better ConsuML and more honest factions, but, it means we take on the burden of always editing the ConsuML before the consumer sees it.

It's a big decision.

Also it's not clear that Criticism/Praise is necessarily the right way to divide comments - that seems factionally defined, since comments that one party might take as a compliment are possible to take as degradation by some other. So maybe we need green criticism, pink praise, etc.

Also, it seems that Consensus, Criticism, Praise, or whatever, apply equally well to types of commodity, product, company, country, region or marketing/sale/feedback channel. So we probably have a generic format that is specialized in six ways. A fairly simple inheritance problem.

---

Hey how about arranging the pages so that there is

• Object X - "Neutral"
• Object X/for - "Points of endorsement"
• Object X/against - "Points of avoidance"

then Campaign:Save The Great Apes could be linked from Company X/against with a score and brief free-form explanation why and how this campaign is connected to Company X or to be more precise how Company X is connected to the Campaign. The same campaign could be also linked from Company Y/for with a score, wherein Company Y is providing a similar product in a responsible way thus implying a product substitution

I believe that terms "for" and "against" are more easily translatable then "praise for" and "critisisms against" --Juxo 23:34, 2 Mar 2004 (EET)