Repute: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Some think that because negative reputation is so hard to make stick to anyone, and because positive '''reputation''' enables so many abuses and is easily distorted or constructed by falsehood, the whole concept of reputation is negative and only enables those capable of promotion regardless of any [[value]]s. Others think that this can be managed but only when reputation itself is always negative, and no one can ever have a good reputation (i.e. reputation is expressed as zero or some negative number, a [[score]] on the [[identity]]). This kind of question is basic to [[social capital]] and [[trademark]] issues. | Some think that because negative reputation is so hard to make stick to anyone, and because positive '''reputation''' enables so many abuses and is easily distorted or constructed by falsehood, the whole concept of reputation is negative and only enables those capable of promotion regardless of any [[value]]s. Others think that this can be managed but only when reputation itself is always negative, and no one can ever have a good reputation (i.e. reputation is expressed as zero or some negative number, a [[score]] on the [[identity]]). This kind of question is basic to [[social capital]] and [[trademark]] issues. | ||
Reputation is basic to | Reputation is basic to '''civilization''' and may be just as disputed a concept. Interestingly, while '''to civilize''' often gets critical attention as a process, as it might imply [[imperialism]] or [[colonialism]], "civilization" itself as a concept rarely or never does, and is almost always assumed to be a good thing. Likewise the word '''reputation''' is assumed good and evokes stability in ways that '''repute''' does not, the latter being associated with verbs like '''reputed''' which imply uncertainty. These are subtle but key differences: | ||
'''Reputation''' is [[factionally defined]], that is, a [[faction]] must exist in order to decide whether someone has high or low [[social capital]]. This is not something that [[Consumerium Services]] themselves can rely on very directly. Our [[trust model]] should have no direct relationship to this idea. | '''Reputation''' is [[factionally defined]], that is, a [[faction]] must exist in order to decide whether someone has high or low [[social capital]]. This is not something that [[Consumerium Services]] themselves can rely on very directly. Our [[trust model]] should have no direct relationship to this idea. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:Contrast [[wiki best practices]] like the [[Lowest Troll]] role, which makes the assumption that any [[conflicts between users]] necessarily lowers the '''repute''' of all involved - thus whoever is involved in all disputes by default is "Lowest", and there is no assumption of any positive repute at all. | :Contrast [[wiki best practices]] like the [[Lowest Troll]] role, which makes the assumption that any [[conflicts between users]] necessarily lowers the '''repute''' of all involved - thus whoever is involved in all disputes by default is "Lowest", and there is no assumption of any positive repute at all. | ||
References: | |||
*biography of James Sirdis | |||
*Great Lakes Native American practices regarding gifting and anoynimity | |||