Dave Jarvis' Repositories

git clone https://repo.autonoma.ca/repo/delibero.git

Missing features chapter.

AuthorDave Jarvis <email>
Date2014-09-15 15:00:33 GMT-0700
Commit4211dd618a178a8bfca7a91948cc24755d3537a4
Parent074ee74
xml/tex/ch-features.tex
+\startchapter[
+ title={Features},
+ reference=cha:introduction,
+]
+ \WPquote{A popular Government without popular information or the means of
+ acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both.
+ Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their
+ own Governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.}
+ {James Madison}{Letter to William Barry}
+
+ \startsection[title={Moderation}]
+ Moderation is a way to decide the suitability of statements concerning a
+ \WPproposal{}, prior to their incorporation. Deliberation is the
+ discussion of the implications and theoretical benefits for a
+ \WPproposal{}. Moderated deliberation, then, is a discussion forum
+ where contributions are scrutinized before being accepted.
+
+ Without moderation, any information about a \WPproposal{} could be
+ submitted without regards to its veracity or appropriateness. Reliable
+ information is essential for any fair decision-making
+ process.\cite[carpini@americans]
+
+ Moderators are selected from the community, with a slight preference
+ given to community members who have a positive reputation.
+ \stopsection
+
+ \startsection[title={Reputation}]
+ Reputation is a number that reflects the credibility of community
+ members. Credibility can help people gauage the amount of a community
+ member's subject matter expertise.\cite[aragones@reputation]
+
+ The amount of reputation controls how people may contribute. Since any
+ registered individual may suggest changes, a mechanism is required to
+ prevent vandalism and abuse. As reputation is earned, functionality
+ unavailable to low-reputation community members is unlocked.
+
+ This also allows experts to be reliably identified based on their first
+ month of participation.\cite[movshovitz@stackoverflow]
+ \stopsection
+
+ \startsection[title={Tags}]
+ Tags classify subject matter in a hierarchical relationship. Tags are
+ used by community members to filter \WPproposals{} based on their
+ individual preferences. Some people have broad interests, while others
+ have a narrow focus. Assigning hierarchically organized tags to
+ \WPproposals{} enables flexible filtering and can improve search results.
+ \stopsection
+
+ \startsection[title={History}]
+ \WPname{} retains a publically available record of all interactions for
+ every community member. The records are available for everyone to review
+ at any time. This may encourage openness, communication, and
+ accountability. A recorded history should also reduce incidents of
+ vandalism and inappropriate content.\cite[farrar@policing]
+ \stopsection
+
+ \startsection[title={Transparency}]
+ The complete
+ \href{source code}{https://bitbucket.org/djarvis/world-politics/} is
+ open for analysis and development.
+ \stopsection
+
+ \startsection[title={Voting}]
+ Prior to voting, voters must communicate their intent to
+ participate with a Registration Authority (RA). The RA provides
+ a unique token upon verifying the voter's identity. The token is
+ entered into the system; the voter creates an account and votes
+ using said token.
+
+ Goals for voting include correctness, verifiability, and anonymity.
+
+ \startsubsection[title=Correctness]
+ The system is deemed correct if:
+
+ \startitemize
+ \startitem
+ only voters who have registered with the RA may vote;
+ \stopitem
+ \startitem
+ voters cannot vote multiple times on an item;
+ \stopitem
+ \startitem
+ voters cannot replace votes;
+ \stopitem
+ \startitem
+ voters may change how they voted on an item; and
+ \stopitem
+ \startitem
+ third-parties cannot change the tabulation outcome.
+ \stopitem
+ \stopitemize
+ \stopsubsection
+
+ \startsubsection[title=Verifiability]
+ Verifiability allows voters and observers to verify that the
+ outcomes correspond to the votes legitimately cast. Multiple
+ verifiability types can be distinguished,
+ including:\cite[kremer@verify]
+
+ \startitemize
+ \startitem
+ \bold{Individual.} Voters can verify that their votes are
+ part of the tally and are counted in the final result.
+ \stopitem
+ \startitem
+ \bold{Universal.} Anyone can verify that all votes have been
+ tallied correctly, and voters can verify that their votes are
+ included.
+ \stopitem
+ \startitem
+ \bold{Eligible.} Anyone can verify that every vote for a
+ particular outcome was cast by a registered voter, at most
+ one vote per voter, and voters can verify that their own
+ votes are legitimate.
+ \stopitem
+ \stopitemize
+
+ Verifying results must be simple and expeditious.
+ \stopsubsection
+
+ \startsubsection[title=Anonymity]
+ The system should further {\it{privacy}},
+ {\it{coercion-resistance}} and
+ {\it{receipt-freeness}}.\cite[delaune@coercion]
+
+ \startitemize
+ \startitem
+ \bold{Privacy.} Votes must remain private, even when a
+ third-party can view all system data, communications, and
+ source code.
+ \stopitem
+ \startitem
+ \bold{Coercion-resistance.} Voters cannot cooperate with a
+ coercer to prove their vote's directionality (i.e.,
+ {\it{for}} or {\it{against}}).
+ \stopitem
+ \startitem
+ \bold{Receipt-freeness.} Voters must not receive any
+ information (a receipt) that can prove the vote's
+ directionality to a coercer.
+ \stopitem
+ \stopitemize
+
+ Votes recieved from independent, remote locations (such as
+ hand-held, Internet-enabled devices), are susceptible to
+ coercion. The system does not, and arguably cannot, address this
+ vulnerability.
+ \stopsubsection
+ \stopsection
+\stopchapter
Delta150 lines added, 0 lines removed, 150-line increase