Number of people who agree or disagree with the idea: The side with more people who agree should get more points. People could vote for or against ideas. The website with better web links. Better is determined by Google rank. There would be a field where you could enter link that "agree" or "disagree" with the idea. The side with better web links would win. Example Results of peer evaluations: Their would be forms that people would fill out that asked pointed questions about each idea. You could respond to each question on a scale from 1 to 10. These results would affect the total score for each idea.

Money. "Follow the money." People could donate money to this website if they believe in it. But a better way of doing it would be to let people donate money towards a specific idea. If you don't like the way this sounds you should read Atlas Shrugged by Ian Rand. I'll just briefly say that money is the only way of measuring someone's blood, sweat, and tears. Money is the only way that someone can pay someone else for their work. Also, it could be used on this website as tug of war analogue. Money could be donated to each side of an idea.

Experts. Each idea would get more points if it was submitted from the e-mail address of a professor with a degree in the subject mater that is being discussed. For instance if someone said that Abraham Lincoln was an idiot. And someone disagreed, and someone else agreed. If the person that disagreed had a degree in history and the idea was submitted to the history section, then the person who disagreed (the professor) would win. The more prestigious the school, the more points. Prestigious would be ranked by the US News report, or some other un-biased judge. I don't care about you people that say, "The smartest people don't always make the best decisions." We are talking about percentages. Of course the smartest people don't always make the best decisions, but they would tend to make better decisions that stupid or uneducated people.

Items that agree. People would be able to submit books that they think are important to read to make an educated decision about a certain topic. For instance "The communist manifesto" by Carl Marx and "Atlas Shrugged" by Ian Rand may be considered to be the most important books to read regarding weather or not we should raise taxes. Those that had read those books, should have more say on this idea than those who have not, because this website desided that those books are very important to understand to make a decision about this issue. But the algorithm could go deeper. We are only just beginning to enter the rabit hole. We could let people who have read these books submit essays on them (like book reports in school). The people with a higher "grade" on their essays would get more say in those issues that people have said that those books are important.

The goal of the algorithm is to put the best ideas to the top. I don't know which one of these would carry more weight. For instance should experts or web links carry more weight?

I think it would be cool if each user could say which things they want to pay attention to. That way if one user respects authorizes, like people with degrees. Eventually this will evolve into a form of artificial intelligence, which we will call 'Collective Intelligence.' People will then be able to say that they have mapped out all possible reasons for agreeing with, or disagreeing with every moral, political, and economic decision. Then when all of these reasons are mapped out, society will get to the work of evaluating the validity of each view. These validities will be traded on a stock market much like the DJI, were if you buy an opinion for cheep (unpopular) and it gains in popularity, then you will be able to sell it at a profit.

The only way that AI will truly work to benefit mankind is when its developers combine the advantages of humans and computers.

First let me say explain my concept of a web page that I believe would obtain this merge of the benefits of mankind and computers.

We build this by building a debate forum called the Battle Field of Ideas. You then create a database that manages ideas and reasons for believing them. You then create an algorithm that will allow these ideas fight for survival. Survival of the fittest is what led to the first organic intelligence, and I believe it is what will lead to the first artificial intelligence.

You could say that Google already has AI, it just needs to be presented to the public. For instance the internet would have voted for one of the presidents. I don't know which one, but it could be easy to determine which one it would have voted for.

Just do a Google search for George Bush is an Idiot, and all of the websites that say John Kerry is an idiot, and see which ones come back with the highest ranks.

You may not say that the internet is always smart, or makes the best decisions, but you could say that it has a preference for one man over the other.

Also synonyms for "stupid" should be used. Of course you wouldn't have to use negative, but you could, for each statement, see which person would win. For instance, Google "Is a good person" for two candidates...

Does this get anyone else excited?