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

Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Re: Corporate Morality

I believe that the attempt to extend reputation and ranking
systems to cover real-world data *directly* is overly
ambitious, at this juncture.    (01)

But I believe that such systems can be usefully and properly
employed as meta data, in the near term.    (02)

In other words, the km system would not record that statement
A was somehow a more accurate reflection of real world events.    (03)

It would instead record that X number of readers found it
persuasive, compelling, useful, etc.    (04)

In essence, it is a voting system, with no single winner, but
one which the "well-liked" portrayals rise to the top.    (05)

Perfect? No.
Useful? Yes.    (06)

stephen white wrote:    (07)

> 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
> I agree with your reasoning, but would like to offer a different
> perspective on the conclusion.
> Imagine if two people with knowledge managers saw something happen. How
> would they record the event in their knowledge managers?
> The first might record: "Blue car impacted red car at 12:53am @ 51 Fred
> Street".
> The second might write: "Dark car suddenly braked near shops and got
> hit by Commodore"
> 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.
>      First: Blue car   impacted      red car       at 12:53am     @ 51
> Fred Street
>     Second: Commodore              Dark, braked
> near shops
> 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?
> 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?
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> --
>    spwhite@chariot.net.au    (08)