Talk:Consumerium Process

From Consumerium development wiki R&D Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

THIS PAGE IS FOR DISCUSSING THE 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:

Research Wiki

  • 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 pages that they sign and 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.
  • One option besides signing, would be to use time not edited, that an article is not edited by anyone to determine when it goes to the Signal Wiki but this apparently has the disadvantage that people who wish to stop some intermediate article reaching the Signal Wiki could make trivial edits to keep the time from elapsing.

Signal Wiki

  • 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.

Campaigns

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?--Juxo 23:31, 11 Mar 2004 (EET)

I suggest that Campaigns and TCE functionality should go to the Signal Wiki for the Campaign-functionality is briefly described as facts about somebody expressing an opinion about something or facts about someones support for some opinion

Now the strict multilevel security measures described in Opinion Wiki will have to be played down to make Signal Wiki operation more feasible. --Juxo 22:13, 11 Mar 2004 (EET)

Things that campaigns claim are true should be fact-checked, like any other research.

Why? Campaigns can state whatever (as long as it's not offensive) and if it bears no resemblance to reality then the support of the Campaign would be relatively low rendering it "out of sight" or the bottom of the pack. --Juxo 13:30, 14 Mar 2004 (EET)
do not use vague words like "support" to mean something specific that is actually any of edits, votes and bets, however this is done. Until you can say how this works, you can't say that things that aren't true from my point of view won't be visible to me.

So there's an argument to require them to encounter "the other side", i.e. opposing factions, 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.

The difference between Campaign and not, might be, a campaign signal must be passed or failed, and cannot be edited.

What does pass or fail mean in practice? The Lowest Troll does not understand. --Juxo 13:30, 14 Mar 2004 (EET)
To avoid being bitten on the leg by the [[Lowest Troll], the lowly but not lowest trolls say: either you see the campaign as it was designed to be seen, or you do not see it at all. It is never filtered or censored and it is not subject to factionally defined edits. Fair? It's just like doing an ad campaign which is hopefully more like a public service campaign.

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.

Development Wiki

See also Talk:Development Wiki for more on this.

Paper Consumerium

Also we should rethink everything about Signal Wiki to accomodate the concerns User:DanKeshet raised. The idea of printing a book is a good one, and it's now dealt with in Consumerium buying signal directly. It is lower tech than the audio stuff even. And it would certainly serve for instance purposes like the Big Carrot's, they could print the book and go through to figure out if they really had to stock a product, or if they could ditch it and there was sufficient competing substitutes (something a human has to figure out). Remember, getting the crap off the retail shelf entirely has the biggest impact! Anyone willing to be friendly retail might also be quite willing to vet their products this way!

About links in section headers: this should be required for Consumerium:intermediate pages or any other page where the section heading is standard and has a standard meaning that is explained on the linked-to page. It should also be required where there is a full page on the issue and it's a proper noun, e.g. Paper Consumerium. For generics it probably should not be, as the whole generic explanation may not be appropriate. In general you need a good reason to keep comment on an issue that there's already a full page about, on THIS page, and the link-in-section-title reminds of that.