The Consumerium Exchange: Difference between revisions
(partial solution to the burden of proof question regarding direct votes by dividing votes into distinct groups of trust) |
(note on weak points) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
#Voters authenticated by an email address issued by an institutional issuer such as an university, school, company or a governmental organisation ie. where it is publicly known that the postmaster checks the identities of people before issuing an email address | #Voters authenticated by an email address issued by an institutional issuer such as an university, school, company or a governmental organisation ie. where it is publicly known that the postmaster checks the identities of people before issuing an email address | ||
#The rest ie. anonymous email services | #The rest ie. anonymous email services | ||
Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated. | |||
Where issue is a disputed article or a campaign on a [[company]], [[product group]] or [[product]] | Where issue is a disputed article or a campaign on a [[company]], [[product group]] or [[product]] | ||
Revision as of 13:43, 22 September 2003
The Consumerium Exchange is where people can voice their opinion on which disputed article or campaign is closest to the truth at a certain period of time.
The purpose of The Consumerium Exchange is to provide an popularity measurement for different opinions, which determines the default opinion shown to the consumer on each issue.
The consumer can override the view with her/his own preferences automatically or manually. One important preference is the slider to set how much weight direct and indirect votes get. Excluding certain votes should also be possible.
Perhaps every person gets two votes on each issue:
- An indirect vote. This vote cannot be used directly, but can be assigned to an registered not-for-profit organsation, that uses the voting power as decided by the governance of the organisation, thus rendering the identity of the vote holder anonymous. For verification purposes it might be a reasonable requirement that you must be a member of the organisation that you give your voting power to. You may give your vote to only one organisation at a time. You may transfer it to an another organisation or just revoke it. The Burden of proof on the right to use a vote is mostly on the organisation in question.
- A direct vote. This is perhaps a little unfair since people who don't have access to computer systems are likely unable to use their direct vote. Burden of proof on authentication is yet to be solved. A partial solution could be to divide the direct votes into three distinct groups and let the consumers decide on the amount of trust they place on each group of voters:
- Voters authenticated with cryptographic methods, where the identity of the keyholder is known by an commercial or non-commercial certification authority.
- Voters authenticated by an email address issued by an institutional issuer such as an university, school, company or a governmental organisation ie. where it is publicly known that the postmaster checks the identities of people before issuing an email address
- The rest ie. anonymous email services
Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated.
Where issue is a disputed article or a campaign on a company, product group or product