Oh, I just realized you're the poster of the blog article, submitter, and a member of the creative class. Cool - You've got some interesting ideas, KM. Here's a

Oh, I just realized you're the poster of the blog article, submitter, and a member of the creative class. Cool - You've got some interesting ideas, KM. Here's a thought on part of the article: > So who would make these decisions? In part they would likely be automated, with an algorithm that is publicly decided upon. In other words, this is group decision making that stems from the bottom up -- not command and control decision making that stems from the top down. If you paid people for contributing to something like Wikipedia on a public formula, people would work to crack it. If it was based on pages written, people would work to write as many as they could about anything. If it was based on how often the pages were read, you'd have people fighting to erase each other's content or adding true-but-useless information to every popular page. If the first creator of an article got paid, there'd be a rush for anyone to create a page about any major event even if they didn't have information. If it was voted on, people would try to game the voting. Command and control has some serious problems, but replacing it takes a lot of thought. You've got to be very careful with how incentives line up - people can and do just gun for the incentives.