Idea Stock Exchange: Evaluating Webpages in Belief Systems

What Are These Webpages?

Webpages that support or oppose a belief are the foundational evidence users evaluate to transparently assess that belief. Each webpage:

• Receives a Score: Users and moderators collaboratively rate based on credibility, evidence quality, logical coherence, relevance, and influence, using structured public arguments.

• Links to Arguments: Webpages strengthen or weaken specific arguments within belief evaluations.

• Categorized by Type: Each webpage is classified as a research article, academic analysis, case study, opinion piece, or investigative journalism.

Users debate and evaluate webpage quality through structured reasoning, resolve conflicts openly, and build a transparent model of belief evaluation.

---

Why Evaluate Webpages?

• Access Strong Arguments: Users engage with the strongest available arguments on both sides of a belief.

• Ensure Transparent Evidence: Open scoring replaces hidden ranking systems, making evidence quality and argument strength publicly visible.

• Track Consensus and Influence: Users measure how webpages shape belief formation and public discourse.

• Analyze Idea Spread: Users trace how arguments evolve and spread through online networks.

• Resolve Conflicts: Structured debates apply shared evaluation criteria to ensure fair outcomes.

• Identify Influential Webpages: Users recognize the most impactful sources driving belief adoption or resistance.

---

How This Differs from Google’s Closed Algorithm

Unlike Google's hidden, profit-optimized search rankings, the Idea Stock Exchange operates through an open, user-driven evaluation model.
Users publicly score webpages based on evidence, logic, relevance, alignment, and influence — resolving disagreements through structured debate and jury voting instead of silent de-ranking.
This system prioritizes truth-seeking, collective reasoning, and transparency over commercial incentives.

One-Sentence Contrast:
Google’s secretive algorithm hides how webpages are ranked to maximize profit; the Idea Stock Exchange openly scores and debates webpages to uncover truth.

Aspect	Google	Idea Stock Exchange
Transparency	Secret algorithms prioritize ad revenue	Open scoring, public debate
Conflict Resolution	Silent de-ranking, no user input	Public debate, jury voting
Success Metric	Clicks, ads, shareholder value	Argument strength, evidence quality
User Role	Passive consumer, SEO-driven	Active evaluator, shaping outcomes
Example Outcome	Denial blogs boosted by engagement	Denial blogs flagged for low evidence

---

How Webpages Are Evaluated

Users and the system follow a five-step process for each belief:

1. Submit Webpages

User Actions:

• Post webpage URL.

• Tag as Supporting or Opposing the belief.

• Select a category (e.g., research article, opinion piece).

• Provide structured reasons addressing quality, relevance, and belief alignment.

System Actions:

• Auto-link webpage to related arguments.

• Flag duplicates.

• Notify users for evaluation and scoring.

---

2. Score Webpages

User Actions:
Rate each webpage (0–100 scale) across five criteria:

• Evidence Quality: Source reliability (e.g., peer-reviewed vs. anecdotal).

• Logical Coherence: Argument consistency (e.g., no fallacies).

• Relevance: Direct connection to the belief under evaluation.

• Belief Alignment: Strength of support or opposition to the belief.

• Cultural Influence: Real-world engagement and argumentative impact.

Cultural Influence Metrics:

• Direct Engagement: Human visits, time spent, interactions.

• Indirect Influence: Backlinks, citations, social media shares.

• Argumentative Impact: Citation strength, argument success (weighted 70%).

System Actions:

• Aggregate scores dynamically.

• Flag disputed scores (>30% variance) for conflict resolution.

• Update scores monthly with a 10% time decay, capped at 3 updates/month.

---

3. Link Webpages to Arguments

User Actions:

• Map each webpage to the specific arguments it strengthens or weakens.

System Actions:

• Update belief confidence scores in real time based on linked argument performance.

---

4. Resolve Conflicts

User Actions:

• Debate evaluation disagreements in structured forums using objective criteria.

System Actions:

• If consensus (60% agreement) is reached, update scores.

• If deadlock persists, trigger jury resolution (50% experts, 50% random users, 60% vote threshold).

• Log all outcomes transparently.

---

5. Track and Update

System Actions:

• Reassess webpage scores weekly based on new engagement and argument performance.

• Tag webpages as "Contested" if major disputes persist.

• Archive webpages inactive for 12 months.

User Actions:

• Monitor updates and submit new evidence when necessary.

---

Example Application: Climate Change

Belief: Should governments take aggressive action to address climate change?

Supporting Webpages:

• ProCon.org (Pro): Cites IPCC reports; Cultural Influence 85/100 (12 strong citations). Strengthens belief score by +8%.

• Britannica (Pro): Provides coherent climate policy arguments; boosts pro arguments.

• Debatepedia (Pro): Supports carbon tax effectiveness; enhances belief confidence.

• The Guardian (Pro): High engagement, credible reporting; strengthens pro stance.

Opposing Webpages:

• ProCon.org (Con): Weak denial arguments; minimal impact.

• Britannica (Con): Low relevance to climate action; limited impact.

• Debatepedia (Con): Relies on outdated economic harm studies; no significant impact.

• Heartland Institute: Non-peer-reviewed studies flagged "low quality."

• WattsUpWithThat.com: Popular but logically weak; tagged "Contested" (45% dispute); pending jury review.

Each webpage's score directly feeds into updating the belief’s overall evaluation.

---

Integration with the Idea Stock Exchange

The Idea Stock Exchange uses webpage evaluations to:

• Enable Structured Debate: Categorize and score webpages into supporting and opposing lists linked to specific arguments.

• Maintain Open Scoring: Show scores, citations, and influence factors visibly.

• Empower User Actions: Let users submit, score, debate, and refine belief evaluations collaboratively.

• Drive Dynamic Refinement: Update belief evaluations continuously based on new evidence and argument strength.

• Map Influence: Identify key webpages shaping public understanding.

---

Key Principles

• Transparency Over Secrecy: Publicly visible scores replace hidden algorithmic manipulation.

• Conflict Resolution as Core: Every disagreement triggers structured debate and visible resolution.

• User Empowerment: Users actively shape belief evaluations through public reasoning.

• Dynamic Truth-Seeking: Belief evaluations adapt and evolve as new evidence and arguments emerge.

• Built for Scalability: Designed to extend beyond webpages to books, videos, podcasts, and other media types over time.

---

Future Scope

While the system currently focuses on webpages, it is designed to expand to other media types (e.g., books, documentaries, podcasts) by adapting scoring metrics and engagement measures while preserving structured conflict resolution and open evaluation principles.