That's interesting. Collaborate social media. I had a similar thought that I posted on Aether a while back about marrying open moderation with liquid/delegative democracy. It wouldn't be possible...
That's interesting. Collaborate social media. I had a similar thought that I posted on Aether a while back about marrying open moderation with liquid/delegative democracy. It wouldn't be possible on a platform like that one because of the additional traffic required in order to establish consensus.
The basic idea was that all users could take moderation actions: deleting comments, banning users, tagging or categorizing posts. Applying these changes would open the moderation action up for vote which all users could weigh in on. By default, the person who initiated the moderation action would vote for it but they could change their vote if they were so inclined. The logistics of how many users have to vote in order for the action to be applied, what kind of time constraint should apply, how the pending moderation actions are presented to the users is all important but haven't been considered.
Users can also distribute their voting power, as in liquid democracy, to any number of delegates and change that delegative distribution on a case-by-case basis (effectively just change their vote). If they've delegated voting power to users A,B, and C evenly, each getting an additional 0.333... votes, and each voting to ban user D, they can view that moderation decision and override the application of their vote in that instance. Voting power on future mod actions would still be distributed to A,B, and C as described so long as the user hasn't changed their default delegation settings.
That's interesting. Collaborate social media. I had a similar thought that I posted on Aether a while back about marrying open moderation with liquid/delegative democracy. It wouldn't be possible on a platform like that one because of the additional traffic required in order to establish consensus.
The basic idea was that all users could take moderation actions: deleting comments, banning users, tagging or categorizing posts. Applying these changes would open the moderation action up for vote which all users could weigh in on. By default, the person who initiated the moderation action would vote for it but they could change their vote if they were so inclined. The logistics of how many users have to vote in order for the action to be applied, what kind of time constraint should apply, how the pending moderation actions are presented to the users is all important but haven't been considered.
Users can also distribute their voting power, as in liquid democracy, to any number of delegates and change that delegative distribution on a case-by-case basis (effectively just change their vote). If they've delegated voting power to users A,B, and C evenly, each getting an additional 0.333... votes, and each voting to ban user D, they can view that moderation decision and override the application of their vote in that instance. Voting power on future mod actions would still be distributed to A,B, and C as described so long as the user hasn't changed their default delegation settings.
Do they follow Wikipedia rules in other respects? Do posts have named authors or editors, or is it anonymous worker bees other than the history page?