Blog
Anonymity vs. democracy
Thu 28 Sep 2006 08:28:34 AM UTC — SamiNormally, when you want to give your vote in a democratic election, you are required to register as a voter and to identify yourself before allowing to cast a vote. This is done in order to prevent fraud: everyone should be able to vote only once. In real life, you trust the people running the election to not disclose your vote. Or even if they do, it might not really be such a big deal as the elections are rare and your vote might not reveal anything you wouldn't want to share with others anyway.
In an online environment, such as WOT, where you regularly vote for websites, your votes can potentially contain information that you might not care to disclose. While we do our best to protect your privacy, you shouldn't have to take our word for it. Therefore, we have built WOT so you don't have to register in order to vote. In fact, we don't expect you to tell us anything about yourself.
As you can see, this creates a problem for our small election that plagues most online polls: how can we prevent fraud? What's there to stop anyone from stuffing our ballot with fraudulent votes? Nothing! And that's where the math comes in.
Instead of your regular democracy, where everyone has one vote, what we have in WOT can be called a meritocracy. In our system, all votes are evaluated by their merit. Unlike in a typical meritocracy, we don't know anything about you, your social status, or your skills, but we do know how you have voted in the past. Using a number of statistical algorithms, we compare your voting behavior with that of other users, and determine exactly how much we can trust you.
If a user's voting behavior is completely erratic, or we notice an actual attempt to manipulate reputations, we simply don't trust that user's votes as much anymore. In WOT, trust has to be earned.

saludos
hola a todos encantada, espero ser de provecho.
Emy
RE: Anonymity vs. democracy
Your premise is stunning in its naivete.
As anyone working on e-mail spam filtering would attest, those looking to defeat the system are a lot more motivated than those looking to just make use of the system.
It would be trivial for someone to create a set of meritorious WOT accounts which they could then use to manipulate ratings for fun and / or profit.
The vast majority of the 20M+ users are not motivated to anywhere near that degree. Because they vote less frequently and don't pay attention to making their votes valuable, their true votes are discounted while the spammers get theirs elevated.
Anonymity on the public side might have its place (or is at least a discussion left for another day) but anonymity to WOT of its voters is an invitation to chicanery.
RE: Anonymity vs. democracy
It would be trivial for someone to create a set of meritorious WOT accounts which they could then use to manipulate ratings for fun and / or profit.
Why don't you give it a try then.
RE: Anonymity vs. democracy
Alleging that something could be done is not the same as suggesting that it should be done (nor was I making that suggestion).