Captain Hsia channels HoTS (via Small Wars Journal):
Reports posted would need to be heavily scrutinized, and readers could apply ratings to authors and articles thus differentiating between those reports and analysts deemed credible and reliable as opposed to red herrings. An additional safeguard would be to have superiors and agencies to proof and screen all intelligence products posted by their subordinates so that faulty and inaccurate reporting could be stunted before other organizations implemented inaccurate information. Moreover, authorship of each article would be apparent to the user if operational security permitted. Thus, readers could then view the analyst’s oeuvre, credentials, and security levels and also allow the reader to directly contact the author as to their assumptions and inquire about related issues pertaining to an intelligence product.
Or:
There also needs to be an incentive to share and a motivation to pursue excellence. Adopting the Wiki-and-blog model allows you to build in an easy rating/ranking system that can highlight points of expertise and excellence, and serve as a way to recognize high performance come budget time.
or:
“reputation system” - how the wiki-fied, blogosphered IC can sort the wheat from the chaff and cast off the last vestiges of the old way of doing things.
or:
The exclusive adoption of mechanisms like Intellipedia for intelligence production, and classified blogs for pre-production collaboration could easily include an eBay or Amazon-like ranking system for accurately and automatically assessing intelligence officer performance. A system that ranks one’s performance and community-level penetration (think blog trackbacks) would drive people to partner with the best regardless of agency, making institutional stovepipes increasingly irrelevant.
