Is there value in an open reputation framework?

Session Topic: Is There Value In An Open Reputation Framework, If So Where Should it be Standardized? (TH5C)

Convener: Dave Sanford

Notes-taker(s): Dave Sanford

Tags for the session

technology discussed/ideas considered: reputation, meta-reputation, rogue reputation sites,

Discussion notes, key understandings, outstanding questions, observations, and, if appropriate to this discussion: action items, next steps:

Started session with explanation that Nat (?) had talked to me in the last few hours and indicated that the OASIS effort for Open Reputation Management was not dead necessarily, just dormant, and that work could re-start on that once people were available and once some of the related IIW work on identity and user managed information was clearer – so that we have a better basis for an ethical framework for information about people that shouldn’t be able to be managed by them.

Discussion started with artifacts of reputation (badge) that would be provided by a site that assigns value to reputation generated from other sites. Lots of discussion of Stack Overflow. Turns out there could be lots of such meta-reputations sites and should be for a good ecosystem. In part, because reputation generating sites should have reputation themselves, particularly because of the inevitability of rogue reputation sites.

There was discuss ion of contracts and other cases where entities were relying on reputation information sites in ways that relate to real world value – and the concern that it is particularly important to make sure that reputation receivers are not somehow compensating the reputation givers.

Reputation was described as a predictor of the future if it has any utility.

Meta-critic was described as a good example of a meta-reputation and/or aggregator of reputation for video games, movies and other things. One person indicated that they had contemplated writing contracts that depended on a good score from Meta-critic. Discussion of how meta-critic works. Talked about various niche communities and the pros and cons of having algorithmic as well as human ratings.

Discussion of the role of transparency, anonymity and the ability to create new identities and how that could dilute the utility of reputation for certain purposes. The least cost might be opportunity cost of one’s time.

The idea was brought up that perhaps Connect.Me is trying to build the framework for a reputation system. There was discussion of what happens when a big network joins a small network – if practices of the small network apply to the large network, it could change it – but in general the big network practices will swamp the smaller one.

The idea was posed that the best reputation networks would include people who have reasons to compete or disagree to create creative tension and competition.