Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,854
edits
The Consumerium Exchange: Difference between revisions
reorganize for less incoherence. link to Opinion Wiki
(the cuts make this too abstract to be useful - restoring with better explanation, and acknowledging issues that we simply haven't resolved, and maybe can't resolve) |
(reorganize for less incoherence. link to Opinion Wiki) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Purpose== | |||
'''The [[Consumerium]] Exchange''' is where people can voice their opinion on which [[disputed article]] or [[campaign]] is closest to the [[truth]] at or over a certain period of time. All such opinions can change, so there is a need for ex-change, to help them evolve. This must happen quickly so that those who improve their practices are quickly rewarded, and to make it difficult to exploit a good reputation to do hidden harm - which is a common problem. | '''The [[Consumerium]] Exchange''' is where people can voice their opinion on which [[disputed article]] or [[campaign]] is closest to the [[truth]] at or over a certain period of time. All such opinions can change, so there is a need for ex-change, to help them evolve. This must happen quickly so that those who improve their practices are quickly rewarded, and to make it difficult to exploit a good reputation to do hidden harm - which is a common problem. | ||
Thus, the purpose of The Consumerium Exchange is to provide a weighting or combined measurement for different opinions, which determines the default opinion shown to the [[consumer]] on each issue. | Thus, the purpose of The Consumerium Exchange is to provide a weighting or combined measurement for different opinions, which determines the default opinion shown to the [[consumer]] on each issue. | ||
---- | |||
==Current Approach on Development== | |||
There is ongoing research work into fulfilling this need as a Wiki under the working title '''[[Opinion Wiki]]'''. | |||
---- | |||
==Voting== | |||
Every person gets two votes on each issue: | Every person gets two votes on each issue: | ||
*An [[Indirect Vote]]. | *An [[Indirect Vote]]. | ||
| Line 17: | Line 18: | ||
Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated. "The [[stock market]]" does this with [[bet]]s - multiple votes and vote buying are easy, but expensive. A better solution may be out there, but if so, no one seems to have found it yet. | Counter measures against multivoting and vote buying should be meticulously evaluated. "The [[stock market]]" does this with [[bet]]s - multiple votes and vote buying are easy, but expensive. A better solution may be out there, but if so, no one seems to have found it yet. | ||
---- | |||
==Evaluation of Results== | |||
===Subjective Preferences=== | |||
The consumers opinion may be of various types, each with their own rules. For instance, an opinion of the use of a [[resource]] (like [[mahogany tree]]s or [[mangrove tree]]s) or a [[commodity]] (like [[cocoa]]) is different than an opinion of the [[process]] by which a [[product]] or [[service]] comes to the market, e.g. via a [[sweatshop]] or [[prison labour]]. An opinion of a [[company]] or [[country]] will also have its own rules. Each of these can be stated in a [[Consumerium Contract]] by which users accept obligations to meet the specific terms of the [[social contract]] that they expect all suppliers (to them) to follow. | |||
Each consumer can override the view of a given [[interest group]] 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. | |||
=== | ===Peer review=== | ||
Registered members are able to set [[score]]s (with [[comment]]s) on each other extended-FOAF style (Friend Of A Friend/Foe). For instance one may track only foes, using only negative scores. This would be by far the best way to proceed - since [[groupthink]] sets in when any group confuses [[social capital]] with instruction. | Registered members are able to set [[score]]s (with [[comment]]s) on each other extended-FOAF style (Friend Of A Friend/Foe). For instance one may track only foes, using only negative scores. This would be by far the best way to proceed - since [[groupthink]] sets in when any group confuses [[social capital]] with instruction. | ||
| Line 28: | Line 35: | ||
: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 | :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 | ||
---- | ---- | ||
'''See also:''' | |||
*[[Talk:The Consumerium Exchange|The Talk Page for Discussion on this facility]] which outlines the [[bet]] issue in some great depth. | *[[Talk:The Consumerium Exchange|The Talk Page for Discussion on this facility]] which outlines the [[bet]] issue in some great depth. | ||