Ideas

This is a great idea. I would definitely contribute to this on a regular basis. What really bothers me is that people seem not to be held accountable if they are criminals or incompetents at a very high level. For example, at the bank where I still work 4 hours a day, the CEO that literally lost the bank half a billion dollars at the end of 2007 by investing in slippery, badly underwritten subprime loans, left just before the subprime crisis hit with a golden parachute of 46 million dollars. Yet if I spend time off the clock peeing, I'm reprimanded. Why do we tolerate this level of greed and incompetence at the top, and then imprison poor people for petty theft? Why aren't people out in the streets acting up over this? It really bothers me. Go for it. I'll be glad to help.

Hi,

I watched a horror movie with this same script a few nights ago.

The problem was; the "Good" guy went a bit nuts with the power and killed everybody, both good and bad. Lol

The problem as I see it is controlling this sort of Crusade, as a lot of innocents get hurt.

Think, The Inquisition, The Salem Witch Hunts, Mc Carty, the Communist Revolution, etc.

The beautiful thing about all this is that the law decides. Either someone's breaking the law, or they're not. What we have right now is a lack of accountability, not an overload of it. What movie was it? I haven't heard any idea like this anywhere else yet, and I've been looking.

I like it for the most part. The information gathering and presentation on the web is the strongest part. Quantifiable data (polluters emmissions perhaps) could be visualized/graphed and regularly updated. Then, the known data could be merged into models to predict different future conditions according to prospective policy actions.

It would be cool if justice were served, but it might ultimately have to happen in the media record (including Wolf Pack and other new media). It looks like a huge number of war criminals will retire to their corporate perks next January, and the U.S. Congress has already laid down like sick dogs and left justice for someone else pursue.

Satori: How does this help in areas where laws differ? For example: prostitution is legal in Amsterdam, and illegal in (most of) the USA. If the system is based on the laws, it is only as functional as the laws in place.

The sinister title makes me think of lynch mobs and rioters, and for something like this I think you should be going for a name that implies justice, collaboration, and change.

There are a number of organizations out there all ready who are activists in nature. For example, http://www.avaaz.org/en/

I understand the desire and the need for accountability for corporate and political figures, and in spirit I agree. Fortunately, for political roles, we can in a democracy have a say. We can vote. We can run for office. We can write and uncover things of interest and share them in the press.

Call me an idealist, but I think we can serve democracy a lot better than a lynch mob. I would worry this idea would turn into Something Aweful with pseudo political agendas.

Wolfpack has its working name because wolves and other predators are swift, fierce, and hunt in packs. However fearsome they are though, they do not cause the devastation they are usually known for. They cull the sick and unfit from the herd, and the herd's fitness improves as a result. As for the fearsome imagery, that is also quite intentional. Any sick and unfit person in a position of authority should rightly fear Wolfpack.

Wolfpack would obviously not attempt to hold an Amsterdam politician to laws of the federal united States. Its purpose is to enforce the law, however it is, wherever it is, and in so doing remove corruption. If the laws don't work, the citizens of a country can obviously change them - but they cannot do so if their government is corrupt. Corruption in positions of power and authority is what Wolfpack seeks to eliminate, by reintroducing accountability. No more, and no less.

There are a number of activism organizations. None to my knowledge are using crowdsourcing and micro-financing to reintroduce accountability, and this is the approach of Wolfpack. Wolfpack is not out to solve world hunger or any other benevolent cause - unless it's as a result of restoring a functional system by reintroducing accountability. Wolfpack simply allows crowds to keep tabs on, and apply accountability to, those in positions of greater responsibility. Politicians, corporate executives, news media, and other key figures.

If you have any other questions, feel free to share them. I have this worked out pretty well already, but Cambrian House is here in part to streamline ideas in case there's something that was overlooked. Feel free; that's what we're here for.

I should also add that Wolfpack cares not one bit who gets elected, nor from which party. The only thing it cares about is whether those in positions of authority and power are obeying the law. The trouble with elections in a corrupt society is that it doesn't matter who gets elected, they invariably subvert their position once they get into office. Voter turnout, at least in the States, is low, and I believe this is because most people are despondent about the usefulness of voting for either candidate when that's the case. Additionally, most candidates can only get electable numbers when they've gone through the major political parties and the system of status quo that is already in place. This is counterproductive, because elected representatives then serve the status quo more often than the People.

daraddishman, while I'm not sure which country you live in, I know that the States are a republic, not a democracy. Politicians today often describe it as a democracy, but recall the Pledge of Allegiance. Any politician who does not know what form of government their own country has should be removed from office immediately on the grounds of incompetence or negligence - but my research demonstrates that this is not a lack of knowledge, but an agenda to shift the perception of citizens about the nature of its government, little by little. It's just one symptom of gradual corruption, and left unchecked it is almost unnoticable except in its effects upon society.

Sharing items of interest in the press is good, but it does not organize direct action. Additionally, the press these days is also somewhat untrustworthy. They have not been kept in check either. They lap up official press briefings, seldom ask the hard-hitting questions, fail to call politicians and others on known falsehoods, and have recently been - in some areas at least - shaping political trends themselves. Have a look at Iraq 2, the big summer blockbuster that Fox News is currently selling American citizens: http://qurl.com/skr35

Why aren't people out in the streets acting up over this?
Because a lot of people secretly admire people who get away with crime and outsmarten the police.
Why did the Italians just elect one of the biggest criminals of their country? Why was Bush allowed to stay after all the failures in his first four years? Why do people still vote for his party after this guy singlehandedly made The US from a superpower into an almost bancrupt country?
With all due respect I really don't think a website is going to change that.
T

I think this is a great idea. The purpose is laudable, but I'm not sure it is really a viable business.

The problem is that there is a huge disconnect between what the people need (a site like this that holds politicians accountable) and what they want (a biased forum where they can bash the politicians they don't like in the company of like-minded fools without having to be exposed to similar bashing of politicians they do like). To many citizens are willfully ignorant of the facts and don't want to be told the truth. They will continue to support "their guy" and bash "the other guy" regardless of the facts they are exposed to. This means that partisan sites do very well but non-partisan sites like the one described here fail miserably.

You might have an easier marketing task if you split the site into a family of partisan-oriented sites that could build a like-minded audience. If everything is under one site, your only audience will be ivory-tower types who can look at things objectively.

And just to be pedantic, the USA is a republic but the representatives of each member of the republic are democratically elected so it is a defacto democracy. In the original design, a lot of the representatives of each member state were appointed either by the state governor or by the state legislature but now all are democratically elected. The electoral college used in presidential elections is the only remaining vestige of a non-democratic republic, and a lot of people are working hard to change that.

I think there's a certain amount of truth to the idea that what many people currently want, a partisan politics gladiatorial arena much like a sporting event ("bread and circuses" are the last refuge of the disempowered), is different from what they need - accountability. Whether this has brought about a news media that treats it that way, or vice-versa, is an open chicken-and-egg question. I think it's fair to say that the fare offered by prevailing media, and the options that currently exist for the average person, exert a fair amount of influence there. The average mindset is shaped and constrained by the available options that exist - and Wolfpack would provide a more effective option. It's interesting to think of ordinary people becoming empowered by its availability.

One of the great things about the internet is its ability to route around the majority mindset. The Slashdot crowd, for example, would find Wolfpack just what they're looking for. Not only would the intelligentsia provide quite a demographic - and help it catch on in the mainstream - but the profit motive would also be an incentive for many people, particularly initially. With so many average people looking for ways to "make money fast" on the internet, Wolfpack would be the ideal solution. An affiliate referral program would spread the word quite quickly. Corporate and political activism as a well-paying hobby would begin to flourish at that point, and finding areas of corruption to tackle this way would make corruption a quasi-resource that many people would be scouting out for, making it an increasingly scarce "commodity". People in power would have to learn to be a lot more cautious of their behavior, because people would be on the lookout for it, just waiting to cash in on their misconduct. Wikileaks has already generated enough attention and concern to have encountered a backlash - how much more for a site that would turn cleaning up corruption into a business in which anyone can participate?

I'd be wary of introducing partisan politics into Wolfpack. Its philosophy is that it doesn't matter who holds an influential position, or what party they're from. What matters is whether they're behaving lawfully or unlawfully. Rather than being reactive to modern partisan division, I think Wolfpack could effectively promote a mindset that bypasses meaningless distinctions (criminals in office, of any stripe, is bad) and reinforce an interest in lawful conduct, period. One of the joys of the internet is that sites don't have to cater to a dominant and dysfunctional mentality - so long as it works, it will catch on and take hold. We can be proactive, rather than reacting to something that doesn't work.

I think those people who secretly admire successful criminals is partly the result of them being, personally, in disempowered circumstances themselves. They want to see someone defy the system because the system doesn't work. And the system doesn't work because it's not being enacted by people who refuse to compromise their integrity. With Wolfpack putting a stop to that, people will have a system that is responsive and accountable - and they will remember that the system is there for and by them. That's its whole purpose. When they remember that, they will be glad participants in it once again and will want to see it work and succeed, and woe to someone who threatens that system because ordinary people will see it as something that threatens their lives and livelihoods. And it does.

I do appreciate the insightful feedback and critique. Please keep your well-considered assessments coming. I realize that I'm shooting most of it down, but I've had quite a while to get my ducks in a row on this one.

Interesting that you mention the Slashdot crowd. They have exactly the mindset I was talking about but in terms of tech rather than partisan politics. Try posting a pro-Microsoft or anti-Linux comment on Slashdot and see how you get flamed and ridiculed. It doesn't matter whether the substance of the comment is true or not, just that it doesn't fit the majority of the users' mindset (or the vocal users' mindset). Slashdot very much has the problem of only wanting to hear things that align with their preconceived opinions just like a lot of political sites do. So much so that it's become an inside joke and many Slashdot users are able to see that bias and make fun of it.

Still, I do think your project is a very good idea. The tech is reasonably simple so it would be easy to get a prototype online and see if you can get traction.

http://www.citizensoversight.org/ ?

Satori: umm...I think that talking about the USA as a republic and not a democracy is kind of a red herring my man. It is a Democratic Republic, as opposed to a Totalitarian Republic or a Communist Republic. Republics come in a wide range of political and social varieties. I happen to be Canadian, so politics is a passtime much like baseball to me. Our governmenent is 'technically' a constitutional monarchy, but in practice is a parlimentary democracy that is transitioning into a constitutional democracy. How ever you want to split hairs on it, a kettle is still black. ( unless it is stainless steel of course, then it is shiny... oh so shiny! )

Political accountability is traditionally the role of the press, who are supposed to keep us working class people up to date on what the politicians are doing or not doing. Sadly, the press are no longer accountable to anyone. Mass media and all that. So I think a grass roots accountability forum is a fantastic thing. In fact, there are a number of them out there all ready!

Just do a Google search for media watchdogs and political watchdogs.

I tend to agree with Micco, politics, like religion, is a highly personalize and opinionated environment. This does lead to pocket forums and communities where people focus on the political and social beliefs that they follow, ignoring or agressively attacking outsiders. It's all very typically human. I don't know if there is a niche for people who are politically neutral, without a social agenda, who are driven to change corruption in political, social, and economic sectors of society.

After all, one man's ethics is another man's corruption.

Summertime: Good find! It doesn't take users' money, turn it into a suit against officials breaking the law, or give it back with profit. It is in the neighborhood, though. Thanks for sharing it.

daraddishman: Okay, perhaps it seems like hairsplitting because we're working from different models. The basic distinction between a republic and a democracy isn't the electoral or representative process. In a republic, the rights of the individual are absolutely sacred and inviolate. In a democracy, the majority rules - even if they violate the rights of an individual or minority group. This is mob rule, and it runs a political system into the ground _quick._ The following quote is most often attributed to Alexander Tyler, among many historical figures:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

The mainstream press has become unaccountable to pretty much anyone, and primarily serves the agenda of those in positions of power, yes. Wolfpack aims to put a stop to that. Sure, we can route around the snafu with grassroots and the internet, leaving a counterproductive and increasingly irrelevant mainstream media in place - but who wants that? Our news media is just that - ours. It has a responsibility to report the news. Not spin rumors, not skew numbers, not promote policy, not lead us by the nose, not initiate propaganda campaigns against its own audience, but news. So when "Fox News" for example does those things, it commits fraud, obreption and arguably treason (which is still a hangable offense) as well. To attempt to work around the problem rather than solve it is absurd, and disempowering to those mainstream folks who have no idea it's going on.

Corporations are granted charters, permission to exist as legal entities, on the condition that what they do serves a greater good. There was much debate when corporations were first formed in the US as to whether they should be allowed to exist. The argument was that great public works, like the Panama Canal, could be implemented by groups of people that wouldn't be possible with mere individual investors. They were granted limited liability on the condition that they served the public good, and charters granting them existence were granted so that if this stopped being the case, they could be revoked just as easily. Today we have large corporations routinely acting in direct opposition to the public good, but when was the last time you heard of people suing to revoke corporate charters lately? You haven't, because it would have to be reported on... you guessed it, the news.

The media has invested itself in a concerted effort to create all kinds of social niches, and social groups founded upon this opinion, that contradictory opinion, and the other much more obscure opinion. As long as people interpret everything as a matter for opinion, it's easy to keep the rumor mill churning and accept unsettled matters as simply the result of different opinions. This works to their advantage.

But there is more to life than mere matters of opinion. There are facts, and there are pretty well-defined laws. Laws are pretty basic, and there isn't a lot of room for disagreement and matters of opinion. Law is designed to avoid the subjectivity you've described. Legislation, on the other hand, is designed to have the form and appearance of law, without necessarily having - and usually lacking - the substance of law. Thus, the modern emphasis on the legality or illegality of an issue. It's the juristic equivalent of opinion, and it doesn't work.

If corruption were as subjective as you describe, daraddishman, there would be no point to having a justice system at all. And because it's _being_ increasingly enforced with such disregard for lawfulness, there has been increasingly little point in having one. By restoring an emphasis on basic, objective, well-defined accountability, Wolfpack aims to reverse that trend. By avoiding the trap of irrelevant "left wing", "right wing" distinctions (since neither matter when both are flying directly towards the bug zapper) and other subjective whimsies, Wolfpack can get directly to the heart of the matter. Is someone breaking the law, or are they not? It doesn't get much simpler than that.

Wolfpack aims to provide a system where this simple, objective approach can be applied by any user, anywhere, right from their computer. No debate, no filibustering, no rhetoric. Lawful, or criminal? From credit card, to user, to Wolfpack, to attorney, to court, to verdict... and then back again. Wolfpack avoids philosophical, spiritual, and ethics debates and navel contemplation, and simply works with what law is already in place. When agents of a government bring charges against one of their citizens, they hardly place themselves into a philosophical debate, and act on the basis of one law for all, across the board. Fine then, one law for all, across the board. No ducking the law when it's inconvenient for those in positions of influence, not with Wolfpack. If the law doesn't work, then people should change it. Until they do, it remains the law and everyone is to be held to it.

No?

Can people vote on a case for free? Even so, the lawyers are going to manipulate everything, judges will play god and decide for themselves or instruct jurys how to filter the facts and evaluate. Wolfpack will fund cases through all the courts and often have to settle with statements of how and where the system went wrong. Unless you are thinking of the solution in the movie "Starchamber".

Money will corrupt the "voting" on Wolfpack, as some people will vote to win, regardless of what is right.

See uspirg.org and publicitizen.org for ideas about public advocacy and holding the government accountable. Also see gapminder.org for an example of the power of information constructively visualized to educate the public.

Summertime: People will chip in to a fund specific to an entity, like a particular corporation or entity. When the fund has enough money, the system will contact me or an attorney. People will vote for what they want to see by where they invest.

You have a good point about attorneys and lawyers making a pig's meal of it all, and another good point about pursuing cases to win regardless of matters of conscience. I have over a decade of experience researching the law - in the States at least - and know how to keep attorneys on a short leash if necessary. For example - have you heard of barratry? The reaction when you whisper it to an attorney is something like that of a vampire to a crucifix. There are quite a few other little gems as well - in fact there are ways to settle a matter in law without a judge or an attorney (Google: "commercial lien"). Even with all of the juristic techniques on my utility belt, it's still hit or miss... but I can hit more than most. The problem would ultimately be corrupt judges and attorneys, basically, and that's total system failure - we'd be looking at a revolution as the only remaining option, barring system collapse. I know how to hold their feet to the fire, and can oversee matters... but it's still a critical point you've exposed there. Nice work. =)

I'd like to retain veto power over Wolfpack's projects to avoid the money corruption you've brought up, returning funds to Wolfpack's users when a project is nixed. It's not an optimal solution, and I'll have to give that one some thought. You're a regular pistol, you know that? =) I'm thinking that the verdicts themselves will produce fair results - but requiring a commercial lien approach in iffy situations might be another solution.

I'll have to check out those sites you've shared. I wanted to get back to you at the earliest. NICE work, seriously!

I dunno, I'm still waiting to see something that is more than a rant forum, or a pseudo special interest group. I'm all for a good rant, I love reading a good rant, but I can get that on just about any blog out there.

I'm going to stop wading into the rant and debate on politics here, because this isn't really the venue for it.

What I am seeing are some community management and logistics problems here. How do you plan to deal with people with conflicting notions of what is and is not corrupt behaviour? How do you plan to reconcile the community to different beliefs in the direction laws should move ( and therefor what a person views as corrupt or non-corrupt )? Laws are fairly mutable, they do change as Summertime pointed out.

I just get the feeling that this idea is a bit naive in expecting people to play well together, and that underlaying concern isn't really being answered. It also feels like you have a very specific agenda and possition on what you see as corruption, and that the idea seems to be striving for a certain neutrality, which leads to a company and community conflict.

I'm just wondering if it wouldn't be better to set down the community mandate, spell out and define what you see as corruption and the role of the site/community, and set it up like a special interest group. ( For example, the Video Game Voters Network ). My worry is that in striving for a neutral standing you'll end up alienating the majority of the community, which would undermine the entire concept... do you have a community moderation plan? Or would you deal with it more like Avaaz.org, where certain core members of the community push out causes and members at large can choose to support or not support a particular issue?

daraddishman, it might be more straightforward to think of Wolfpack as being like a Wikipedia with a donate button on each page for an attorney account. When a user - any user - creates an entry - on anyone or anything - Wolfpack creates a fund specific to that person, corporation, or group. When a fund fills up enough - particularly enough to hire an attorney who's won the case through silent bidding - it goes to court. The court ultimately decides whether something is lawful or unlawful. The crowd keeps tabs on the key influential figures, and decides what it considers lawful or corrupt based on where people put their money. If enough people want to see action taken on something, and micro-fund a given project, it will end up in court. Court verdicts are handed back, added to the page, and if the public wants to see more action it takes more action.

I don't see how neutrality leads to conflict.

Laws are mutable, yes. But at least in the States, the political system has been outside the terms of its own laws for decades. This means that until it gets back into accordance with what it has already defined as law, none of the mutations in legislation have had lawful authority. They've drafted tons of legislation, but it hasn't been valid law. People have been enforcing it as though it were law, but that doesn't make it law. They've been drafting paper tigers, as baseless as paper money that isn't backed by substance. This simplifies Wolfpack's task enormously overall, while making it somewhat more difficult in the short term. While Wolfpack assists the public in the process of sorting law from baseless legislation lacking any lawful authority (and this will happen as Wolfpack interacts within court systems and starts to get verdicts back from lines of judicial inquiry), it will proceed initially by working with the prevalent perception of a country's law as currently used by its citizens and judicial system.

Restoring the political systems, and crowdsourcing changing the law from a legislative standpoint, rather than enforcing it from a juristicc standpoint, would make a wonderful sister site for Wolfpack.

I don't even know that Wolfpack would have a discussion forum. It may, but primarily people would be creating, editing, and adding to a Wiki, and citing their sources. If something goes to court, it will be because the compiled material in the relevant Wiki has essentially already built the case. Moderation is simple: Wikipedia has already developed a system for that. 'Citation needed' is likely to be a phrase that comes up frequently on Wolfpack's wikis. And the current prevalence of partisan politics will, I suspect, work for the good - someone staunchly opposed to something is more likely to keep a close eye on baseless citations and suchlike on its corresponding Wiki. If Joe User is partisan in favor of Thing A and emotionally set against "opposing" Thing B, he will attempt to get all the information he can for Thing B's wiki, and be keeping a close eye on the validity of all the information compiled in Thing A's. And his counterpart Jane User, with partisan views for the other side, will be doing the same thing the other way 'round. I think this will engage people rather than alienate them - and of course the profit motive is a great incentive to get people financially involved as well as emotionally.

So no, there wouldn't be people determining which causes everyone should take up. It would be like Wikipedia specifically for lawless behavior by key people and groups, but with a "Invest in lawsuit" button and meter - and it would give back upon completion of a profitable lawsuit, in whatever proportion a user has invested in it.

Wolfpack's idea of corruption is simply what is presently unlawful. If many people think that something is wrong, it's usually against the law already.

Other than that, moderation would take the forms that it does in current websites. Users that moderate "Citation needed" multiple times when a citation was obviously present will have to be dealt with appropriately. Wolfpack users who have already put money into funds would necessarily have more to lose from abusing Wolfpack, so perhaps it is they who should be able to moderate Wolfpack's wikis.

I've been thinking of Summer Veil's critique last night. My experience has been that judiciary have typically been overwhelmed by the legislative and executive aspects of government pressing for agendas on one side, and a lack of public involvement in the laws of their country on the other. They have often expressed the need for citizens to become active again in matters of law, and written plaintively about their relative helplessness to maintain order in the context of a situation of public noninvolvement as it currently exists. I believe that most judiciary figures would be overjoyed with Wolfpack's bringing the courtroom back into the public eye, and those who would not would at least be put on guard against corruption on their own part by the fact that Wolfpack's activities are being actively watched by their country's citizenry, who will demand accountability. Judicial systems are created to resolve disputes fairly, and are one of the last buffers between a dissatisfied citizenry and its politicians. With public attention on their judicial performance, they will appreciate the political consequences of a very publicly visible lapse in judicial integrity and dilligence. I think that in itself will be a strong reason to keep everything going smoothly and fairly in the courtroom, but as I'd mentioned I have other remedies in reserve as well.

Er, Summertime's comments, not Summer Veil. Sorry. =)

Again, leaving the debate behind, what happens if two seperate users initiate actions against the same situation, from opposite perspectives?

Some laws and litigation situations are definately open to that, particularly in copyright and intellectual property battles.

What happens when someone through wolfpack files a slanderous attack, or files a false attack that, due to the magic of the media, gets into the news and opens your organization to legal action? How is this going to fit with US safe harbour regulations? What happens when the community goes bonkers on something that is, in fact, false, and are then counter sued? How is your organization going to protect itself from that?

And trust me, this is not an 'if' but a 'when'. You may want to look into the legalities and what you can be liable for as a service provider.

In the first instance you've asked about, there would be two different cases, presumably funded by differently-motivated groups of users. Courts see this happen all the time.

In order for information submitted to be accepted as the basis for juristic action, it must cite a source. If the source was in error, the action was still in good faith.

Good faith dispels most legal action. I'm not sure about the safe harbour regulations, but again - they're legislation, not law. I'd shoot it down in law so fast it would make their heads spin.

Again, I'm completely unconcerned with "legalities". I work in the law, which is superior to legalism. And because I don't contract with the legal system, I'm not contractually liable for a single thing. If I encroach upon someone else I'm liable to them, but you'll find that good faith absolves quite a lot, and that the maxim "He who uses his lawful rights, harms no one." applies here. In fact, there is another maxim of law that says, "He who does not repel a wrong when he can, induces it.". In other words, by making sure information has cited sources when it's compiled, I and Wolfpack are exercising diligence and acting in good faith. From a judicial perspective, no harm no foul. Otherwise, nobody would use the courts in the first place.

I have over a decade of experience with law. I've already taken legal eventualities into account, have solutions, and I'm not worried. Thanks for the critique, though!

After pondering that you will use a Wiki and maybe not a forum, it does seem like a completely different animal. The crowds work up the entire case and pitch cream puffs to the attorneys that take the cases. Could it re-structure the cost of pursuing justice in the courts (level the playing field somehow)?

You hinted at a few issues, and I smell "Income Tax Protest" in one or two of those hints. I saw a very effective case for the illegality of the US income tax code made in a documentary, but it is evident that the feds can ignore the letter of the law (or lack thereof) and put protestors in jail without a fair trial. Maybe Wolfpack could address such issues, but I think the Wiki product will stand as the real achievement long before the public gets any satisfaction in court.

Maybe issues wrought with particularly obnoxious legalese will be translated into English (or the respective native language) to facilitate public participation. Still, as I said before, it will really help to visualize information where appropriate. Many of the scientific Wikipedia pages have nice presentations of figures, graphs, animations, and links to related materials.

You've got it in one. My long-term goal for Wolfpack is bringing the political system back into line as a whole, but I'm willing to start with simple things like generating a large, participating user base and taking care of isolated cases. When Wolfpack takes off, there's going to be a much more well-informed public, and people will be ready for that kind of thing. When I make a plan, I find it useful to start with where I want to be, and then work my way back to the present.

Translating convoluted legal concepts into something intelligible and promoting public awareness and participation in the law again is right in line with my agenda. Links too. I'm not sure how I'd implement visual data, but the idea is growing on me. People like pictures of data, something that they can easily grasp, gasp at, and link to friends. Things like the deficit, and a pie chart showing how Americans spend a third of their money to pay their taxes is a sure winner. Maybe another to show that about half of that goes to the defense budget, that kind of thing.

I'm not sure about how it is in other countries, but if citizens in the States are ever going to restore lawful government, there's going to have to be a lot more public interest and involvement. That's a large part of Wolfpack's less-advertised agenda. It's what inspired me to come up with a business model that would accomplish that, and leverage everyone's current interests to shift things into a better area.

And I think that as more Americans learn the law and insist that it's written in English, attorneys will eventually become less necessary because it won't be some kind of ivory tower setup requiring go-betweens and translators in the first place. But Wolfpack itself will make large-scale justice something just about anyone can afford.

well this idea IS making waves

Wow, I go away for a few days and all heck breaks loose! (o:

I'm shocked by the cynical response to the idea. I mean, its essential Ralph Nader with cooler graphics and symbolism. I personal think that we have a responsibility not to fall prey to cynicism. Just because some Americans would not much care for such a site doesn't in any sense mean it isn't worth doing. For instance, returning to my bank example---There are facts, like tons of facts and data, that make a case for corporate irresponsibility without any need for slander or any kind of vigilante mentality. Why not make this information available at the very least? Corporations have huge budgets to put the most positive spin possible on horrible actions and ideas. Why not at least give people a place where they can get fact if they want them?

People who don't want to know the facts will no believe them however they are delivered. That is true. But some people do want them.

I still think it's a good idea.

Man I left the 'ly' off essentially and personally.

Personally I think I'm essentially exhausted. Time to go vegetate!

Let's see if this works. If you don't see a Wolfpack Sprout below that you can share on your site, there's one at http://limboboy.livejournal.com/

<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.ma...cab#version=9,0,0,0" width="360" height="301" id="spo_zwBADvLEBBIgmRP4"><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="align" value="middle" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="movie" value="http://farm.sproutbu...wBADvLEBBIgmRP4.swf" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedi...m/go/getflashplayer" name="spe_zwBADvLEBBIgmRP4" src="http://farm.sproutbu...wBADvLEBBIgmRP4.swf" width="360" height="301" wmode="transparent" align="middle" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" quality="high"></embed></object>
<img style="visibility:hidden;width:0px;height:0px;" border=0 width=0 height=0 src="http://counters.gigya.com/wildfire/CIMP/bT*xJmx*PTEyMTAwNDA3MTI*MTkmcHQ9MTIxMDA*MTc5NzkxMCZwPTEyMDc*MSZkPTMyNDI*OSZuPSZnPTE=.jpg" />

You may want to lower that $50 price point. Wikimedia Foundation makes money on the crowds by getting a $1 from 1000's people, not $50 from 4-5 people. I worry about a fixed price point like that, certainly you don't want to do less than a dollar, or paypal will kill you with service fees.

Thanks. I went with a $50 price point because that's becoming prevalent with P2P lenders, and because of PayPal and credit card transaction fees. people want their money to go to the cause, not getting frittered away on service fees. I'll keep an open mind about it, but I've already thought about it.

fundable.org has a minimum of $5, and it's probably the closest model to what you are trying to do. They take a 10% cut of what every your funding ticket raises, and that goes to service fees and running the site. avazz.org will take as low as $1.00 I believe, but encourage nothing smaller than $5. I'd check out them rather than a P2P lending service, since you aren't really doing micro loans... Even big microloan groups like kiva.org only have a minimum of $25.00

There are all ready a number of whistle blower, watch dog sites.

This is true. Do any of them allow users to keep a Wikipedia on corruption, and invest in bringing them to justice with a return on their money?

I'll pass on this one, packs are packs , no mater how many legs they have. We who have two legs look after the week, and have habit of following the herd.

Why would they need to use Wikipedia? I don't really see that much benefit in them using a wiki over other systems. Most, typically file lawsuits to within the extent of the law. A lot of the time they are class action.

I don't like this idea. It sounds good on the surface, but what you are really talking about is empowering "the mob." True democratic societies are ruled by the whims of the crowd and have been found, historically, not to work. The United States, while democratic in nature, is actually a Republic - a representative government. This eliminates mob rule and allows the legal process to rationally work out justice. Yes, it is imperfect. But, it is the best system that man has ever created.

When everyone in the crowd has the power to point and say, "that man is guilty," then true justice is not possible. Other members of the crowd can jump on that one accusation and, without further proof, perpetuate the accusation resulting in a lynch mob. Think of what can happen if someone yells "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. You are obviously set on bringing people to justice. But, is this really a fair and just way to do that?

It would also be very easy to corrupt such a process with propaganda and even bribes. So, by giving everyone the ability to call you to account for yourself, you actually create a system where accountability is a closely guarded commodity. It could possibly have an opposite effect and cause people to be even more secretive than they are now.

Plus, where are the checks and balances? To what laws and standards will everyone be judged against? And, who will ensure that all actions and accusations being taken are being held up to those standards? Who will hold those making the accusations to account for themselves? The whole system could be broken with the outbreak of millions of petty squabbles between individual members of the crowd. Each one pointing the finger at the other.

I understand your intentions. But, I don't think you have taken into consideration what can happen if people feel hurt or insulted or offended and make accusations that are not true. Vengeance can be a serious problem in a system that permits anyone to make accusations from the comfort of their own computer. Your good intentions could very well create an on-line group of vigilantes.

Just my 2-cents.