Austin’s Michelle Greer bemoans Whuffie?
She makes a good point that “good feelings” about people and “exposure” doesn’t mean a paycheck. I think however, that her issue actually gives credence to the need for a defined and implemented Whuffie system.
In other words if indivudals knew they could get proper recognition, credibility, and bennies for philanthropic ventures they might be much more motivated to participate. (end tumbld)
We are not at a point that “reputation economies” are realized. But they could be I think.
Another factor in reputation capital is time. Famous artisans of yesteryear found recognition after their deaths with their relatives inheriting the public’s license of intellectual properties. However, with global communications and global economics perhaps that is no more? A teenager invents a new process or application and retires a billionaire at 25.
Perhaps we are experiencing a realignment of economics that were formally constrained by location, availability, and time that will demand a metric for social capital?
Tumbled:
Link to Fast Company Article
Fast Company tells us about Givewell a non-profit watchdog for the non-profits. While it seems a little overblown to me, the article does bring up the topic of social capital. Suggesting a metric for credibility for non-profits.
A few thoughts about this:
1) Philanthropy must and always be the root purpose of whuffie. Attempts to make it purely a social tool to serve peoples and their groups or as an alternate form of monetization will fail. While it can serve those needs indirectly because it is reliant on the group, the primary group interest is philanthropy.
2) A “Whuffie” metric system would have avoided the debacle altogether. As the fake members in the blog application would have had no cred to begin with.
Lovecraft, Mary Shelly, H.G. Wells all givens -a couple I have not read and a couple I have not heard of but a decent suggested bookflight. While opinion is always subjective, Annlee Newtiz lists a good spread, leaving out Ray Bradbury and Robert A. Heinlein was a mistake to me. I just completed Cory’s Overclocked collection of short stories. I think his redux “I-Robot” is a classic. Much Like Stephen Kings “Battleground” it is a marker of short form ascendancy. Vivid, and rich it stands on it’s own and has staying power in my headspace. I am really glad that she listed DOIMK, however I am not entirely with her review, did she read it?(below). To me the power of Doctorow’s book is in it’s social and culteral exploration of technology. While the writing style was actually a little off rhythmically for me, the hybrid dystopian corporate setting laid perfect background for exploration of ethics and human behavior. Yes I read it as a download to my palm top, it inspired this blog, and I have purchased more than one copy for friends and family. It is indeed a classic. But to me maybe not so much for literary prowess, more as a zeitgeist and showcase of Cory’s ability to stir the chicken bones and read the future.
“Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom (2003), by Cory Doctorow
Not only did this novel usher in a new wave of postcyber writing about downloadable brains and uploadable desires, but it also changed the way science fiction writers thought about books. Doctorow has always insisted on making his novels available for free online, and has helped popularize the idea of questioning traditional copyrights in the scifi world. So this novel has changed your world already, by helping to make the business of scifi writing as tomorrow-minded as scifi itself.” Annalee Newitz/i09.com
Person Cory Doctorow
Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts
When personal information continues to aggregate at blinding speeds in the hands of our government, sentient people ask, what is privacy and why should it be valued? Transparency is the manifesto for those on the cluetrain, and many are espousing that privacy is only for criminals. Truly valuable men and women have nothing to hide and therefore freely give away privacy to anyone?
This is fine if you trust the content holders. Google with it’s massive usership continues to uphold high whuffie ratings and is considered “trusted” at this point. Microsoft is not. Apple is for now.
This news item about corruption and mismanagement of information technology reminds me of the intrinsic weakness of government systems: all are weak.
“..the District may be unable to reliably answer the most important security questions: which servers were found, how many laptops were connected to them, what was the chain of custody and who had access to them.”
Healthy information boundaries should be well thought out, tested, implemented, and reconfigured in today’s citizen governemnt democracies.
Soon metal may never require paint. Researchers are now testing high output laser abrasions that refract light to a controllable color. Black or blue gold, aluminum, even multi color. The article suggests one could have their family laser etched on to the hood of the car at the factory. Never requiring paint, polish, or maintenance.
This is good for our environment. While the power requirements are likely energy intensive, diminishing all those toxic paint chemicals would be nice. full story
via shawnblog
Manned Cloud is a flying hotel proposed by French designer Jean-Marie Massaud
via Futurismic
“This had started out being a program to track or identify criminals,” he said. “Now we’re talking about large swaths of the population — workers, volunteers in youth programs. Eventually, it’s going to be everybody.”
Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Technology and Liberty Project
Obviously updating our technology is an imperative. However the power of that new technology questions: are lawful citizens safe, afforded their rights, and have reasonable privacy? Who pays when “mistakes are made”?
Who watches the watchers?
Also, what type of unfair advantages or imbalance of power would be created if democratic nations where far more sensitive to individual rights resulting in more privacy for citizens and extreme aggregation of information in their repressive government counter parts?
According to this info from Ebay about changes in 2008 negative and neutral feedback will be removed from Feedback for sellers and buyers. They claim that too many people were afraid to leave negative feedback for fear of retaliation.
Brilliant. Theres a trust metric shot to hell. I guess that leaves an open door for a new auction site based on Ebay’s model with an intact use of social trust. Or just a stand alone site that allows feedback for Ebay users…or better yet the implementation of true Whuffie!
This is a step backwards. The reasoning is wrong, as is the action. Corporate bureaucracy at it’s best. Next they will say that to be fair to other bidder’s sellers can only name one price and the first one to bid pays that amount.
I give Ebay negative feedback.