The idea of a reputational economy is, in some sense, already implied by the Internet. For the Internet is a structure of linkages, and bestowing a link, as
Google page rank so shrewdly comprehends in its distillation of page rank, is a form of honor.
Imagine the Internet as a patchwork of overlapping, fuzzily bounded reputational fields based around topics, interests, and shared aesthetic sensibilities. Think of the implied honor in the phrase “know about.” When I say “do you know about
homestarrunner.com,” I am not just asking if you’ve seen the Web site. I’m asking if you comprehend its inherent
whuffie.
We are perfectly aware that Web sites and, in many cases, their authors, have varying levels of whuffie, yet we are hard-pressed to define this whuffie explicitly. Certainly we’ve already seen first steps in this direction: Google’s page rank,
eBay feedback,
Slashdot Karma,
Blogdex,
Blogshares,
Epinions,
Amazon review rating, and many more, including many which have faded into obscurity.
Already? Did I say already? Covertly I’ve already accepted the idea that this is an evolution, which is the same as saying that the idea of whuffie has a life of its own. We may already have accepted that we want to an explicit whuffie come about, that we ought to.
We see that we have many reputational currencies already functioning. But is it possible to establish a rate of exchange between them? Posit whuffie as a standard of exchange for economies of reputation. What problems does such an exchange pose? Consider the proportionality between eBay feedback and the
DayPop blog rankings. Is it not possible and even likely that an excellent commentator might be a terrible eBay seller? Would an eBay merchant with a hard-won reputation want to tie its value to their half rate blog? Can we establish an exchange where points are not, in the manner of a dollar, spent?
And yet, we already see the effect that the abstract measure of a blogger’s reputation can be turned into eBay leverage. The personal effects of well-known bloggers are in some way interesting all on their own. With a nod to
Cockeyed.com, I call this leverage
pule.
[to be fair to Cockeyed.com, pule is far from being just a source of revenue, but is a grand prank, a gag in which all are free to share]
So to get things straight, to tie one’s eBay feedback directly to DayPop rating raises serious problems, and since each of these is a specialized measurement of reputation anyway, leave them be and let the indirect force of pule do what it will. But what of a meta-measure, a combined whuffie that takes account of each proportionately? What we need here is an algorithm.
Imagine this algorithm (I like to envision it as a wise Chimera in a cave full of fabulous treasures). It’s no static, dumb creature carrying out rote calculations. No, our Chimera does not simply calculate the exchange, it oversees the proportion of the balance. What, it asks, is the relative value of a link compared to a unit of feedback? What is the degree to which high eBay sellers are respected bloggers? Such a measure could very well be a dynamic thing, indeed, ideally it should be. Ideally such a system must automatically correct for the exploits of eBayers and bloggers both as they seem mechanical means of increasing their reputations. In the balance we get an abstract measure of reputation, a meta-whuffie that unites the apparently disparate worlds of the blog and auction.
And then will we be done? No, I suspect we will not be satisfied until we’ve crossed the final threshold (and, ironically, turned whuffie on its head). We won’t be happy until we can buy things with it.
