Why is there not a free democratically powered search engine (rather than a mathematically powered one, like google)? The idea revealed here is just such a search engine that can adapt to the internet fast enough to help everyday people search and respond powerfully to current news, as well as anything else on the internet.
Basically there are going to be various possible classifications of news articles that people can use rate/vote on the article. For example a range with perhaps 10 selectable gradations with "liberal" and "conservative" at the extremes will be available for users to rate how liberal or conservative the news article is. When they read it on the other online news site, a small program will collect your votes and the location of the news article. There can also be topical classifications people can fill in. All this information will be sent to a database and incorporated into the nightingale search engine, so for example a person can set their search preferences to a 5 or 6 on the 10 selectable gradations of liberal/conservative and find articles people have rated as a 5 or a 6.
There are many more possible classifications and gradations. these are the ones I've come up with: "about people vs about institutions" "Democratic vs Republican" "asks a lot of questions of the reader or tells them what to believe" "How factual vs how interpretive" (and a separate discussions of the facts and the interpretations available for comment) There can be other ideological flags such as "Libertarian" or "Religious", etc.
Of course, how to label an article is a question all on its own, and in addition to having conflicting votes that can be counted to democratically resolve the question, there should probably be a forum of discussion, like a separate level of discussion that they have in wikipedia, for discussing how to label an article. Also just a rating of how much they liked/disliked the news article (this part is not an innovation and is used by Digg.com). Perhaps you could add the conventional classifications "world, local, science, etc" In addition, I'd like to have people offer and vote on other classifications that can be added democratically.
There are many more possible classifications and gradations. these are the ones I've come up with: "about people vs about institutions" "Democratic vs Republican" "asks a lot of questions of the reader or tells them what to believe" "How factual vs how interpretive" (and a separate discussions of the facts and the interpretations available for comment) There can be other ideological flags such as "Libertarian" or "Religious", etc.
Of course, how to label an article is a question all on its own, and in addition to having conflicting votes that can be counted to democratically resolve the question, there should probably be a forum of discussion, like a separate level of discussion that they have in wikipedia, for discussing how to label an article. Also just a rating of how much they liked/disliked the news article (this part is not an innovation and is used by Digg.com). Perhaps you could add the conventional classifications "world, local, science, etc" In addition, I'd like to have people offer and vote on other classifications that can be added democratically.
People can vote as they surf for news via google, etc., or they can go to the nightingale news site and see what other people have voted on, by using the voted classifications as filters- getting to news on other sites that way.
People set their own preferences according to these classifications "I like stories based in people, anarchistic, with more facts and less interpretation and asks a lot of interesting questions, and that other people liked"
So when a person searches for news (say search for Obama), it will show you results that have been voted on and classified
The end result is a less passive search, with many real people contributing to the "brain" of the internet in a more meaningful way than adding links.
No comments:
Post a Comment