PeopleTree is the name for an e-community website. The website would enable collective decision-making to be made in large communities and subcommunities interwoven into one large structure. The views of these interlocking communities would be represented on a platform most similar to an augmented Wikipedia.
The origin of PeopleTree
PeopleTree came about originally as a solution to the problem of joining ethics to economics (see here).
A fuller explanation of the aspirations of PeopleTree is here.
The functionality of the site would be applicable to any situation where collective decision making would be required. This could include situations such as:
• decision-making in neighbourhoods; and
• discussion amongst electorates about decisions within their remit.
The design of PeopleTree
More detail about aspects of the design of PeopleTree may be found here.
• Peopletree should be similar to a democratic ‘Wikipedia of opinions’;
• Those opinions should be filterable according to community and viewpoint;
• A site such as this can be represented as a single chain of text (with page breaks represented as a certain character);
• Any chain of text may be morphed to any other using just three operations:
• swap one word with a word either side of it;
• substitute a word for another (including substitution by a blank joining the words either side to each other);
• add words;
• This process may be very significantly simplified by using software to analyse the text grammatically and having users make many of the above operations simultaneously to mirror single grammatical shifts and text changes;
• Making such changes would require a relative degree of skill and would most likely be carried out only by a certain proportion of users (akin to the Wikipedia editors);
• Each change would be described according to what it would achieve;
• Most users would vote on whether they approved of those changes or not (in a secondary ‘cloud of issues’);
• Delegation mechanisms could ensure participation of all, directly, or indirectly through nominated or default representatives;
• In this way the text would evolve in interlocking and multiple layers of community that would allow all to express their view but foster unity.
More detail is available here.