(Scoring system's discussion is in the article's page now.)
- I believe this is a very good idea. What has Manuel and Fabian to say about it? Is the prototype ready for a serious debate or needs some tweaking? --Matías Battocchia 19:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the scoring system page itself illustrates a few positive and negative features of the system: positively speaking, it can be seen how some of the later proposals synthesize earlier ones (e.g. the 'skins' idea in proposal 8). On a more negative note, there are a couple of methods of cheating, or abuse, inherent in the system:
- The first is related to the number of proposals which sprang up in a short space of time after the article was posted. If you scale this up to, for example, a nation deciding its scoring system for future governance, you could have thousands of proposals, many of them spurious. Within the existing community which was involved in starting the project, you might have small but dedicated groups supporting some of the better proposals and honestly assigning synthesis scores to others. I, however, might be the editor of a powerful tabloid with a vested interest in proposal 6 - I could write an editorial about how this is the only moral way of scoring proposals and how despicable proposals 1 and 3 (its 2 major rivals) are. I could then give my readers detailed instructions on how to join the voting community, vote for proposal 6 and use synthesis scores to further weaken proposals 1 and 3. The entire system will then have been manipulated by a demagog and turned by this into the rule of the mob. The solution to this could only be to not allow new members to vote for a certain period.
- The second issue is to do with user scores - an issue which proposal 6 and its comments indicate generates a lot of emotions both pro and against. Is the voting visible or anonymous? If anonymous, someone with a high user score has, in effect, more power than others, and has the ability to abuse that power without getting caught.
As a new member, I'm not sure what the etiquette for submitting proposals is, which is why I've written this on the Talk page. My proposal for a system would, however, be this:
- You could perhaps use user scores in that only users with high scores could make proposals, this to limit the sheer number and possible spurious nature of proposals (people with lower scores could petition them to make proposals on their behalf, so they would serve in effect as community filters). After this, a random selection of people who have been members of the community over a certain period would form a group to analyse the proposal and any others which might conflict with it, generate further synthetic proposals and come to a decision.