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.

Kevin - Wikipedia would allow people to keep collaborative tabs on key figures, without it turning into a political debate. The Wolfpack Wiki would lead to lawsuits, and particularly class-action lawsuits.

DaveH - It doesn't sound as though you understand this idea. It involves enlisting public participation in the justice system, by providing a convenient - and profitable - mechanism allowing internet crowds to bring cases to trial, even against the most powerful figures and corporations. As for the standard by which they would be adjudicated, it would be the system of justice in the Republic of which you've written, and it's equivalent in other countries. By applying the law as it already exists, there is no legitimate concern that a democratic throng would persecute anyone. It is simply increased access to participation in the justice system as it already exists, available from the internet. If you're concerned about "checks and balances", "law and standards" within your country's justice system, Wolfpack would be an excellent means of correcting that problem by holding key political figures accountable for misapplication of the law.

I have taken into account the potential for untrue accusations. As has been evident from reading this thread, information added to the wiki will require a citing of sources. If the information is still inaccurate, a court of law would determine this rather quickly in its proceedings. As for "permitting anyone to make accusations from the comfort of their own computer", people do that on IRC all the time. But in taking them into law, the justice system requires those accusations to have some legitimate basis. By requiring backing for those accusations, Wolfpack can actually dispel baseless accusations that are already prevalent, because the approach necessarily involves a "put up or shut up" approach.

This was already quite evident from this discussion thread. I wish you had examined Wolfpack more closely before reaching a conclusion, and criticizing aspects of it that were self-evidently without flaw. But this would seem to be the difference between Wolfpack's system and Cambrian House's. Your comment that Wolfpack's "good intentions could very well create an on-line group of vigilantes." was not only a meritless argument given the information already presented here, it appears to "spin" against Wolfpack with just the kind of "petty squabbles" and "accusations [without] standards" you have just described.

This obvious correlation cannot have failed to occur to you, and so I have to look askance at the underlying direction of your posting. I would submit that something like Wolfpack would be something that would draw a lot of fire from powerful figures once it starts, and like Wikileaks would probably receive attempts to shut it down. If it has already gotten "noticed", this may already be the case. I would therefore caution anyone posting a comment to check their facts before posting.

Why don’t you take us all through an example case? Pick a corporation you think should be sued and tell us how this will work step by step. Explain the roles, responsibilities, and relationships of the people in the organization, “the crowd”, and the legal system and how you see it all coming together. And, explain how you will verify people and facts as they are encountered along the way. I think that will explain your idea a lot better.

Sure, that sounds reasonable and constructive. I'll give you a tour.

Running a wiki site, entries would be created by Wolfpack users themselves. A user with the goods on, say, Fox News, would create an entry for it. They would contribute the information they have on the corporation, including their sources. The entry would be evaluated by Wolfpack staff and/or users within the Wolfpack community to assess whether the entry met certain guidelines - similar to those Wikipedia itself has, for clarity, the presence of source citations, appropriate tone, and so forth. In the interests of justice, an evaluation by Wolfpack's users with oversight by Wolfpack staff would probably be the best approach. Presumably for the purposes of our tour, let us say that the entry met the required guidelines, and became part of Wolfpack's wiki. The entry would be published, and also contain an "Invest" button.

Users in the Wolfpack community would see the new entries as updated. They would be able to access information in the entries, and provide additional information (again, citing sources), with each new revision being reviewed as more information was compiled. Let us say for our purposes that an entry was also created for Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News. Wolfpack users would Invest (through the button) a minimum of $50 to a fund for any entry on Wolfpack they thought deserved the money.

Wolfpack would also be accepting silent bidding on attorneys, and later lawyers, who would take these cases. Their qualifications would be reviewed by Wolfpack staff, and if they were evidently competent the lowest bidder would win the job. When an entry for "Fox News", for example, was funded enough to afford the services of the attorney or lawyer, they would take the matter into law, starting a court case to redress these grievances listed on Fox News' entry. This may involve a simple lawsuit, it may involve a class-action suit, or it may involve a suit to revoke Fox News' corporate charter - or all three. Since in this case the plaintiff is not in office, suing for impeachment wouldn't be relevant. Criminal charges may or may not also apply.

The case would to go trial. Wolfpack's attorneys would make the case, and would receive a ruling. The ruling may or may not be in favor of the claims made by Wolfpack's user base. It may or may not involve damage awards or asset seizure. The ruling would be reported on the corresponding Wolfpack entry page, and any awarded sums or asset seizures would be [converted into money if necessary and] returned to the Wolfpack users in direct proportion to how much they had financially contributed to that fund. At that point, Wolfpack's userbase could decide this was sufficient, start a new fund on that page to appeal if necessary, or start a new fund to pursue new information for that entity.

Wolfpack would be funded primarily through a small percentage of the funds invested by Wolfpack's users, and of the seized assets.

My thought is that by making active participation in justice and accountability for people everywhere, all over the globe, there will be a lot more caution on the part of politicians, news media, corporations, corporate executives, and other key figures to obey the law. I should probably mention that corporations in, say, Brazil, would be handled under Brazilian law by Brazilian attorneys, and so on. My thought is also that the profit motive would provide additional incentive for users to invest themselves in justice. Cited sources would be linked to, and if the source material was inaccurate it would come up in court and the misunderstanding would be resolved. Because Wolfpack requires checking of source citations, good faith and due diligence would have been established. From a court's perspective, no harm, no foul. Wolfpack would naturally retain a certain amount of its monies in reserve against future legal expenses that would most certainly come up against it, most probably from powerful figures and structures that would pursue its demise - just as Wikileaks had recently been contending with a banker who attempted to shut the site down after incriminating information was leaked on the site.

If you have any questions or would like clarification, please do let me know. I appreciate your interest.

OK, so how do the economics work? How will you have enough money from any one settlement to pay the lawyers, pay back the investors with some interest, and have money left over to pay yourselves? Plus, many big court cases can drag on for years and still never get a ruling in your favor. So, how will you keep going and/or keep money coming in for a particular trial?

Will you ever need to take money from one project to fund another one? If so, won't that frustrate the intended purpose of the donations? What if I am for one law suit, but find that my money is being used instead for another cause that I don't believe in? Is there a refund policy?

I'd also like to see an example of what you see as a typical payout. Using your Fox news example, let's say I invested $100.00. What could the settlement be and how much would I stand to make?

Legal and lawyer fees would be paid up-front by the investments. The amount of damages and seized assets awarded would be determined by the court, in accordance with current standards and what the entity did or did not do. The received monies may not be more than Wolfpack's users had invested. In many cases, they may not be anything if there are no damages. Wolfpack users would be aware of this going in. Every day people donate money, free and clear, to effect social change. They have little if any reason to think that they will get it back, even in part - and certainly not in larger amounts than they have put in. Wolfpack would not guarantee this, but in some cases there would be profit. After taking a to-be-determined percentage, Wolfpack would return the rest to its donating/investing users, even if there's more than they started with. It's not a rigged system, and it's certainly a better way to make money online that clicking on banner ads for a penny a click.

Attorneys would bid on a project, just like construction contractors do.

Wolfpack would not take money from one project to fund another. Possibly, it may institute a policy of clearing accounts after enough time has lapsed without the fund reaching any viable amount. This policy would be clearly documented to users. It could involve a redistribution randomly or evenly to other accounts, but it is more likely that the money could be returned to users. Many online programs do this. Again, this would be plainly and visibly stated, whatever the policy ends up being.

Using the Fox News example, your share would not be determined by the amount of money itself. It would be proportionate. Excluding Wolfpack's points, if your $100 represented 10% of the fund, you would receive 10% of the awarded assets, damages, or what-have-you. Damage awards are typically determined by courts according to official guidelines, which courts would apply dependent upon how many charges went through with a favorable verdict, on the relative severity of the charges, and on the assets of Fox News (and punitive damages especially, on that last point). If the charter was revoked and its assets somehow awarded to Wolfpack - a degree of success that is probably more whimsy than realism - Wolfpack would take its share, and disburse the rest to its users who had donated to the fund, in the proportion each user had donated.

If the charges were, say, treason against all core members of Fox News as well as a civil suit to yank their corporate charter, and these went through, we could presumably expect to see headlines as Fox News personnel were executed. If Fox News and Rupert Murdoch were found guilty of racketeering charges - and there certainly appears to be enough evidence - Title 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 19 1963 (a) suggests that in addition to 20 years in prison at least, Murdoch would lose Fox News and any wealth, property, securities or holdings he has accrued from said racketeering. Rupert Murdoch's net worth is estimated at $8.8 billion. If this went through, and he were found guilty, and all his assets seized and awarded to Wolfpack, and if you had donated 10% of the fund you would be looking at about $800,000,000, give or take, before taxes. The court will have its discretion, of course, but it's still nothing to sneeze at.

And no, that wasn't a typical payout. I'm not sure I could reasonably estimate the amount of a typical payout - this, to my knowledge, has never been done before.

Since you are not a District Attorney acting for the government, who would bring the suit? The person who created the wiki post? What if he/she didn't want to participate and only wanted to provide the initial evidence? Don't you need to actually represent a person or group that has been harmed in some way by the person being attacked by the wolfpack?

I believe you're correct. However, most of these would be class-action. The concept here is primarily to allow people to bring large corporations, politicians, executives, and other key figures to justice where appropriate. In these cases, their actions would have affected many, and in some cases, everyone in a given country. Finding someone who _didn't_ have a legitimate claim would be difficult. But if necessary this, too, could be crowdsourced - to find someone involved who was willing to participate. This aspect of Wolfpack would be more like crowdsurfing ambulance-chasing, admittedly - but for the public good and with plenty of public awareness and support.

In criminal cases, this may not always be necessary. And laws do vary from country to country, at least for the moment. Good questions, DaveH.

wow you have thought this thought... you are passionate about this idea I can see that by your posts... I just do not see how you are going to make money... am I blind?

I think if you're "getting" the concept, even only to some extent, you just need the details to click into place.

Wolfpack will "skim" off the top of user contributions, and court-ordered awards, damages, asset seizures and so forth. It will be open about it, obviously. And this will pay the overhead - and probably more, given that we'll be taking down key corrupt figures, corps... it's where all the money's at, redistributing the wealth according to justice and integrity.

Did you mean how will Wolfpack's users make money? They'll get back what's court awarded in proportion to their contribution to the fund, after Wolfpack takes its share. There won't always be court-ordered awards that go to Wolfpack in every case, but where there are - whew! We're talking moolah.

http://www.moveon.org/campaigns.html

3 million people belong to Move On and they run campaigns around both public and private entities. They run some pretty amazing operations, you should check out their http://www.moveon.or...success_stories.html
section.

Great stuff! Sounds like just the kind of thing Wolfpack would want to work with. Thanks for sharing it!

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

Man, this could be the start of the Accountability Papparazzi!!! You could have different "packs" engaging in crowfunding efforts and offering up bounties on elected officials and corporate leaders. 50k if you get the goods on McCain's mistress, 25k for pictures of Obama smokin weed in college. ;)

No doubt. I _like_ it! And the minute we find out that powerful figures are manipulating the Accountability Papparazzi to forward a criminal agenda, Wolfpack slams 'em with racketeering charges. It's relatively easy to get the goods on stuff like that: http://www.squidoo.c.../applied_kinesiology

I think this is a great way for misinformation to be fished out. The only thing I think I would worry about is misinformation being covered with more information disguised as truth. who knows.

Agreed. But at least people would be looking, and there'd be criminal charges waiting for anyone who did that and got caught at it. Hee.

I think this is amazing and necessary, i still don't understand all of it, but what you are saying is that this goes beyond something as simple as grass roots citizen oversight, but this goes into being able to setup class action lawsuits against anyone too, right?

Well sure. Anyone may sue anyone, at least theoretically. In order to win, you must have a fair hearing and vital information. =)

Like Wikipedia, people will be able to compile information on anyone or any corporation, anywhere in the world. And if people think it's worth donating to or investing in, any cause can see a trial or lawsuit. Basically, it's just a way of expressing the fact that, "If enough people want something enough, it will happen."

Megacorporations, influential figures, politicians, corporate executives, anyone who doesn't have immunity. And sometimes even when they do, where lawful means exist. In order to go to court, you must simply have money. In order to win, you must be right, and there must be a fair trial.

When applicable, court awarded monies and assets - think corporate and megarich-person-assets - could go back to Wolfpack users in direct proportion to their share of investing into that cause. Users provide money and facts, Wolfpack turns it into a court case, courts turn it (presumably) into a verdict and an award, and Wolfpack can skim from that to pay overhead and give the rest back to the users who put their money in in the first place. Investing in justice. =)

You really seem to have a thing against "mega-rich" people and their assets. You mention these assets many times, as well as "mega-corporations," which makes me think that your motivation for doing this is for the wrong reasons. You seem to already have "a list" of people and organizations that you assume are already guilty before the legal process has even begun.

Empowering people, making the process easier, and actually rewarding them for participating will just create thousands of informants. Plus, I don't get the feeling that you are doing this out of any kind of LOVE for your country as much as hatred towards people and organizations that you have already targeted. That's no foundation for a successful business.

The only people who should benefit financially are those who are truly harmed by the people being sued. Bystanders should not be able to profit from the process, nor should they be enticed to donate with a promise of profits. I think that is incredibly unethical.

Furthermore, what's to stop you, or anyone else, from creating a list in the wiki that targets people and corporations you don't like? One of our most basic rights is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. I think you are trying to ignore this constitutional right. Receiving a very high salary does not automatically incriminate a person. Being rich is not a crime. Having political views that differ from you is not against the law. Offer people money for finding dirt on rich people and they will do their best to find it - even if the people you target aren't dirty. What happens when you attempt to sue someone who is innocent? I'd say the chances of that happening with the organization you proposed are about 100%.

I don't care how much experience you have in the practice of law, from an ethical and moral standpoint - I this is un-American. The last thing our country needs is to make it easier for lawyers and their clients to cash in on jackpot verdicts. The whole thing reeks of class envy and borders on socialism and redistributing wealth among the masses.

Why do you really want to attack these mega-corporations and mega-rich people? Is it just because they have more money than you?

Well, more apparent grandstanding.

I'm reluctant to go on the defensive with this. But to answer your concerns, I have done a lot of research and found that the rich and the powerful have elevated themselves against justice because of their money and influence. And bringing them to justice is thoroughly American, or civic for any country in the world. To continue being unable to do so would be dysfunctional in the extreme, and lead to exactly the sort of problems the world has today. Halliburton working with sweet government contracts and setting up 800 concentration camps in the U.S. alone? Military digging into our /newsrooms/ and influencing our news? /That/ is un-American, and demands some accountability to the people once again.

The operation of law harms no-one. That is what courts are for, to sort out and resolve disputes. If there is wrongdoing, it will allow them to come to light. If there isn't, presumably the case is dismissed for lack of evidence. Equating justice with attack is what is thoroughly un-American, sir, and I would pointedly bring that to your attention.

You keep using blanket statements lumping all of the "rich" and "powerful" together. That's prejudice. You are wrong in your assertion that they have elevated themselves against justice - because you obviously mean all of them, and that's just not true. I think you have a hidden agenda with this whole idea - I think you just want to play Robin Hood and target the people and organizations you don't like.

You accuse me of equating justice with "attack?" And yet, you're the one who has named his idea, "WolfPack." You have provided us with the very image of an attack, and I think that is exactly what will happen if this ever sees the light of day. You will never be able to control the crowd and make it do your bidding. You might not be guilty of libel, but the people who post on your website might. That makes you guilty by association. At the very least you will be sued to have private and personal data on people removed from public view. Credibility would be a very big problem.

Pointing to a few cases where people are guilty does not sanitize your reasons for wanting to do this. There will always be guilty people in the world. But, the truth is - our legal system was set up to prevent people like you from trying to make a business of the lawsuit process.

DaveH, I have no problem with people who are rich and/or powerful in and of themselves. But very often a lack of accountability causes their choices to shift beyond what is lawful. Where that doesn't happen, Wolfpack has no place - and the courts would presumably determine that, which is why nothing untoward could happen in cases in which everything was aboveboard on the part of key figures and corporations.

I don't accuse you of equating justice with attack, your posts themselves demonstrate conflation on your part of the two concepts. There is an old maxim of law, which states, "The law never works an injury, or does him a wrong." In other words, where there is nothing lawless, the law finds no guilt and so law is not an attack. I would be more concerned about the law finding innocence where guilt existed, than the reverse. The only time the courts wouldn't deliver a verdict in accordance with law is in cases where the court system were broken - and it certainly isn't broken in favor of the people at the moment.

As for Wolfpack's imagery, I think it's time to examine why a symbol that is so empowering to the People warrants such contention. People receive disempowering messages from their media on a daily basis now, and so when something comes along that affirms an empowered position for the People, it seems odd or off. It isn't. As I stated earlier in this forum, while wolves are known for being vicious and bloodthirsty, they don't cause the carnage for which they're known. In actuality, they make the overall strength and health of herds increase, by picking off the sick and the weak among them. Key figures, corporations, and so on who are living in accordance with the law have nothing to fear. Corrupt ones /should/ rightly fear Wolfpack. This philosophy, by the way, is archetypically American, and a vital part of the essence of liberty - which has become lost in modern times. Thomas Jefferson said, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." I think it's time to restore the imbalance caused by corruption and aided and abetted by a consolidation of money and power, and put politicians, megacorps and key figures in a position where they can once again be judged by the same standards that everyone else is. If anything, they should receive more intense scrutiny - political representatives are _supposed_ to be watched more closely than, say, a fisherman - because they're supposed to be representing the Will of the People, and because they're in a position to do more harm than a simple fisherman. We have accounts from insiders who have worked with these people, decrying how corrupt it is and telling us directly that we need to be keeping closer tabs on our representatives and what they're up to - and we could hardly be keeping tabs on them less. When people who have worked for the administration tell us directly, for example, that we need to keep an electronic voting system accountable and on a short leash, I'm certainly inclined to believe they know what they're talking about. Meanwhile, for the average person who doesn't appreciate the nature of actual wolves and what they do, they are left with with the ferocious imagery of a pack of wolves mercilessly ripping apart anything and everything they can - which means that facile people will be able to appreciate it on a facile level, and more knowledgable people can glean a better understanding of it on a deeper level. So we have a visual that's deliberately empowering to a lot of people, and self-explanitory as to who for those who do their research.

I don't know what the "legal system" was set up to do other than defraud an entire country or countries, but the de jure, original system of law and justice was designed to make sure that everyone's rights were secure - not prevent people from making money while ensuring accountability to law at all levels.

I have no desire whatever to control a crowd. Rather, I would unleash it. Anyone attempting to control the lawful Will of the People is setting themselves up for failure. Like everyone else, it is constrained by the law so that it doesn't drift off into dysfunctional and unproductive directions. And the same /should/ be true for those in positions of power, for the very same reason. When this isn't the case, society has problems - and they're exactly what Wolfpack is designed to sort out.

I would greatly appreciate it if you'd stop whining that I'm just out to be unfair to the rich and powerful. Ordinary citizens are increasingly held accountable to legislation, and more and more things are criminalized. Making sure that _everyone_ is accountable to the law is levelling the playing field, not axe-grinding. If what someone's doing isn't lawless, there's nothing to fear from being held accountable for their actions. If what they're doing /is/ lawless, society has a whole lot to fear from them /not/ being held accountable. That's what a justice system is supposed to do. If you sincerely have a problem with the idea that anyone, not just those firmly ensconced in the status quo, can invoke that system of justice, I'm not the person you need to be talking with about it. If you acknowledge the existence of a Divine Creator, that'd be the one to have a chat with.

I have no care whatsoever whether Wolfpack is considered "credible". I will settle for "lawful", and let its actions speak for itself. A Victorian sense of propriety can only muddy the issue, and something like Wolfpack is unconcerned with namecalling and mudslinging in the press or elsewhere. It is what it is, and any hypothetical slander and libel will simply be more "grist for the mill" anyway.

this is too general...
why a catchall site for "all" corruption when there are many for localized efforts... sunshine places for local government and national etc...
just don't see a profit model for this on a general scale

this is too general...
why a catchall site for "all" corruption when there are many for localized efforts... sunshine places for local government and national etc...
just don't see a profit model for this on a general scale

You speak about the "law" as if it has a will of it's own. It doesn't! It is not separate from the people who wield it. In fact, it is only worked out when people take action.

You say you are not after the rich, yet that's all you talk about. Why? Because that's where the money is. I would venture a guess that a lawsuit against the average Joe would never make it to the table in your organization. You target the rich and mega-rich so there will be a lotto-style jackpot payout at the end. THAT'S WHAT IS WRONG WITH OUR SYSTEM OF LAW. We need Tort Reform - not more class action lawsuits! That's why medical malpractice insurance is astronomically high.

tlyden - There are also many sites for local person-to-person sales... but you don't think of them, do you. You think of eBay and Craigslist. =)

DaveH - You are correct when you say that the law is not separate from the people who wield it. This is because the law attempts to bring people in harmony with a greater law that Created us all. The law, quite simply, is there to handle instances in which peoples' behavior deviates from that greater law. If everyone always behaving in alignment with their internal moral compass, and refined their recognition and sense of that compass, there wouldn't be corruption, crime, and a whole host of other miseries. But in this worldly state, people don't do that. And so the law (man's law, at least) is here to keep society going as smoothly as it can under those circumstances. So when I speak of the law as if it had a Will of its own, I mean exactly that. I mean the essence of a greater law which man attempts to express through man's own law. Judiciary constantly do this when attempting to ensure that legislation squares with the principles set forth in a country's founding documents - they've even described it as a process of setting a piece of legislation side-by-side with the Constitution, and seeing if they square with one another. If they don't, the judiciary must throw out the lesser document - the legislation that is not in harmony with the Constitution. This is because they know that as a society, when you have something that is not in harmony with a greater law it doesn't work, and so either the society jettisons the lesser, dysfunctional approach or society itself finds itself in a dysfunctional situation in terms of that greater law. In other words, man's law attempts to express - and derives - from an internal spiritual sense of values that even athiests posess intrinsically. Attempting to defy that is like attempting to defy physics - and, as one Japanese executive put it when referring to unsuccessful attempts to put a stop to peer-to-peer file-sharing, attempting to stop something like that is "like pushing water uphill"... with a rake. So yes, the law does have a Will of its' own, and it is a Will that we as people have in common with it. Societies which do not reflect this Will by adhering to laws increasingly deviate from what works, from a spiritual and metaphysical sense - and ultimately collapse. In order to prevent that, we must regain our alignment with the law - and it apparently has to start with man's laws.

As for talking about the rich, you ask me why and then answer, yourself. Your answer is incorrect, and potentially libelous. As I have stated many times in this forum, and at least once to you, the people who have consolidated power, financial resources, and means, often have means of circumventing man's system of the administration of justice. They can hire ninja attorneys, often can influence the media itself, and can exert financial clout directly. An ordinary citizen, even one significantly affected by lawless choices made by someone in a position of influence and power, has little to no hope of bringing them to account for their choices. This is specifically the problem that Wolfpack was designed to solve - it's practically useless for small-claims court disputes of Joe versus John. But we already have a smalls claims court. We do not have a system other than Wolfpack that can ensure accountability of the elite to the law, by putting it back into the hands of the people. And that is why it's "all I talk about" in conjunction with Wolfpack - because that's Wolfpack's purpose!

That being said, as mentioned anyone may sue anyone - at least theoretically. And if they like, they may do it on Wolfpack. You have accused me of targeting the rich, but as you already know Wolfpack does not "target" anyone. Anyone may open a Wolfpack entry on anyone, and if people deem it worthy, they now have a means of bringing them to account. Wolfpack does not apply an agenda to only bring some people to account - although my suspicion is that the people, whose will you have already mentioned, will opt to tackle the larger problems in society, rather than take their neighbor to small-claims court for his lawnmower.

Speaking personally for a moment, and not for Wolfpack, I conditionally agree with your desire for Tort Reform. Heck, much of the "legal system" is crying out for an overhaul - and it's a cry that is heard in the form of a society that is chewing itself to bits. But this overhaul _must_ be done in accordance with law, and not a bunch of ivory tower attorneys working mystical "words of art" and obreption upon the People, continuing their transmogrification into something that is partly remeniscent of a Catholic priesthood, and partly reminiscent of an old-tyme snake-oil salesman. The only direct way I can see that being effectively accomplished is if the People themselves again become involved in the system of laws that their country has, or claims to have. To do this, one must make it meaningful and relevant to the average person by aligning their involvement with the law with a common need many people have - and the profit motive is as befitting as any. More, perhaps, as the disparity between rich and poor gets wider and wider in a system increasingly devoid of law, and the spirit of the law. So you may feel free to consider Wolfpack much like the Ghosts of Christmas, in Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol.

Beyond that, please put your "you're only trying to make the rich accountable" question to bed. I have answered it, again and again. Wolfpack is becoming quite a politically controversial subject - and I see that in itself as a good sign. But its presence on Cambrian House is not meant to fuel a political debate, and it is an improper venue for that. God only knows we need political debate - preferably on the basis of law rather than as a frank exchange of baseless, misinformed opinions - but this is not the place for it. There are many places on the web for political debate, and still others which are websites I find totally baseless and counterproductive. If I had seen them on Cambrian House as prototypes, I'm sure I would be tempted to try to shout them down on the basis of a difference in political ideology. I would hope, however, that I would be strong enough to resist that temptation.

I may be wrong but doesn't there have to be at least one "present" plaintiff in a court case? How would you determine who represents the wolfpack if a lawsuit is filed?

In instances that require a present plaintiff, they could be crowdsourced. Written affidavits would also be exceptionally easy to implement. Good question!

Witch Hunting would be a better name for your idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_hunt

Sorry, ain't got time to read through all the comments yet, but I have to say I love it. I think http://www.wikileaks.org is covering the subject a lot, but it doesn't offer a fundraising option to cover the legal expenses to actually start a legal action. The site is constatly down for technical and legal problems as well. I would like to see this working so,SO,SOOO much !!!

BizFunder, if it didn't involve lawful adjudication, you would be quite right. As it stands, your allegation is baseless. If you doubt the integrity and fairness of the court system - in favor of the People rather than wealthy and influential figures, no less - then you necessarily also take the view that the justice system needs cleaning up and sorting out. In which case, the public reinvolving themselves in the justice system would seem to be just what you're looking for - and Wolfpack can do that.

Checoslovaco, thanks for the moral support! All Wolfpack really needs is a PHP coder willing to write the necessary Drupal module(s) on commission. And possibly money for a domain name. If you know of someone fitting that description, definitely leave me mail! =)

Phew! This has sparked quite a tempest!
Well, I love the idea of imposing some accountability in this world. Imagine this: Accountability at the government level; empowering the people to make demands on lawmakers to look out for the interests of the people. Accountability in the education system; empowering citizens to demand that teachers and administrators honor their contract to society by providing the best eduction possible. Acountability in the criminal justice system; empowering the people to remind law enforcement that they WORK FOR THE PEOPLE!

I don't know if this venue is capable of accomplishing such a monumental task, but the need is very great indeed.

How credible are paid informants? How truthful can we expect people to be when nailing someone means they can cash in? When people stand to make big bucks when a guilty verdict is made, the possibility exists for them to turn up the heat, cheat, and basically LIE in order to receive their prize! If I put up $50 bucks, what's to stop me from inventing "dirt" on the person being sued and entering it on the website? Plus, even if it is later discovered to be false, what of the hundreds or thousands of others who read my post and maybe took action of their own to help move this towards a guilty verdict? This is not law - it's a lottery game, and I think this is unethical!

BlueStorm - That's my take on it. Thanks for the note of support!

DaveH - People - whether they involve themselves in Wolfpack, or not - are innocent until proven guilty. If a court of law finds in favor of testimony in a Wlpack-facilitated case, fabu. If it later transpires that someone has presented fraudulent evidence to a court of law, that person is obviously screwed - and Wolfpack would probably even be interested to open up an entry on that person and their testimony. Wolfpack doesn't play favorites when it comes to _obeying_the_law._ If the person is found to have provided fraudulent testimony, woe betide them. If the case against that person turns out to be, instead, a balls-to-the-wall smear campaign motivated by an influential person's ulterior motives... then wo betide /them./ But no, Wolfpack doesn't play favorites like that. And if there is such a dispute, it will doubtless be settled in court - that's what they're for. Nobody's bound to consider every conceivable potential outcome of a choice or a venture at the onset, or nobody would be able to do anything. Thus, the law and the courts, to resolve disputes such as you're describing.

I said nothing about playing favorites. And, I'm talking about the wolf pack, not the court of law. I think your idea will encourage people to fabricate dirt so they can cash in on the verdict.

Plus, how can you assure everyone that you don't have the hidden agenda I suggested above? Earlier you stated,

"The entry would be evaluated by Wolfpack staff and/or users within the Wolfpack community to assess whether the entry met certain guidelines - similar to those Wikipedia itself has, for clarity, the presence of source citations, appropriate tone, and so forth."

So, a person submits the charges to you, and then they don't actually get published in the wiki until you approve it? Who will be keeping the evaluators in check? What happens if you get dirt on a person or organization that you admire? If this is public accountability, then why can't the public see the decision making process?

You seem to go back and forth between tight control and the power of the crowd. If I say that you might have an agenda, you say that it is really up to the crowd. But, if I say that the crowd might take you in directions you never anticipated, you say you have controls in place. Which is it? You said above, "Anyone may open a Wolfpack entry on anyone." But, is that really true? In your scenario you said that they have to be evaluated first.

If they go up without evaluation, you run the risk of posting false accusations. If they must be evaluated first, you run the risk of bias within the staff doing the evaluation. If it is the latter, you are basically asking people to trust YOU instead of the government.

You should check out this article entitled, "What's Wrong with 'To Catch a Predator'" Sounds very similar in concept.

http://www.poynter.o...d=67&aid=128057

DaveH, I think the bottom line here is that any boat out of China is a good one. If someone genuinely suspects Wolfpack of having an ulterior motive, and can't or won't prove it in court ("innocent until proven guilty"), they're free to start their own site. Wolfpack is giving this approach to the internet, allowing anyone to do this. It's not a consolidation of power situation. If you don't like it, for Pete's sake do something better. Otherwise, settle down. (And no, not you. This increasingly hypothetical user we're talking about.)

I'm done, however, re-answering and re-answering for whether Wolfpack has a bias, by phrasing the question in many different forms. Again, Wolpack has no bias, and cares only whether a politician, corporation, journalist, or other key figure is acting lawfully. If it appears they're not, it's time for Wolfpack. If it appears they are, their entry will get shot down. There is no bias. Since you mention it, though, Wikipedia does publicly list the entries that were approved or rejected, along with the explanation as to why. This would appear to be a good approach to Wolfpack - publicly-available, information about exactly what it's doing, and why.

And I'm not asking users to trust Wolfpack more than their government. I'm creating Wolfpack in the knowledge that they will, particularly with full disclosure. Which you'll admit is a heck of a lot more than one gets with their government. There is no glowing nimbus around an entity just because it's a government - these days, practically the reverse. With active user participation, full disclosure and so on, Wolpack essentially moderates the behavior of governments (among other entities) because it is _essentially_doing_the_government's_job._ Not printing money and keeping armies, but allowing public to deploy and enforce its will in accordance with law. And actually facilitating that, rather than obstructing it. So yes, in that sense Wolfpack would definitely have more of a glowing nimbus around it than many governments.

Crowds do their crowd thing. Wolpack staff monitors and enforces policy. Policy is openly-stated, and the results of that moderation and metamoderation can be made transparent to the public. I don't know that Wolfpack can do more, or need to. Those who are dissatisfied with wWolfpack would presumably do it themselves by creating their own system, now that the cat's out of the bag. Yippee. But the bottom line is, at least someone would be doing it.