I was looking at the National Broadband Map released by the FCC this week and was instantly struck by how closely it resembled another data map from the recent past. And so I followed a hunch that it might be interesting to compare the two side by side:
I’ve been thinking more and more about the problem of how exposed we are to sabotage from trolls and users that want to deliberately halt a group’s progress. It’s a good time to be thinking this way, because it’s become a pretty common talking point as we continue to present this project conceptually. The problem is that so much of what groups do is based on the group’s membership reaching pretty hight levels of consensus, especially when it comes to declaring their platform and sending that declaration to their lawmakers. We want the threshold of ratification for this declaration to be high so that when a lawmaker receives one from one of our groups they’ll know that they’re looking at the product of more rigor and deliberation than an email blast and, thus need to give it more consideration.
A very interesting essay from a site called http://buildingreputation.com/ asserts that publicly displayed user karma is a bad idea and does nothing to deter unwanted or ‘bad’ user behavior within an online community. This article comes just as Omar and I have been wrestling with how we are going to deal with the fact that we are striving to cultivate a social system where people are encouraged to engage in a civil manner about topics that can be very charged.
I’ve been fielding a reoccurring comment while presenting our most recent wireframes of Wayfor over the last few days. The comment arises as we demonstrate the way our recommendation engine works to pair a user with an existing issue group. The interaction goes something like this: