Just chilling and sharing a stream of thought…
So how would a credibility system work and be implemented. What I envision is something similar to the up votes…
You have a credibility score, it starts a 0 neutral. You post something People don’t vote on if they like, the votes are for “good faith”
Good faith is You posted according to rules and started a discussion You argued in good faith and can separate with opposing opinions You clarified a topic for someone If someone has a polar opinion to yours and is being down voted because people don’t understand the system Etc.
It is tied to the user not the post
Good, bad, indifferent…?
Perfect the system
You must log in or # to comment.
I think we should take another look at Slashdot’s moderation and meta-moderation system:
- Users couldn’t just vote on everything; “modpoints” (upvotes/downvotes, but also with a reason attached) were a limited resource.
- Comments scores were bounded to [-1, 5] instead of being unbounded.
- Most importantly, what wasn’t limited was that users had the opportunity to “meta-moderate:” they would be shown a set of moderation actions and be asked to give a 👍 or 👎 based on whether they agreed with the modpoint usage or not.
- Users would be awarded modpoints based on their karma (how their own comments had been modded by others) and their judgement (whether people agreed or not with their modpoint usage).
Admittedly the exact formula Slashdot used for awarding modpoints was secret to prevent people from gaming it, which doesn’t exactly work for Lemmy, but the point is that I think the idea of using more than one kind of signal to determine reputation is a good one.
