Consumerium talk:Intermediate page format

From Consumerium development wiki R&D Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

where "Object" is one of the following company, regulator, commodity, product, production method, extraction method, transport method, region, waste disposal method, channel,

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

The order of campaigns could be manually managed or by software if the voting schemes discussed earlier on are applied in practice. Naturally the campaign with broadest support should be listed on top. Perhaps we should develop wiki code for campaign linking.

One idea is as follows to link from the "against" page to [[Campaign:Campaign Name-3]] and [[Campaign:Campaign Name-3]] would be #REDIRECT [[Campaign:Campaign Name]]

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

Would rather see "pro" and "con" since these are based on Latin terms and so are more recognizable in all languages. Also they're the same length. And it leaves the word "for" meaning "towards a goal" which can be more specific... We should be careful about overloading words, especially those on the glossary.