THINKING
ABOUT AN ISSUES ENGINE
Can many voices be heard in the
process of reform?
Or is the promise of the
internet — to invite everyone
who wants to, to review and influence global issues — already doomed and defeated by
all the clutter in every server's files and on all
their clients' drives. We have built a tower of
Babel for every separate language and
culture: what should have set us free has
shackled us with chaotic streams of words that
will never serve a purpose.
It takes less than a single day
for any internet forum to accept more writing
than its members can read. In a week they
are fully unconnected from each other. The new interactive internet is no
more effective than the old letters to
the editor. Interactivity, so far, only works for games
and selling stuff — including lies and
schemes we ought to be ashamed of. Yet their is a
way out of this conundrum! Imagine that Google cares to invent
a global issues
engine.
- You don't submit an
issue (which must present a problem
and one or more solutions) until you have read an issue
similar to (or the same as) the one you have in
mind.
- When you do submit your issue, the issues engine interacts with you until you and it
are content that the issue has been standardized to share the
vocabulary, logic and style of all other issues
in a data base of standard issues.
- Every standard
issue will have a tally of votes in favor of
its final form.
- If people persist in
defining problems and solutions that are nearly
the same as others — but different —
such different
issues will be temporarily defined as
different because they receive a very low number
of votes.
- Human
editors, working with automated text conformers,
will decide which issues can form the foundation of the data base
— and which will be excluded from the
foundation; these will be kept as
alternative similar issues or texts for
the same issue, and will be reachable only
through it.
- Within a very short time, a
finite listing of foundational issues will be on
line for millions to read. Each of its entries
will have a very large supporting vote. Linked to
such issues will be minority view alternatives anyone can reach and vote for.
- Over time, if highly skilled
human editors can be found, the foundational set
of issues will get better not worse: the early
popularity of inferior products that tends to
perpetuates itself by unjustified popularity
alone, will have to be fought by editors
looking for quality defined — not by
popularity — but by excellence (that may defy all easy measure.)
- To improve excellence and
objectivity, three data bases, each with their
own foundations, will initially be maintained
— one politically left, one right and one
in-between the other two.
The cost of all the above will be
very high. Google, commercial partners, educational
foundations, and the Library of Congress may manage the
project aimed at the above result.
A rival activity, perhaps led
by Yahoo, Britannica and MIT, will also be attempted.
Other nations and other
players will be encouraged to produce competitive
products.
Within a relatively short
time, the political and economic issues that the
internet has failed to simplify and rationalize will
be available for every person on earth to understand
and contribute to.
Will such library of
political and economic issues be worth its cost of
construction?
- Many will contribute
words. Millions will contribute votes.
- Conventional polling of
representative samples of public opinion
will be able to be compared and improved (if
they remain significant) by the products
of such issues engines.
- I wouldn't be surprised
if economic democracy were born as a
result of all the effort and expense.
Earlier
Date Reply
Archive
Return to TIEA.us
|
