As with many other things he’s written, Clay Shirky’s Against
Well-designed Reputation Systems is well worth the read.
Some choice bits (emphasis mine):
Constituting users’ relations as a set of
bargains developed
incrementally and post hoc is more
predictive of eventual success than simply adopting any residue
from previous successes…
Successful constitutions, which necessarily create clarity, are
typically ratified only after a group has come to a degree of
informal cohesion… The desire to
participate in a system that constrains freedom of action in
support of group goals typically requires that the participants
have at least seen, and possibly lived through, the difficulties
of unfettered systems, while at the same time building up
their sense of membership or
shared goals in the group as a
whole…
Digg seems to have suffered more from both system gaming and
public concern over its methods, possibly because the lack of
organic growth of its methods prevented it from becoming
legitimized over time in the eyes of its users…
Reputation systems create an astonishing perimeter defense
problem. The number of possible threats you can imagine in
advance is typically much larger than the number
that manifest themselves in functioning communities. Even
worse, however large the list of imagined threats, it will not be
complete… As you will not know which of these ills you will
face, the perimeter you will end up defending will be
very large and, critically, hard to
maintain.
To me, the fundamental take-away is that we shouldn’t treat
successful online communities as a source of designs for building
new social systems — we should use them as a source of insight
into how online communities successfully grow into themselves.
It’s the process, stupid.