Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Re: Corporate Morality
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 10:32 AM, Eric Armstrong wrote:
> So the goal is to *allow* millions of people to participate, issue by
> issue, in a way that lets the opinions of the most informed rule.
> That translates to:
> 1) Ranking systems -- so ideas can be evaluated
> 2) Reputation systems -- so evaluators can be ranked (01)
I agree with your reasoning, but would like to offer a different
perspective on the conclusion. (02)
Imagine if two people with knowledge managers saw something happen. How
would they record the event in their knowledge managers? (03)
The first might record: "Blue car impacted red car at 12:53am @ 51 Fred
Street". (04)
The second might write: "Dark car suddenly braked near shops and got
hit by Commodore" (05)
How could these opinions be rated? The first looks more authorative,
but the second assigns the blame. Both statements contain information
the other statement doesn't. (06)
First: Blue car impacted red car at 12:53am @ 51
Fred Street
Second: Commodore Dark, braked
near shops (07)
Imagine these two people don't know each other personally, but they
subscribe to the same local community collaboration system. How could
these people realise they saw the same event and boost their collective
knowledge? (08)
Ratings systems might independently give a 7 for importance to the
first one and a 4 to the second one, but how do these two points get
joined together? (09)
One way would be to ask more questions until sufficient detail has been
extracted to automatically compare the events. This essentially means
that all entries will need to follow an approved format in order to fit
into the standard model. Very annoying. (010)
Another way would be to record more information at the time. If both of
them had been carrying GPS recorders, it would be easy for a computer
to get these two people together to talk about what they saw. (011)
I think the problem is how to re-discover the underlying reality after
it's been through the language wringer, in a form precise enough for a
computer to be able to handle the most basic correlations between real
world events. (012)
Unfortunately, people just aren't going to carry things that record
their every movement while it can be taken from them and used against
them. Computers need to be legally recognised as an extension of the
owner's brain, and therefore entitled to the same rights to privacy as
the grey matter inside our own skulls. (013)
--
spwhite@chariot.net.au (014)