System for creating collective intelligence through multi-linear discussion over an electronic network

• US 20080222279A1
• Filed: 03/09/2007
• Published: 09/11/2008
• Est. Priority Date: 03/09/2007
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Fernando Zapata, Lucas Cioffi
• Original Assignee: Fernando Zapata, Lucas Cioffi
• Inventors: Cioffi, Lucas, Zapata, Fernando
• Application Number:
  US11/716,321
• Publication Number:
  US 20080222279A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 709/223
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/10 Office automation; Time management

Abstract

A system that assembles diverse individual thoughts into collective intelligence, making possible a structured conversation by a networked community. Participants contribute ideas to a robust conversational framework in modular form. This framework ensures that the conversation remains structured and continues on track. Each idea module competes with its peers through an interactive rating process controlled by the community. The resulting conversation represents collective intelligence arranged into at least two opposing viewpoints. The invention then enables these discussions to translate into real-world action by empowering the community with collaborative tools.

Claims

1. A method for conducting a debate over an electronic network comprising:

creating a plurality of point modules in competition with each other for favorable positioning within said debate;

creating counterpoint modules whose value is independent of said plurality of point modules, wherein a plurality of said counterpoint modules are in competition with each other for favorable positioning within said debate; and

graphically depicting the relationship between said points and said counterpoints, whereby a plurality of users can assemble a singular collective knowledge through a plurality of diverse modular contributions.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein said point and counterpoint modules are standalone and non-revisable.

3. The method of claim 1, further comprising revising said point modules and said counterpoint modules.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of said point modules are subcomponents of a separate point module and a plurality of said counterpoint modules are subcomponents of a separate counterpoint module.

5. The method of claim 1, whereby prior to submitting a counterpoint, a community member categorizes said counterpoint as one or more of the following:

a. challenging an explicit or implicit assumption;

b. challenging an explicit fact;

c. challenging the stated logic;

or

d. making a new, related point.

6. The method of claim 1, further comprising rating said point and counterpoint modules based upon one or more of the following:

a. an internal logic associated with each of said modules;

b. a supporting evidence associated with one or more of said modules;

c. an applicability to one or more of said points or counterpoints;

or

d. user preference; and

wherein the ranking of a module is independent of the ratings of all other modules;

7. The method of claim 6, further comprising categorizing at least one of said point or counterpoint modules as common ground.

8. The method of claim 7, further comprising indicating a local clout within a single side of a debate by weighting a rating for each of said community members, said rating derived from other members.

9. The method of claim 8, further comprising indicating a global clout by granting privileges and responsibilities to one or more members with a strong record of local clout.

10. The method of claim 1, further comprising setting a collective agenda by proposing or ranking a plurality of topics, resolutions, or plans of action for future consideration.

11. The method of claim 1, further comprising voting for, against, or neutral to a proposition or plans of action.

12. The method of claim 1, further comprising proposing a voting on the importance of particular values or interests related to the topic at hand.

13. The method of claim 1, further comprising collaborating in drafting a conclusion representing a particular side of a debate.

14. The method of claim 1, further comprising creating and maintaining profiles containing individual/group data and a platform of debate propositions they support and/or oppose.

15. The method of claim 1, further comprising providing a virtual toolbox of collaborative software such as wikis, chat rooms, instant messaging, and short message service (SMS).

16. The method of claim 1, further comprising graphically representing a plurality of tree structures comprising electronic folders and files or the hierarchical structure of websites and their URLs, and wherein the user is able to customize and save the graphical representation of their file pathways according to at least one of the following criteria:

a. most commonly visited;

b. most recently visited; and

c. user preference.