Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Requirements in regard to split opinion formation

[Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com>]

Slash and Marc,

Thanks for answering so patiently.  I now describe the problem of
"split consensus" as Thomas von der Elbe calls it, or "split opinion
formation" in your terms.


  (3)        ....
          ..........  M1                  ...
        ..............   ....         ..........
       .......................       ............
       ......................         ..........
        .............   ....               ..
          ..........                     ......  M2
             ...                          ......
                                            ..

            +-----+  +-----+
            |     |  |     |            +-----+
            | T1  |  | T2  |            |     |
            |     |  |     |            | T3  |
            +-|-|-+  +-|-|-+            |     |
    +---------|-|------|-|---+          +-|-|-+
    |         | |      | |   |        +---|-|---------+       +---
    |                        |        |   | |         |       |
    |    S1                  |        |        S2     |       |
    |                        |        |               |       |
    +------------------------+        +---------------+       +---


     M  Opinion in formation
     T  Competing tools
     S  Common standards, practices,
        databases, and so forth


   http://zelea.com/var/tmp-public/agm/split-opinion-3.txt
   (if the diagram is distorted and your mail client lacks a
   fixed-width font, please visit the temporary link above)


Here we see 3 competing tools for opinion expression (T1, T2 and T3).
(Other important tool categories are in use, but are not shown here.)
Each opinion expression tool is responsible for revealing (in its own
way) the overall shape of opinion as it forms, including the pattern
of consensus and dissensus, and related details.

Competing tools T1 and T2 interconnect (via S1) such that each shows
(in its own way) the same body of real-world opinion (M1).  When a
user expresses his/her individual opinion using T1, for example, it
shows up in the visualizations of *both* T1 and T2, e.g. as one dot.
But not in T3.  T3 instead shows a separate body of opinion (M2) that
is restricted to the users of platform S2.  This is the problem of
split opinion formation.  It has two critical aspects, or moments:

  (i) The overall shape of opinion (M1 or M2) as revealed by each of
      the tools is incomplete and less likely to be correct.
      Therefore the utility of all the tools is diminished.

 (ii) The tools of the more popular platform have, all else being
      equal, a greater utility and attractiveness to users.  Knowledge
      of this, and efforts to tip an unstable balance one way or the
      other, distort the development process and poison the relations
      among developers and other contributors.

These are network effects.  They render the situation unstable, so we
must look to the possible outcomes in order to fully understand the
problem.  I know of only two possible outcomes (monopoly and inter-
-network).  I'll open a separate thread for each.

Michael


marc said:
> Michael Allan wrote
> > Thank you.  And Marc, to be sure, is this where you agree with Slash?
> 
> >> > ... Do you think that opinion expression (as I have described it)
> >> > will be an essential part (among other essential parts) of the
> >> > platform you are designing?
> 
> Yes, of course!
> 
> Cheers
> marc