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?
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.
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.
It is rather ironic that you did not deign Liron Shapira's second question important enough to outline even the shortest of counteroffer.So, what would you require to answer to the above question Robin?
Seems kinda like the system of bounties that stackexchange uses but expanded to a more general discussion.
I like it (SE is too limited in discussions it allows..tho for good reasons) but think someone needs to go build tech to support this to solve the notification and etc issues and (more challenging but I agree with the strategy you suggest of initial endowment) convince ppl to use it.
Since the number of followers is the cost, the makes the problem of bot followers worse by attaching explicit value to it. And while the cost scales with the number of followers, it does not scale with the difficulty of generating a comment. So costlier comments may be blocked more often and as a result there would be few deep comments.
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.
What if they just rehash existing points without really addressing the tweet they are replying to? This seems to happen a lot in political arenas and seem to be sufficiently socially acceptable.
I suppose if the same person did this a lot, they'd get fewer requests.
What about the blocked frequency. If it is too high then success rate may be too low to be usable. If on the other hand, success rate is too high then these tokens may be traded for advertising purposes: request a comment from someone so the reply appears in the feed of their followers (and defeat the original purpose).
Later we probably need a way to add more credits to ensure trading liquidity
This seems important. On average a user had (total # tokens / total # users in the system) tokens. Maybe inflate the values as more people join the system? Produce dividends from all existing tokens.
Generally, my gut feeling is that this won't work unless every detail is well designed. Otherwise, it would either die from lack of use or devolve into something else failing the original purpose of trading comments. I'd really like there to be such a system though (that hopefully also extends outside Twitter).
As you may know, people often react quite negatively to cash offers for social favors, as they interpret such offers as saying bad things about social relations.
One of the things you yourself have pointed out repeatedly is that people are more eager to talk than to listen. Conversations don't work like transactions where each keeps track of the other's debits.
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.
I elaborate on this idea on this blog post: https://whynotparliamentari...
But I DID answer, on Twitter.
It is rather ironic that you did not deign Liron Shapira's second question important enough to outline even the shortest of counteroffer.So, what would you require to answer to the above question Robin?
Klout used to provide a metric like that (but across websites).
Maybe we need something like pagerank for number of followers.
Seems kinda like the system of bounties that stackexchange uses but expanded to a more general discussion.
I like it (SE is too limited in discussions it allows..tho for good reasons) but think someone needs to go build tech to support this to solve the notification and etc issues and (more challenging but I agree with the strategy you suggest of initial endowment) convince ppl to use it.
Since the number of followers is the cost, the makes the problem of bot followers worse by attaching explicit value to it. And while the cost scales with the number of followers, it does not scale with the difficulty of generating a comment. So costlier comments may be blocked more often and as a result there would be few deep comments.
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.
What if they just rehash existing points without really addressing the tweet they are replying to? This seems to happen a lot in political arenas and seem to be sufficiently socially acceptable.
I suppose if the same person did this a lot, they'd get fewer requests.
What about the blocked frequency. If it is too high then success rate may be too low to be usable. If on the other hand, success rate is too high then these tokens may be traded for advertising purposes: request a comment from someone so the reply appears in the feed of their followers (and defeat the original purpose).
Later we probably need a way to add more credits to ensure trading liquidity
This seems important. On average a user had (total # tokens / total # users in the system) tokens. Maybe inflate the values as more people join the system? Produce dividends from all existing tokens.
Generally, my gut feeling is that this won't work unless every detail is well designed. Otherwise, it would either die from lack of use or devolve into something else failing the original purpose of trading comments. I'd really like there to be such a system though (that hopefully also extends outside Twitter).
As you may know, people often react quite negatively to cash offers for social favors, as they interpret such offers as saying bad things about social relations.
1. How about just offering a tip / cash bounty when soliciting someone to respond?
2. What would it take for you personally to respond to this :)https://twitter.com/liron/s...
One of the things you yourself have pointed out repeatedly is that people are more eager to talk than to listen. Conversations don't work like transactions where each keeps track of the other's debits.