Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,856
edits
The Consumerium Exchange: Difference between revisions
extended FOAF-style peer review of participants
m (more moving) |
(extended FOAF-style peer review of participants) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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 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 of a given company, interest group or industry with her/his own preferences automatically or manually. One important preference is the slider to set how much weight direct and indirect votes get. Enabling automatic exclusion of votes based on preferences should also be possible. | The consumer can override the view of a given company, interest group or industry with her/his own [[preferences]] automatically or manually. One important preference is the slider to set how much weight direct and indirect votes get. Enabling automatic exclusion of votes based on preferences should also be possible. | ||
===Distribution of power=== | |||
Every person gets two votes on each issue: | Every person gets two votes on each issue: | ||
*An [[Indirect Vote]]. | *An [[Indirect Vote]]. | ||
*A [[Direct Vote]]. | *A [[Direct Vote]]. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated. | Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated. | ||
===Other functions in the exchange=== | |||
Registered members are able to set [[score]]s (with [[comment]]s) on each other extended-FOAF style (Friend Of A Friend/Foe). | |||
This would provide more strongly differentiated views on the issues if FOAF-aggregation is enabled in the preferences of the [[consumer]]. | |||
Of course the consumer has to decide on a few organsations (minimum being one) s/he chooses to trust the most and the value of other participants is then relative to what organisations are saying about each other. | |||
One could ask well why not full campaigns on other campaigners? | |||
:The anwser being no, not campaigns, because it would lead to all sorts of conceptual unclarities, problems with infinite recursion and besides if party A has an view on party B that view is a private matter of Party A, not party C | |||