Jump to content

Talk:Consumerium Process: Difference between revisions

moved from article for discussion here
(dealing with Dan's concerns)
(moved from article for discussion here)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''THIS PAGE IS FOR DISCUSSING THE [[Consumerium Process|CONSUMERIUM PROCESS]]. USE THIS PAGE AS A FOCUS POINT FOR FIGURING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCESSES ENABLING [[Consumerium Services]] and [[Features]]'''
'''THIS PAGE IS FOR DISCUSSING THE [[Consumerium Process|CONSUMERIUM PROCESS]]. USE THIS PAGE AS A FOCUS POINT FOR FIGURING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCESSES ENABLING [[Consumerium Services]] and [[Features]]'''


The '''Consumerium Process''' is how data gets from unreliable anonymous trolls to the [[Consumerium buying signal]] to bring down major transnats as the [[CGO]] fends off their lawsuits.  It is not going to be easy to figure out.
Vaguely, the idea so far is:
1. Anonymous [[trolls]] dump unreliable crap data into the [[Research Wiki]] claiming it has excellent credentials and is true beyond reasonable doubt.  Actual researchers investigate these claims to the best of their ability and refine this crap into [[Consumerium:intermediate page]]s that they sign and [[edits, votes and bets|somehow stake something on so we know they believe it]].  The crap and quality must co-exist in the same wiki, this is where it gets sorted out.
:There may or may not be [[Campaign]]s in this same wiki.  If not, then we have separate [[Opinion Wiki]]
:: IMHO [[Campaigns]] are essential to the generating the [[Consumerium buying signal]] so I think they should be in [[Signal Wiki]]. Not sure though. Any arguments against?--[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 23:31, 11 Mar 2004 (EET)
:::Things that campaigns claim are true should be fact-checked, like any other research.  So there's an argument to require them to encounter "the other side", i.e. opposing [[faction]]s, fairly early.  Though, for a campaign to be effective, it would have to be able to propagate its own idea of its message into the [[Signal Wiki]], so, probably, it has a presence in both of these.  One can think of it as somewhat higher integrity [[advertising]], perhaps.  Besides, the [[Campaign]] is just another entity that can sign a page, so:
2. Signed pages are assumed correct by default.  But because this information is not factually reliable, and there might be serious implications of releasing it, it goes through a final stage at the [[Signal Wiki]] where the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] makes its standard disclaimers and if necessary edits out stuff that it can't release, perhaps per country.  We don't say that ''anything'' is necessarily a "fact", for legal reasons, ''Note that the [[Content Wiki]] conception assumed that we could.  But, really, we can't.''
::The difference between [[Campaign]] and not, might be, a campaign signal must be passed or failed, and cannot be edited.  While one can edit a non-campaign signal.  Note that [[advertising]] for [[green light]] products would work on the same grounds, and we might be able to charge for those to make the whole [[healthy signal infrastructure]] [[self-funding]].  Just one of many ideas to make us less dependent on [[volunteer labour]], which always comes with biases.
3. Every problem ends up back at this [[Development Wiki]] where more [[trolls]] gnaw on it.
See also [[Talk:Development Wiki]] for more on this.
----
This is just as I imagined it would work since you introduced "proper" descriptions and distinguishation between [[Signal Wiki]] and [[Research Wiki]]. I agree we should go on using these terms and adopt the stuff from [[Opinion Wiki]] and [[Content Wiki]] to these articles.  
This is just as I imagined it would work since you introduced "proper" descriptions and distinguishation between [[Signal Wiki]] and [[Research Wiki]]. I agree we should go on using these terms and adopt the stuff from [[Opinion Wiki]] and [[Content Wiki]] to these articles.  


9,854

edits

We use only those cookies necessary for the functioning of the website.