If the people established a social governance wiki there would undoubtedly be groups who were in charge of setting it up in the first place. Jimmy Wales established Wikipedia (for example). But how much of Wikipedia's content generation does Wales control in a centralized way? None. You and mk set up hubski... but if it grew any larger, how much of its content would you two actually control? For that matter, who controls Reddit? Nobody. These are examples of decentralized entities that, once established, take on a life of their own. They become baby brains to serve specific collective functions. This governance wiki would be a baby brain for a country. With the potential to represent a model for a global brain.would there be a clear small group of leaders/influence peddlers? If not, this runs opposite of human nature, people crave and desire central leadership, don't they?
I sort of hope that it's not an instantaneous thing and not just because I'd rather not live amongst a revolution but because things that are built up slowly and methodically tend to have stronger roots and are more sustainable. If people are able to make decisions aggregately, then the amount of marketing that will occur in order to get the herd to pull the right lever will be unprecedented, right? You'll have people comprising huge voting brigades that they'll sell to the highest bidder. Right now, it takes time and energy to vote and be a part of the process. This weeds out the less serious, those that aren't inclined towards actively being a part of the process. When it's too easy, does it run the risk of being overly inclusive? btw, I should mention that I've not read the paper yet, I'll try to read in full tonight. Congrats on conquering r/Futorology and r/Decntralization. I gave some love.
The modern political system was birthed in bloodshed, chaos, and societal revolution. No because policy decisions are made on the social wiki - the "herd" votes on the policy-decisions made within the Wiki. The structure of the social wiki will prevent bad policy proposals. You vote on whatever policies you want. It's customizable. I go into depth about this in the paper. I suspect that in this structure more people would vote, not less. I'd rather not live amongst a revolution but because things that are built up slowly and methodically tend to have stronger roots and are more sustainable.
the amount of marketing that will occur in order to get the herd to pull the right lever will be unprecedented, right?
When it's too easy, does it run the risk of being overly inclusive?