Sunday, April 13, 2008

Chapter 5: The Evolution of Reputation

“Reputation Marks the Spot where Technology and Cooperation converge...”

Some of the most successful web experiences have been introduced to society have been so because of the means in which the product(s) have been able to recognize the essential elements in which reputation systems can sustain beneficial environments in their group forming network (GFN).

Before I go on with the rest of this blogpost, I gotta warn you. There was a whole boatload of theory in this chapter. I will try to gain as much background as I can find in the spirit of the "hunters and gatherers" premise introduced in the book. Where there are links in this post, you will be taken to another post that collects and fleshes out some of the theories discussed in this chapter.

In the evolution of reputation online, Reingold introduces several examples of where this idea has been recognized. What seems to be his favorite one is Ebay. Most of us know how Ebay’s history having something to do with a woman who wanted to sell her collection of Pez dispensers (sometimes the story is even with Beanie Babies.) Whatever the initial reason, Ebay has ballooned into a billion dollar system of commerce.

Reingold argues that this online system of commerce had been made successful because it meets three properties in which reputation systems much have to sustain themselves.
They are:

1. The identity of buyers and sellers must be long lived such that there is an expectation of future interaction.
2. Feedback about interactions must be available for the inspection of others.
3. People must pay enough attention to reputation ratings to base their decisions on them.

He goes on to say, “Reputation like surveillance, may induce people to police themselves.”

This seemingly basic principle has roots in some not so basic theory. This idea is an extrapolation of two previously stated laws, Reeds Law & Metcalfe’s Law.

Reingold also points out that sociologists and biologists have been testing out these principles in their own studies on human nature.
The most related sociological experiment is known as “The Prisoner’s Dilemma.”
(More on the Prisoner’s Dilemma Here… )
Reingold also introduces game theory which explores this idea of the reputation system, where economists have tested the role in which cooperation and reputation plays between individuals and their ability to self police themselves.

Game theory that is relevant to the idea of the reputation system is described within two games :
1) Ultimatum Game
2) Public Goods Game

The book goes on to stipulate that, “None of the theories and data gathered by biologists, sociologists and economists predicts what populations will do in an environment of ad hoc networks…and online reputation systems, but most of the conditions for a phase change in the scale of cooperation could be met by smart mob infrastructure: mutual monitoring, graduated sanctions, widespread dissemination of both positive and negative reputation information”

Surprisingly there is no mention of Wikipedia in the edition I had read which was published in 2002. The inception of Wikipedia was created in 2001. Wikipedia would be a good example of conversation reputation. However, it cannot apply to the rest of the chapter which focuses on reputation systems primarily focused on commerce. For another example of one that does not have a good example of following through with the reputation system is Craigslist.

Craigslist was also not mentioned in this chapter of reputation and is a good case example based on the reading as to why it is vulnerable to the issues that users of Amazon and Ebay do not experience.
It is missing many of the tenets of what makes a successful reputation system and here are the pages where the group forming system has failed its own community so much that there are forums and other standard warnings to make sure that no one gets taken advantage of.
Scam Warning: http://www.craigslist.org/about/scams.html
Forum to gripe about scams: http://newyork.craigslist.org/forums/?forumID=9

The whole discussion in his chapter on reputation had highlighted one very important thought in the form of a question, which will be the start of our conversation on this chapter.
Rheingold recognizes that the reputation databases of seemingly secure avenues of online commerce never share their databases. Nor do they cross share their information between other systems of commerce, (i.e. Ebay cooperating with Amazon.)

He posed a very serious question with which I hope we can all discuss and continue in this blog:

“Who should own our reputations? Should people be monetizing our reputations or is this a completely acceptable notion?”

4 comments:

LaraCM said...

FYI great post!
Reputation is a funny thing.. you have to depend on it in order to feel a sense of security in an overwhelming environment. Keeping a system of reputations is like having a government that keeps things orderly and polices the 'bad guys'. But as always governments create their own problems by virtue of being in control. Balancing the power by giving it to the users is what makes these kinds of examples such and interesting online notion. But just like your ss# is it your right to identify your reputation or should others have that right? I think that one could argue that reputation can be bought and that the checks and balances aren't as even as they ideally could be.

A couple quotes from the text that stuck with me...
"If every organism seeks only to benefit itself against all, why would bees sacrifice themselves for the hive, as they so clearly do?" (40) -- maybe there is hope for the system

"What makes it possible for cooperation to emerge is the fact that the players might meet again. This possibility means that the choices made today not only determine the outcome of this move, but can also influence later choices of the players" (44) -- the players all depend on their reputations.

olga said...

I tend to think that people are less inclined to take advantage of one another when they themselves do not have to worry about the basic necessities of life - when the motivation to do that in the first place is much lower. Right now we live in a world where most everybody is scrambling in some way or another to get by, making it much more likely , and morally easily to swallow for the ones who do it, to take advantage of others.

of course, the people who are the real cheats - those with offshore bank accounts (like we've seen recently in germany with the lichtenstein scandal) - aren't worrying about their ebay reputation...you see where i'm going with this...

Jonathan Ellis said...

Personally, I find this subject fascinating and interestingly I've been thinking about it for some time before having read the material.

Just FYI I took the time to play the Serendip game and simply followed my instinct to cooperate. At the end we each had an equal number of coins.

Where my thoughts have been going concerning this basic idea has had to do with the fact that there are people in the world who do not have a sense of community; meaning that their way of thinking simply does not include others. This way of thinking precipitates behaviors that in our society, is at one moment lauded and embraced (IE: tv viewers tuning in to watch the likes of Donald Trump flaunting his power gained through wealth) and in the next moment abhorred (IE: a robber beating up an old lady for the change in her purse - or Ken Lay stealing the life savings of the employees of Enron) Reputation? One is good and the other is bad? I'm just pointing out that these characters exist in our world and must be taken into account when we transact with one another. I've been doing deals both as a buyer and seller on eBay for quite a long time and I do appreciate having that 100% standing in the community, but that is not what keeps me honest. I have a very simple belief system that does that for me: What goes around comes around. In that I have never been ripped off on eBay I have come close a few times. Each and every time I have been protected by the measures set in place to weed out those who think that world is here to serve their needs only. I would find it hard to believe that those people who really don't give a damn about anyone else are dealing ethically on eBay because they are afraid that their reputations will suffer if they don't. I think that those folks will always do their best to put one over on the rest of us and that highly transparent communities will catch them in the act.

andie said...

Fantastic post Liz. I agree with Lara, reputation is really a very funny thing. Who's to judge reputation? Who qualifies to be the judge?

Ebay is a prime example of this I suppose, but since it was covered, completely we're all aware of this already. I love, love, love your points about Wikipedia and Craigslist. As I was reading this chapter, I thought to myself, the scams on Craigslist is a huge example of reputation, or even lack thereof. While Craigslist is a good source sometimes, there are countless scams that are had via this site each and every day. Just so glad you pointed that out :-)

Great presentation!