Instead of a traditional security for the lenders, the lenders build their trust on the reputation, that the author has earned in the communities.
In this definition in the framework of WikiNomics, authors can be any originators of wiki-, blog-, forum- contributions of WikiPedia:CopyRight or WikiPedia:CopyLeft content or forms. (Concepts, Ideas, Databases, Software, Graphics, Music).
A real world example on <-> [AboutusOrg:CreateConnectCollaborate] invites to action and reflection.
This is a dead idea from the XanaduProject. I think it never caught on for a reason. If people wanted money, they would ask for it. If money was necessary to induce interaction, then wikis (or communities to be more general) would not exist as they do now. -- SunirShah
First, I can make a value judgment, just as you can by asserting your bias towards 'wiki culture' as a framework for social, political, and economic organization. Surely of any domain, approaches to social order demand value judgments.
However, that being said, it is a dead idea from the Xanadu Project. The full noun phrase is relevant. -- SunirShah
FridemarPache: So I interpret your formulation as a challenge to increase my efforts to evolve the new idea. Are you ready, that I give an example from a non-wiki community, where signed authoring in wikis or forums create indirectly economical value for an author? Other peers (Pros and Cons are invited to add their experiences).
When you present a framework of ideas that are orthogonal to the general framework your audience follows, you have to be ready for challenges when the ideas contradict premises we base our every experience on. Either you will succeed in overcoming these challenges, and your idea will be stronger, or you won't, in which case it's very probable you are wrong. There are two approaches to overcome objections: reasoned argument or empirical evidence. At least you can be assured that the environment here will be based on reasoned discourse.
I did not just give you a BarnStar because I wanted you to stop exploring your ideas, but I don't agree with your ideas either. There's a seeming contradiction there, perhaps, but not really. Challenging ideas is important, in both direction. You are challenging ours and we are challenging yours. We'll both be better off in the end. It's a fair trade, don't you think?
Now that being said, there is a legitimate concern on the table that monetizing contribution changes the perceived value of contribution in harmful ways. -- SunirShah
FridemarPache: Please Sunir, do understand me right. Contrary to Xanadu I don't appeal to monetizing contributions in a direct way. I am going to base the (not yet fully exposed idea of) TrueAuthorCredit on empirical evidence in the sense of EconomicsOfReputation, that e.g. you and many other people here have earned by their numerous contributions as authors earning them economic advantages as professionals. In the rudimentally SocialDomaining community of Google:NamePros, there are highly appreciated authors, who stand out by extremely useful forum contributions that build recognition and trust into their financial offers and transactions. Take this as a reference frame to be explored (hopefully not alone).
HelmutLeitner: Fridemar, anything we do (or write) may change our reputation. This is something we perceive and this may or may not add to the motivation to contribute. There was a long discussion on WardsWiki about signed contributions because Ward and others felt signing as anti-wiki, hindering pure DocumentMode. Reality walked over them. // BTW this page is little helpful for the reader because the intro doesn't really explain the idea, as often you do not make yourself clear.
FridemarPache: Helmut, thank you for the clarification request. I rewrote the intro and softened my conversational parts, hoping to get understood. Sunir please apologize the inconvenience due to my earlier approach. I can guess that my earlier wording might have triggered associations into a rejected TechnologySolution like Xanadu, what was not intended.