they all sound good.. especially getting away from the volumes of documentation we’ve accumulated via credentialing et al. but what if reputation is at the heart of our problem. what if – in order for each one of us to be free – we have to give up our obsession with labeling people.
what if we saved all our time/energy/soul-ness of trying to pinpoint a value on people – and just assume good. what if in all that extra time (we could be changing the world but policy keeps getting in the way ness – wiley) we just did cool/awesome things.. those things we can’t not do. and then like Bunker’s example – community is our credentialing. tech listening to our fittingness/curiosities/eu\daimon\ia facilitates optimal connections.
let’s give that a go.
reputation seems so confining.. like definitions.. that aren’t free to change/shed 24/7…
if we could/would get there.. [7 billion people doing the thing they can’t not do].. perhaps credentials/labels and even reputation would become irrelevant. perhaps we’d see clearly enough, that people’s word/curiosity/intent would be enough.
perhaps we haven’t yet seen this in us.. because we still hold money as object.
reputation economy – perhaps that would be a reinvent.
but perhaps we can/can’t-not do better.
let’s be about reinvent\ing us.
Harold Jarche (@hjarche) tweeted at 6:38 AM – 30 Apr 2018 :
‘From the “information age,” we are moving towards the “reputation age,” in which information will have value only if it is already filtered, evaluated, and commented upon by others.’ https://t.co/XKDSJBkmUIhttps://t.co/CEYGBG8Fb9 (http://twitter.com/hjarche/status/990933346468409344?s=17)
not about info…so not about reputation (info created about a person)..it’s about connection .. via curiosity (self-talk as data)..so (info created from each person’s heart)
via Vinay here:
We are using reputation to try and make sure bad things never happen! But this is never going to work: accidents happen, and reputation does not protect us from that. People change: reputation makes people prisoners of their past. Reputation requires identity and vulnerability.
Arthur Brock (@artbrock) tweeted at 3:21 AM – 24 Jan 2019 :
Why do so many people make the same mistakes when making reputation systems? See my post: Avoid Common Blunders Designing Reputation Systems https://t.co/kFtqQGA0CE (http://twitter.com/artbrock/status/1088381265940602880?s=17)
perhaps.. ‘Avoid Blunders by not Designing Reputation Systems’
money occupies so much of this space in our imagination.
Here’s the crux of it: Reputation currencies do NOT operate the same way as monetary currencies
Keep in mind, I’m working hard to reclaim the word currency to mean something much more than money. It can be a useful mnemonic to think “Current-See” — indicators of currents. We use currencies to build shared, living maps of flows in social spaces.
Currency: A formal symbol system for shaping, enabling, and measuring flows.
Reputation currencies are predicated on continuity of identity. They make no sense without the ability to stay tethered to an identity.
There is often a chain of relationship required to engage in a reputational transaction
cancerous to relationships
Issuance: Reputation, by its very nature, comes into being one of two ways:
- It’s spoken into being from nothing by declaration (like you are my friend, Bob is employee of the month, Jane is our Office Manager), or
- It’s derived from visible indicators such as measurable performance of actions (like a score on a test, measuring how often you log into a web site, or counting votes in an election).
There are many great ways for reputation currencies and monetary currencies to interact with each other, but please, *do not make the rookie mistake of thinking they should be collapsed into a single currency. In fact, **if you want to preserve dimensions of value that your community cares about when transacting with each other, you should probably expect to use more than just two currencies.. t
perhaps *don’t make mistake of conflating humanity with reputation
perhaps **don’t use any currencies – ie: 10 day care ness
Michel Bauwens (@mbauwens) tweeted at 8:55 PM on Fri, Feb 14, 2020:
RT @jeffemmett: Ostrom’s principles address the Tragedy ONLY in community-scale scenarios where reputation & social exhortation function.
In a globally connected world, the “Tragedy of the non-Commons” still reigns.
ie: needs to be all of us or it won’t work.. otherwise we get tragedy ness of enclosure ..
beyond ostrom 8 – let go