@luis_in_brief @jyasskin just read and enjoyed the whole thread, a couple of points to add:

first, institutions in the Ostrom domain are not necessarily legal entities. Institutions can be understood as broadly as a pattern of social interaction that persists over time.

And i would rethink re conflict resolution mechanisms. I think that principle is key, especially if we interpret it in this context to be about trust, reputation, validation, verification, etc.

@jyasskin @luis_in_brief right on. My initial thought from years of reading this stuff is that in knowledge commons the key question is *not* necessarily “how do we sanction freeriders” or even “how do we punish bad actors” (tho that may still be a relevant Q) but rather “how do we know what’s true?”

This was already a worsening problem on the internet before LLMs, now it’s a catastrophe… and i suspect any design solutions will address verification at their core

@luis_in_brief @jyasskin hi there 👋🏻

Happy to chat.

Ostrom’s work on Understanding Knowledge as a Commons goes part of the way you seem to want to go. Then the Governing Knowledge Commons book/workshop goes further: https://knowledge-commons.net/

I can try to introduce you to McGinnis tho he’s technically retired. Brett Frischmann and Michael Madison are probably closer to your interests.

What questions do you want to try to answer?