One view is that it depends on who you, personally, choose to trust. Content Wiki lets anyone sign any version of any article. Setting preferences lets the buy signal reflect what / who you believe, and ignore who you don't. In this view, however, everyone must do their own styles of capital analysis to decide, for instance, if deforestation is worse than the arms trade, or countries that tolerate slavery, or ape genocide or other horrors. Very few people want to put lists of horrors in priority order, and some of the order comes from ecology and other sciences they don't know. The great danger of this is that many worst cases can happen if people are encouraged to choose based on their own (not expert) judgement of what's "bad".
So, we will have to offer some sane default values. And we need a default on how to set the default and so on. And, beyond that, someone really has to review all the mechanics of signing and signalling, and disputes and protests, and the way score is handled, and make what amounts to a proof that the instructional capital we have been provided by Consumerium:contributors is trustworthy. All of this relies on a standard styles of capital analysis and probably standard accounting standards like ISO 19011.
The traditional view is that auditors must be outsiders. But that might not be always wholly true here. So, what other user roles must support auditors? How can we avoid becoming Enron, which also had trusted auditors looking to ensure the shareholders had a realistic view into the financial situation (not!), that were not unfortunately "outside" enough.
This function is so important, betting against the auditor finding problems might have to be supported directly, so there is maximum incentive for auditors to find all problems, and for trolls to keep maximum eye on the auditors. The bureaucratic view is that process works perfectly and never needs outside auditors. This was the view at Enron too.
Auditors are a critical part of any Market Model.