(Contributed by Dan Zalles on 8-26) UI for assigning selectable tags that characterize the nature of a comment. For example, let's say there is discourse in the C-Wiki on how much money is in the federal budget for Title I (the federal education program for disadvantaged children). Someone invites comments about the allocation. Any number of comments could arise but all could be taggable in terms of what characterizes them: For example: the comments could be expressing these broad sentiments:

1. "The allocation is wrong because the Federal Government has no business being involved in education." (Possible tags: idealogical, critical)

2. "This increase is a step in the right direction because many states are cutting back on compensatory education programs." (Possible tags: claiming, supportive)

3. "The allocation is wrong because my state isn't getting enough of the funding." (possible tags: self-interested, critical)

4. "The allocation is wrong because the allocation formula is misdirected away from educational outcomes." (possible tags: technical, critical)

5. "A cost benefit study conducted by _ and _ in 19__ showed no significant relationship between the national Title I funding distribution and gains on student test scores (Possible tag: evidence-based claiming)

6. (Response to #4 above: "The aforementioned study was only conducted in Kansas and Nebraska, so the results are not generalizable to the whole nation. (Possible tag: criticizing a claim)

7. "A cost benefit study conducted by _ and _ in 19__ showed no significant relationship between the Title I funding distribution and gains on student test scores in Kansas and Nebraska (Possible tag: factual -- a fact expresses a robust connection between a claim and the information cited by the claimant as supporting evidence)

8. "The allocation decisions were rushed too quickly through committee -- not enough time was scheduled for expert testimony." (Possible tags: process-oriented, critical)

9. To express opposition to this unfair distribution, we are launching a letter-writing campaign from parent-teacher associations. More information is available at www.______." (Possible tags: strategic, critical)

10. Of the senators who voted for the bill, ____% received donations from teacher unions for their most recent election campaigns. (Possible tags: process-oriented, claiming--until "connect the dots" proof is offered, which makes it factual.)

11. "The fact that most of the senators who supported the bill got campaign money from the teacher's unions only goes to show that they were corrupt and closed-minded." (Possible tags: process-oriented, critical, accusatory)

12. "The fact that most of the senators who opposed the bill got campaign money from conservative groups only goes to show that they were corrupt and closed-minded." (Possible tags: process-oriented, supportive, accusatory)

Then there is a whole other dimension to a comment, which has to do with the motivation and character of the commenter (e.g., honest, inquiring, collaborative, deceptive, spinning, adversarial). This is trickier for tag assignment and might become clearer as reputation is built from the contributor's comment history.

--Dan

The last; the reputation layer has multidimensional complications; a legislator can be progressive on one issue and conservative on another, as can the commentor. e bay reputation has, by contrast relatively few parameters; is it the agreed upon item and quality, is it on time, etc. they progress in a linear way toward trust. here trust is parsed, and markets are the best analogy; truth and value will be of increasing value as their value is made granular or fractal, within key legislative units, like a particular bill compromise. this old fart will pay for things that help young poor women. but not for young boys. so he could be on board on that issue, from a personal standpoint, but that's the only needy people he recognizes. factor in particular money or power interests in play and even that simple fact; he wants to help young women become independent, becomes clouded. lyndon johnson wanted to help the poor all along, he only did it during the brief time of his ascendancy during the great society initiative. his prior rating would have not said he'd do that, but there were signs in many of his actions; he took action on behalf of the poor when he had the political power and the cost was not too great to his other objectives. how do you rate a guy like that? the halls of congress are full of complex characters and motivations. Kevin Jones