[CIMC-work] "automated" consensus

[Thomas Yun]

This is worth discussing, the difficulties I think would be in actually
"tech-ing" it out.

what do you think JD?

paz,
t
y

> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:55:06 -0600
> From: Thomas J Westgard <tom at ilmechliens.com>
> Subject: [CIMC-work] Re: Automate Consensus Process
> To: <imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org>
> Message-ID: <BC78FB7A.782%tom at ilmechliens.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> I have a couple of suggestions on how to make the consensus / hide /
> delete
> process a little smoother and faster.  I don't know if anyone else is
> familiar with the two sources of my ideas:  hotornot.com and Westgard QC
> (who shares my uncommon last name but has no known relation).  The benefit
> in combining these is that it would entirely automate the selection /
> prioritization process, and take a lot of the personality out of it, which
> I
> see as a benefit.  The less this is about who likes whom, the better.
>
> First, view the process as a categorization.  Each story is reviewed and
> needs to be placed in a category:  Great stuff goes to the center column.
> The vast bulk goes in the vast bulk pile.  Some is dirty trash and gets
> hidden.  Some is so bad it deserves deletion.  That's pretty discrete
> input
> that could be done through a computerized process pretty easily.
>
> hotornot.com is a little hard to describe.  Part of it is a matching
> system
> for couples; the other part is a rating system in which you rate a
> person's
> photo from 1 (not) to 10 (hot).  The important thing for this list is that
> it has "moderators" who are given a relatively complex list of criteria on
> which to judge photographs and written intros.  They do a pretty good job
> of
> keeping out pornography and hookers.  They have basically the same
> discussion on hotornot as has taken place on Indymedia:  There's a place
> for
> prostitutes (and Klansmen) on the Web, just not on our hotornot
> (Indymedia).
> So they have the moderators as a filtering system, but it's simple - they
> either say that it passes, or that it doesn't, without explanation.
>
> Westgard QC permits the use of multiple-track elimination and/or
> categorization, whereas hotornot is either all-clear or dead.  The
> Westgard
> QC multi-track model works better for Indymedia, since there are multiple
> categories to put things in:  center panel, general pool, hide, delete.
>
> CIMC would have moderators who would review each story and do their
> inputting.  For a certain time after filing, a story will be in the review
> pool.  Indymedia moderators log on and review each submission on a webpage
> that ends with radio buttons for various categories of good or bad
> "votes."
> Click here if it's racially offensive.  Click here if it's concise.  Click
> here if it's worker-friendly. The computer would then combine the data to
> place the story, using some sort of algorithm.  Drafting the rules would
> take some time, and I am not the one to draft the algorithm for CIMC, but
> I
> think here might be some rules, by way of example (I'm also willing to
> help
> with actual drafting):
>
> If the reviewer is offended by the use of a "strongly disapproved word,"
> then the reviewer clicks a radio button that reflects the level of
> offense,
> anywhere from "no big deal" to "godawful."  "Strongly disapproved words"
> would be a defined list, including the usual ethnic, religious, and gender
> words.  You might have situations like a hip-hop reporter who refers to
> Jesse Jackson as "my nigga."  The sex columnist who writes about "fags."
> Or
> a story on guns says something about "that bitch Janet Reno."  The
> presence
> and degree of offensiveness is contextual, and whether the particular
> reviewer takes offense would be the measurement.
>
> Center panel material is still by consensus, but there's no longer any
> emailing around to get it.  There's a time limit for input, and anyone who
> gets their data in within the time limit determines what goes on the
> center
> panel.  There's a radio button for "center panel nomination," and if any
> Indymedia reviewer doesn't click that button, then the story doesn't go
> there.  You could also have a default option, in which, if no new story
> gets
> placed there for a certain time, then the highest-rated story gets placed
> there instead of a consensus story.  Or all stories getting a rating over
> a
> certain number or ratio.
>
> In order to make sure the system is working according to Indymedia
> standards, you collect the data on which moderator rates what on which
> stories.  Moderators agree not to be anonymous, at least to the extent of
> having their judgments recorded.  Then you monitor the moderators /
> reviewers in person.  This is where the email and face-to-face comes in.
> "Bob, no one else found a racially-charged word in this article.  Why did
> you give it a bad vote for racial offensiveness?"  It doesn't mean Bob's
> in
> trouble, since he may just have a bigger or more recently updated
> vocabulary
> than the rest.  It's a chance to review the rules to see if they create
> the
> right result.  If everyone is honestly following the same rules, there
> will
> largely be agreement on the ratings.  It just allows you to track down
> stealthy Nazis who get in and give a bad rating to everything except Nazi
> stories.
>
> The end result would be that this selection and categorization process
> would
> become largely automated, leaving the current workers to step up a level -
> managing reviewer / moderators, instead of doing all that editing work
> themselves.  Then there could be an effort to make sure that the moderator
> pool matches Indymedia's goal clientele.  We could invite desireable
> people
> to become moderators, say, board members of organizations we like, who
> would
> commit to logging on and reviewing ten stories each day (or ten a week -
> whatever).  This allows for a community outreach and publicity program for
> Indymedia.
>
> Thoughts, comments, praise, rotten vegetables?
>
> Yours,
> Tom
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
>
>
> End of Imc-chicago-working Digest, Vol 11, Issue 41
> ***************************************************
>


-- 
created on May Day 1973.