Peergroups: A Plurality of Peergroups
In order to allow for diversity, logis can be rated from the viewpoints of - what we call - peergroups. There are multiple peergroups, and they basically are a duplication of the just described rating-system. Thus contributions can be rated from the viewpoints of different peergroups, logis can have multiple ratings, and authors won't have the same voting-power within each peergroup. And when browsing LogiLogi, visitors can pick which peergroup to use as their filter. Thus except meritocratic, LogiLogi is also open to a diversity of schools and paradigms in the sense of early Thomas Kuhn. And this is not a far-fetched requirement for a philosophy platform such as LogiLogi, because within philosophy there are lots of different views on what constitutes good philosophy.
Anonymous users, and most users who just received an account, are only members of the General Peergroup. They can use other peergroups as filters, but they do not have any voting-power in them. Only users with accounts can become members of other peergroups and this can happen in one of two ways. Firstly an user can be invited by e-mail; either as a co-founder or as normal member, in which case his voting-power becomes 5.0, resp the normal base-power (1.0) in that peergroup. Secondly, when an author's logi is rated positively by a member of a peergroup that he (the author) is not yet a member of, he will automatically receive a membership, with base-power. In addition he also will get the honours powers for the rated logi. From then on he will be able to rate the logis of others and receive honours powers for his own logis, just like all other members. Peergroups are thus largely self-organizing.
The distinction between beginning authors and distinguished reviewers is thus a gradual one. This allows for a more natural representation of the differences in experience and knowledge between people. On the peergroup home-page members are listed and ranked by their voting-power. They even receive a percentile to show their rank relative to other authors in the same peergroup. An example is shown in the ranking screenshot. It remains to be seen to what extent such precision in ranking is practical, and will be appreciated by authors, but it is at least possible. In future versions of LogiLogi we hope to make these things - as well as the formula for rewarding honours voting powers - configurable by the founders of peer-groups, so they can decide for themselves how hierarchical or egalitarian they want them to be. This will allow for experimentation and, hopefully, for finding optima.
It already is the case that new peergroups can be created by anyone on LogiLogi, just as it is possible for anyone to post logis on LogiLogi. Thus not only is review separated from publication, but review can be done by multiple groups (and in the future, methods). So plurality is ensured, and there is room for a diversity of refreshing views and approaches. Now of course, both getting one's logi rated well by a distinguished peergroup, and drawing users and authors to newly created peergroups, will be hard, but that's only natural, as time and attention (contrary to computer memory) are scarce. Here we assume, similarly to what currently is the case in the world of journals, that both authors and readers will be able to figure out what are the good peergroups. The difference with the current situation, however, is that creating a new peergroup - unlike a new journal - does not bring startup-costs.