Sometimes I’d like a particular person to comment on a particular thing I say. And maybe these particular people sometimes find themselves in similar situations. Could we make a deal here, wherein I reply to them in trade for them replying to me? And can we set up a system to lower the trouble and cost of arranging for such deals?
In this post, I outline a simple design for such a system built on top of Twitter. It doesn’t need official support from Twitter, though they might have an advantage in setting it up to function well.
Let’s say you have N followers on Twitter. You can at anytime toggle a public bit that says you are willing to respond to one comment. Any account with least N credits in the system, and which you have not blocked, can then officially request that you comment on a particular tweet, within D days. This request comes to you via a tweet or direct message. If you block the account of the requestor or tweet, the request is cancelled (or never happens).
If you reply to (or retweet) that tweet with your tweet containing at least X commenting characters, their account goes down by N credits, and yours goes up by N. If system credits are public, observers can check that the accounting is being done right. If you neither block nor respond within D days, their request is cancelled and your participation in this system is frozen until you go through some trouble to unfreeze it.
And that’s the basic system. Yes, people might “comment” with text that basically says “No comment”, but informal social shaming seems sufficient to deal with that, and the requestor could at least publicly show that they had nothing more substantial to say. Yes, it might get tedious to keep blocking accounts to which you don’t want to respond, but hey why not just respond to one and be done with it?
Yes, the system needs to start with some folks holding some credits. It probably makes sense to take the initial Facebook strategy of starting the system by endowing a few social elites with credits. Then it would at first be a prestige thing to have credits in the system, as you can’t get them until some insider asks you to comment on them. Later we probably need a way to add more credits to ensure trading liquidity; might a monetary expert weigh on on how best to do this?
Instead of having to request comment from a particular person, you might prefer to pick a whole set of accounts, and request that one of them comment. (First one gets it.) But then we’d have to notify that whole set of this request, and that might bother people with too many notifications. As I’m not sure how to fix this, I’d start the system with only direct requests to one person.
So, might this work? Do you see bugs & fixes? Anyone want to set this up?
I find Wikipedia brilliant, and think they have stumbled upon a great way to do collaborative work. I also agree that adversarial collaboration is a key component. Where I think my proposal could (emphasis on could) over the Wikipedia model in some circumstances is in ditching the necessity of consensus. While Wikipedia works very well (particularly comparing to other websites) it has some limitations. The consensus model allows for some protracted "Wikipedia wars". Moreover, Wikipedia is by construction limited in its ambitions because of its open nature - e.g., 1) neutral point of view prevents it from taking stances on matters that do have a truth value but are not consensual, 2) no original research. I must stress that this is not a proposition to reform Wikipedai in the direction I mentioned; Wikipedia is working great as it is. But a similar approach with some key distinctions might add value where Wikipedia now can't.
Seems interesting.
Incidentally, as a Wikipedia editor*, I happen to know about how Wikipedia articles are written: basically, people individually amend the article to add text/references/images/templates/cleanup tags/etc, and if anything is controversial people argue it out on talk pages, and the semi-miraculous(?) thing is that articles end up being reliable anyways despite being generated by a potentially-very-unreliable source. This makes me think that the key component is adversarial collaborations, which both Robin’s proposal, the parliamentary model, and the Wikipedia model all encourage (by forcing potential adversaries to only be able to collaborate on a single shared work).
*My username there is “Duckmather”, for anyone who wants to check.