[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

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)