Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 11/07 00:33 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 10/07 10:55 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 04/07 20:48 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 03/07 17:40 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 17/06 00:50 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 17/06 00:47 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 17/06 00:46 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 16/06 14:08 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 16/06 13:12 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 14/06 06:49 +1 Re: Screenshot
Latest posts
- 11/07 00:33 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 10/07 10:55 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 04/07 20:48 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 03/07 17:40 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 17/06 00:50 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 17/06 00:47 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 17/06 00:46 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 16/06 14:08 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 16/06 13:12 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 14/06 06:49 +1 Re: Screenshot
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
top-politics
-
09/06/06 05:05
Smartocracy
From:
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/smartocracy-hicss2007.pdf —————————————————————————————————————- Smartocracy:
Social Networks for Collective Decision Making
Marko A. Rodriguez
Daniel J. Steinbock
Jennifer H. WatkinsABSTRACT
Smartocracy is a social software system for collective decision making. The system is composed of a social network that links individuals to those they trust to make good decisions and a decision network that links individuals to their voted-on solutions. Such networks allow for a variety of algorithms that convert the link choices made by individual participants into specific decision outcomes. Simply interpreting the linkages differently (e.g. ignoring trust links, or using them to weight an individual’s vote) provides for a variety of outcomes fit for different decision making scenarios. This paper will discuss the Smartocracy network data structures, the suite of collective decision making algorithms currently supported, and the results of two collective decisions regarding the design of the system. ————————————————————————————————————————- Comments please.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
Thank you Mark for sending this to the group.
It is nice thing to notice that the whole work is avaliable to the public.
BTW, why did you send it, actually? Is there any thing we could differ about this work and ideas it mentions?
ATB;
Gale
+1
-
09/06/06 21:35
Smartocracy + SD2
>G: Thank you Mark for sending this to the group.
-M: :-)
>G: It is nice thing to notice that the whole work is avaliable to the public. BTW, why did you send it, actually?
-M: I like it because it seems SD2 compatible.(Almost any system can work under SD2, but Smartocracy seems to seemlessly be integratable with SD2 methods and philosophy.)
>G: Is there any thing we could differ about this work and ideas it mentions? ATB; Gale
-M: Its not a complete system. Whenever a decision is made, a new trust network is formed – this creates only a temporary trust-nucleus.
By contrast, if it operated under SD2, a stable body of generalists would be formed also, who would be experts in asking the right questions and would know how to frame issues in their correct context. This body would also oversee the physical implimentation and upgrades of the Smartocracy system.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
Actually it is the same network having different outputs due to different inputs. I am saying that as long as I consider social network one and only and what I am looking for are just mechanisms that empower it as long as bottom up decision making process needs one.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
illegale wrote: >G: Actually it is the same network having different outputs due to different inputs.
-M: Same and different – the mix would differ based on the voter turnout.
I think that effectively it would be the ‘same’ network.>G: I am saying that as long as I consider social network one and only and what I am looking for are just mechanisms that empower it as long as bottom up decision making process needs one. ATB, Gale
-M: OK, agreed and understood.
I will also add that SD2-based general rank would be good for organizing an administrative hierarchy.
So SD2 would be ‘above’ and ‘below’ a Smartocracy system.
Cool? Comments anyone?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
It might be, for an example for selection of top
judge/arbiter/president or something like that. Yet, I am not willing to create models that need pretty tough legitimation process in a moment we do not have event network to make it.ATB,
Gale
+1
-
11/06/06 17:29
Screenshot
illegale wrote: >G: It might be, for an example for selection of top judge/arbiter/president or something like that. Yet, I am not willing to create models that need pretty tough legitimation process in a moment we do not have event network to make it. ATB, Gale
-M: Screenshot: ——————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Name ___________________________]
Manditory representitives: [(default), (default)]
Optional additional representitives: _______________________] ____________________________________________________]
Issue X Y Z
Vote:
Yes [ ] No [ ] Pass [ ]Optional delegate(s) (will default to representitives if none are selected): ________________________________________]
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Just filling out one’s name makes one a registered voter and a candidate.
And filling out ANY point in the issue section makes one an active voter on the issue.The idea here is to give maximum choice and opportunity to the voter.
What do you all think?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
-M: Screenshot: ——————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Name ___________________________]
Manditory representitives: [(default), (default)]
Optional additional representitives: _______________________] ____________________________________________________]
How many people do you want to be in the trustee board? 1[ ], 3[ ], or 5[ ]? (Chaired by those with the highest general rank.)
Issue XYZ
Vote:
Yes [ ] No [ ] Pass [ ]Optional delegate(s) (will default to representitives if none are selected): ________________________________________]
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————- Just filling out one’s name makes one a registered voter and a candidate.
And filling out ANY point in the issue section makes one an active voter on the issue.
The idea here is to give maximum choice and opportunity to the voter.
What do you all think?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
Do we need it right now? If not, when we gonna need it?
ATB;
Gale
+1
-
>G: Do we need it right now? If not, when we gonna need it? ATB; Gale
-M: Smartocracy seems like the best current operational model, which can be improved with SD2 and TOP.
So I am not proposing it for TOP specificly.
I am proposing it as an improvement for Smartocracy.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
Do you see anybody interested in Smartocracy around?
It seems to me group has died. Probably no interest in group projects.
So, what might be interest, if not group projects, are comments of exact things, as long as there is more then plenty of non checked models that are not too interesting for discussions any more. People got tired of them, if I may notice.
ATB;
Gale
+1
-
illegale wrote: >G: Do you see anybody interested in Smartocracy around?
-M: You? I would like to give Karl and Markus time to comment.
>G: It seems to me group has died. Probably no interest in group projects. So, what might be interest, if not group projects, are comments of exact things, as long as there is more then plenty of non checked models that are not too interesting for discussions any more. People got tired of them, if I may notice. ATB; Gale
-M: Smartocracy is the most promising thing that I have seen, and I want to give it a chance.(If few/no one here is interested, this is then revealing about the group.)
And it is advanced enough where few modifications by an INDIVIDUAL could yield a distinct program.
And I just e-mailed them and told them that I want access to their site and software.
Hopefully they will be responsive.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
There are two things I like to seperate. Visions and strategies.
We as a group as I can notice do not have big problems with visions, that are actual motivators for an action and directions, but with strategies.
I do not see how Smartocracy can become important in this part , so as long as I miss this part, I have to say I am not interested into one of actual dozens of informatical models based on network measiring.
Of course, as long as I miss some stuff as everybody does, if you find something promising about strategy part, please give us some notice.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
illegale wrote:
> There are two things I like to seperate. Visions and strategies. > We as a group as I can notice do not have big problems with visions, > that are actual motivators for an action and directions, but with > strategies. I do not see how Smartocracy can become important in this part , so as > long as I miss this part, I have to say I am not interested into one of > actual dozens of informatical models based on network measiring. > Of course, as long as I miss some stuff as everybody does, if you find > something promising about strategy part, please give us some notice. > ATB, Gale
-M: How about this?:
A political party organized with SD2-Smartocracy.
People would choose those they trust the most as general trustees, and they would choose the most competent people for specific issues.
It could be global scale or it could be for a village, or any scale inbetween.
And since its built with Ruby on Rails, it is on the most versitile and user friendly OpenSource platform that I am aware of.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11/06/06 17:29
-
From: http://smartocracy.net/ —————————————————————————————————————————— […] Each participant gets an equal number of votes (initially 10) for each decision to be made, to be exercised not by them but by their proxies. That simple change, from voting to delegating your vote, creates meritocracy in an equitable, natural way. The most highly respected participants are by definition on more people’s lists.
Any unexercised votes (e.g. if a participant doesn’t have time or doesn’t feel qualified) cascade to the proxies of the non-voter, until they hit an actual voter, who exercises them all.[…] ———————————————————————————————————————————
-M: People, sounds like Emmanuel’s accumulative delegable proxy system. I also think that they are using PageRank like I told Emmanuel that he needed to.
Emmanuel, I told you so. :-P
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
-
-
Markus,
How easy would it be to convert/translate/compile this software to Ruby on Rails?:
http://smartocracy.net/The idea here is to make meritocratic decision making software as user friendly as possible and in the best language possible.
(Not directly related, and to continue from above, I said:) >-M: if it operated under SD2, a stable body of generalists would be formed also, who would be experts in asking the right questions and would know how to frame issues in their correct context. […]
-M: To add, SD2-director choices could be the voters’ default delegates on issues.
This one point alone would seemlessly integrate SD2 with Smartocracy.This integration alone would satisfy me(a complete system, not just an umbrella(SD2 ideally is an umbrella, but could be used alone)) but an idea that I would add would be default SD2 reps – an indescisive voter would be made SD2 compliant(therefore could become a rep) by sending voting power to gaps in the rank distribution curve.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
>M: Markus, How easy would it be to convert/translate/compile this software to Ruby on Rails?: http://smartocracy.net/
The idea here is to make meritocratic decision making software as user friendly as possible and in the best language possible.-M: Markus, disregard. This site is written with ‘Typo’, which appears to be a Ruby on Rails blogging implimentation.
But I am still trying to find the Smartocracy software to download.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
-
-
09/06/06 21:35
-
Here are more thesis papers:
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/particle-modeling.pdf ———————————————————————————————————————- Simulating Network Influence Algorithms Using
Particle-Swarms: PageRank and PageRank-Priors
Marko A. Rodriguez Johan Bollen
Abstract
A particle-swarm is a set of indivisible processing elements that traverse a network in order to perform a distributed function. This paper will describe a particular implementation of a particle-swarm that can simulate the behavior of the popular PageRank algorithm in both its global-rank and relative-rank incarnations. PageRank is compared against the particleswarm method on artificially generated scale-free networks of 1,000 nodes constructed using a common gamma value, = 2.5. The running time of the particle-swarm algorithm is O(|P| + |P|t) where |P| is the size of the particle population and t is the number of particle propagation iterations. The particle-swarm method is shown to be useful due to its ease of extension and running time. ——————————————————————————————————————— -M:http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/thesis.pdf ——————————————————————————————- Advances Towards a
Societal-Scale Decision-Support System
Marko Antonio Rodriguez
ABSTRACT
Collective intelligence has been defined as the ability of a group to provide more effective solutions to problems than could be otherwise provided by any of its individual members working alone. Social structures are the means by which humans are able to synergistically combine their efforts to provide high quality solutions to the problems facing the group. Over time, these structures have grown in scale and complexity to encompass political institutions that span vast landscapes of heterogeneous individuals to militaristic forms capable of orchestrating effective large-scale behavioral feats. With computer and network technologies, the potential for more advanced societal-scale information-processing systems is now possible such that a general-purpose societal-scale decision-support system may begin to be
envisioned. Unlike typical group decision-support research, a societal-scale system is faced with both a heterogeneous user population and problem-space. In designing such a system it is important to understand how the ’collective’s mind’ is modeled via a shared mental map of the group and how the ’collective’s mindset’ is maintained over fluctuating participation levels of its constituent members. Methods in both
problem-space partitioning and group preference modeling are presented within a theoretical and design framework to further the potential development of a societal-scale decision-support system capable of providing synergistically derived solutions to any representable problem. In concert, all of these ideas provide the foundation for the implementation of societal-scale decision-making system in a real-world context. —————————————————————————————————————————— -M:http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/humancollective-smc-hdm2004.pdf ——————————————————————————————————————————- Advances towards a General-Purpose Societal-Scale
Human-Collective Problem-Solving Engine
Published in the International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics Proceedings, IEEE SMC, 2004
Published in the 23rd European Annual Conference on Human Decision Making and Manual Control Proceedings, 2004
Marko A. Rodriguez
Computer Science Department
University of California, Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, CA, U.S.A
okram@soe.ucsc.edu
Abstract – Human collective intelligence has proved itself as an important factor in a society’s ability to accomplish large-scale behavioral feats. As societies have grown in population-size, individuals have seen a decrease in their ability to actively participate in the problem-solving processes of the group. Representative decision-making structures have been used as a modern solution to society’s inadequate information-processing infrastructure. With computer and network technologies being further embedded within the fabric of society, the implementation of a general-purpose societal-scale
human-collective problem-solving engine is envisioned as a means of furthering the collective-intelligence potential of society. This paper provides both a novel framework for creating collective intelligence systems and a method for implementing a representative and
expertise system based on social-network theory. ————————————————————————————————————————————- comments please.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
-Give me the basic facts/opinions abstracted that you wan’t to discuss,
we have limited amount of time..
+1
-
MG wrote:
> -Give me the basic facts/opinions abstracted that you wan’t to discuss, > we have limited amount of time.
-M: They are obviously supporters of RD. Find where thay are critical of DD, and we can discuss that.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/particle-modeling.pdf
-Hey, all I see is theoretical stuff about the power of pageranking in the internet?
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/thesis.pdf
-OK, nothing here against individual participation. If all are participating, the decision errors are zero.
And it is good that non particpaters delegate their voting power. Can’t argue with that either.
What are you takling about???http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/humancollective-smc-hdm2004.pdf
-Same story again, what in it is against the AD-model?
All I see in these thesises is that the current system with representation is ineffective and that participation on the indivdual level is better.
Delegation is god but should be dynamic instead of static. No news here.
+1
-
MG wrote:
> http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/particle-modeling.pdf > > -Hey, all I see is theoretical stuff about the power of pageranking in > the internet? > > http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/thesis.pdf
-M: No, its not PageRanking the internet, its PageRanking human networks.
>mG: -OK, nothing here against individual participation. If all are participating, the decision errors are zero. And it is good that non particpaters delegate their voting power. Can’
-
-
-
-
-