[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Yes, but at Robert points out, that is
evolution mediated by feedback.
The Spin Service would spawn a series of
fact checking queries just as
a spin-laden speech spawns paranoia,
acceptance or boredom. The fact
of spin or lieing doesn't prove which
business object sent the message
to the presentation layer to do so.
Politics is the application of the right
theory to the right audience to ensure
believability. Spin algorithms use
weak clues as evidence of spin, not of its
believability. This goes straight
to an issue of Semantic Web
applications: trust. I blogged a similar topic
recently with regards to if open source is a
business model, but that's too
touchy-feely for this list. So in
another direction:
In a lattice of theories, there are two
challenges:
o Choosing the selector (business object) to
choose the theory
(eg, don't let sales guy talk to tech guy if
the goal is to get a
technical selection; don't let the technical
guy talk to the
customer if the goal is to sell the system -
there are means
to delegate if boundaries are
crossed)
o Is the system federated (shares the same
values) or
confederated (values the same
things)?
len
Deep sigh. That will
kill the value of the algorithm, for the same reasons that widespread
availability of antibiotics evolves (oops, sorry Mr. President, I mean
"creates") antibiotic-resistant organisms. Serious liars will learn how
to lie better once they can get real-time feedback about what the spin
detector would say about their spin.
| 