How edits, votes and bets affect the Consumerium buying signal (via the Signal Wiki directly and the Research Wiki indirectly) is up for debate. See Opinion Wiki, the old name for the research wiki, for a more complete description of functions, though it includes some that may have to be separated, like Campaigns.
This applies to controversial edits almost exclusively: Non-controversial edits don't need any one else to edit them afterwards. They don't need to be voted on. And they don't need anyone betting on them or against them with a revert currency. But if it's controversial, one or more of those things will happen!
This is probably the design issue that is hardest to resolve, as different factions typically view these in quite a different manner.
- It is possible to manage it as a trusted priestly hierarchy as Wikipedia does, but this degrades the dissensus, annoys trolls and is very fragile, as it can easily be infiltrated by a funded troll who can block IP of those who oppose eir client.
- It is possible to have factions compete in a voting system, but this values poor contributors as much as good ones based on politics as usual. It could degrade to a simple popularity contest, and popular companies that do extremely nasty things championed by popular people will evade much scrutiny.
- It is possible to create a revert currency and do betting in it, or in cash even, but this is just another system suitable for hacking.
None of these options is perfect, and combining them in any way creates something new that the Consumerium Governance Organization can't be quite sure will work.
However, when designing something complex like Consumerium, complex choices have to be made. See life exchange for an example of tough choices that are expressed directly and honestly in such a system, to get an idea of how controversial it might be to relate edits, votes and bets to life and death decisions.