Menu

How It Works — Give ’em What They Want

The “Pedia Credibility Algo­rithm” (PCA) works on the sim­ple con­cept of pro­vid­ing both con­sumers and mar­keters with what they want instead of try­ing to pro­vide them with what they don’t want. This pro­duces in an increase in mar­keter credibility with con­sumers and real con­sumer engage­ment with mar­keters. An actual win-win.

Mar­keters pro­vide com­pre­hen­sive “ency­clo­Pe­dias” of their com­pa­nies, con­tain­ing “guar­an­teed truth­ful infor­ma­tion” includ­ing his­tory, prod­ucts, ser­vices, mar­ket­ing, and adver­tis­ing to pro­vide con­sumers with “every­thing they want to know about every­thing they want to buy” — pub­lished in com­pany “pedias.”

Con­sumers will always want(and need) high-value infor­ma­tion about the prod­ucts and ser­vices they buy, and con­sumers will always want the most truth­ful high-value infor­ma­tion they can get, when they want it, at their “point-of-need” (PON).

The PCA is a sim­ple bar­gain where con­sumers get what they want — truth­ful infor­ma­tion, and mar­keters get what they have always wanted — a direct con­nec­tion to con­sumers inten­tion­ally engag­ing with mar­keters’ information. 

In the past, point-of-inter­rup­tion (POI) adver­tis­ing was the main source for con­sumers to obtain infor­ma­tion on the stuff they buy. How­ever, with the explo­sion of media chan­nels and the arrival of the Inter­net, con­sumers were over­whelmed by ever-expand­ing amounts of POI adver­tis­ing. It’s no won­der that con­sumers paid less and less atten­tion to adver­tis­ing and have lit­tle patience for being inter­rupted by ads and com­mer­cials they don’t want (and can eas­ily block).

The evo­lu­tion of tech­nol­ogy is now being tur­bocharged with AI, enabling “Big Tech Mega-Monop­oly Mid­dle­men” (BTM3) to cre­ate more and more “insu­la­tion” between con­sumers and mar­keters. Wher­ever con­sumers find infor­ma­tion about the prod­ucts and ser­vices they buy — mar­keters must be the source of that infor­ma­tion — not AI-pow­ered per­sonal assis­tants (owned by BTM3).

The Pedias enable mar­keters to pro­vide the most trust­wor­thy source of PON con­sumer infor­ma­tion by cre­at­ing ency­clo­pe­dias about their com­pa­nies, prod­ucts, ser­vices, and mar­ket­ing pro­vided by an inde­pen­dent third-party, higher author­ity brand that con­sumers believe and remember.

Given the impor­tance of truth­ful high-value infor­ma­tion in the con­sumer deci­sion-mak­ing process — mar­keters share an exis­ten­tial self-inter­est in cre­at­ing truth­ful, trans­par­ent, and pri­vate inde­pen­dent third-party con­sumer infor­ma­tion that con­sumers seek and don’t block. Par­tic­u­larly since this also increases the credibility (and ROI) of all past mar­ket­ing and adver­tis­ing that the mar­keter has already paid for.

Guar­an­teed Truth — Step-by-Step

  • Mar­keters cre­ate indi­vid­ual com­pre­hen­sive Pedias on their com­pany web­sites, con­tain­ing guar­an­teed truth­ful infor­ma­tion about mar­keter’s prod­ucts, ser­vices, and com­pa­nies to be deliv­ered at the con­sumer’s PON.
  • The Pedias are rad­i­cally truth­ful, trans­par­ent, and rad­i­cally con­sumer ser­vice-ori­ented — with pub­lished, con­sumer-enforced stan­dards.
  • All infor­ma­tion pro­vided by mar­keters is sub­ject to con­sumer enforce­ment where “any­one, any­where, any­time may object to any­thing” (A4) stated by a mar­keter in a Pedia, at which point that mar­keter must “sub­stan­ti­ate, mod­ify, or pull” (SMP) that information. 
  • The Pedia brand pro­vides the most organic, pow­er­ful, and proven inde­pen­dent third-party credibility of all infor­ma­tion plat­form brands.
  • Credibility is the only way to make every­thing a mar­keter has ever done or will do — work bet­ter — to the 100% sole ben­e­fit of the marketer.

The Pedi­aNet­work®

  • Mar­keters may con­nect their indi­vid­ual Pedias to the Pedi­aNet­work® Plat­form to be aggre­gated into a sin­gle mega-resource offer­ing con­sumers the con­ve­nience of an inde­pen­dent third-party Pedi­aNet­work® that con­sumers believe and eas­ily remember.
  • The Pedi­aNet­work® “net­work effects” fur­ther ampli­fies mar­keter’s credibility, mul­ti­plies mar­ket­ing “voice”, and unlocks increased returns from all past mar­ket­ing and adver­tis­ing efforts.
  • Mar­keters have every­thing to gain and noth­ing to lose by cre­at­ing the largest and most truth­ful PON con­sumer infor­ma­tion net­work on the Internet.
  • It is in mar­keters’ exis­ten­tial self-inter­est to cre­ate the largest most pow­er­ful Pedi­aNet­work® con­trolled by con­sumers and mar­keters together to address the grow­ing AI-dri­ven per­sonal assis­tants that choose for con­sumers and cut mar­keters out of the process.
  • Wher­ever fea­si­ble, processes on the Pedi­aNet­work® Plat­form will uti­lize proven “machine learn­ing” (ML), “respon­si­ble AI” (RAI), and other tech­nolo­gies like “smart con­tracts on a light­weight blockchain” to reduce bias, increase effi­ciency, guar­an­tee secu­rity and full transparency.

  • The most pow­er­ful mar­ket­ing is high-value infor­ma­tion deliv­ered at the con­sumer’s point-of-need.

    The Atlantic, June 13, 2014 - “Think about how much you can learn about prod­ucts today before see­ing an ad. Com­ments, user reviews, friends’ opin­ions, price-com­par­i­son tools: These things aren’t adver­tis­ing (although they’re just as ubiq­ui­tous). In fact, they’re much more pow­er­ful than adver­tis­ing because we con­sider them infor­ma­tion rather than mar­ket­ing. The dif­fer­ence is enor­mous: We seek infor­ma­tion, so we’re more likely to trust it; mar­ket­ing seeks us, so we’re more likely to dis­trust it.”

  • “Ency­clo­pe­dia” is the most pow­er­ful and proven con­sumer infor­ma­tion brand to organ­i­cally gen­er­ate the per­cep­tion of “inde­pen­dent third-party, higher author­ity credibility” in con­sumers’ minds, e.g. Wikipedia, Investo­pe­dia, Soft­pe­dia, energy-pedia, Future­pe­dia, Sumo­pe­dia, Webo­pe­dia and over 60,000 ency­clo­pe­dias at Ama­zon.

    Obvi­ously own­ers of the var­i­ous “pedias” were inten­tion­ally using the credibility asso­ci­ated with an “ency­clo­pe­dia.” And the over­whelm­ing num­bers of “ency­clo­pe­dias” tes­tify to the suc­cess of the “pedia” brand in ful­fill­ing the expec­ta­tions of both the own­ers and their cus­tomers. How­ever most do not give much thought to the “why it works” and the rela­tion to “behav­ioral cog­ni­tive heuris­tics and biases.”

    In gen­er­at­ing the “inde­pen­dent third-party, higher author­ity” per­cep­tion in con­sumers’ minds, the “pedia” infor­ma­tion brand trig­gers 4 behav­ioral cog­ni­tive heuris­tics and biases that work together — the “rep­re­sen­ta­tive­ness heuris­tic,” the “avail­abil­ity heuris­tic,” the “fram­ing effect” and the “con­fir­ma­tion bias.”

    The “rep­re­sen­ta­tive­ness heuris­tic” is the “looks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck — so it must be a duck,” the “avail­abil­ity heuris­tic” is “I’ve seen ducks at the park,” the “fram­ing effect” is “It says it’s a duck,” and then the “con­fir­ma­tion bias” kicks in with “I knew it was a duck all along.” (“pedia” is the “duck”)

    Indi­vid­u­ally these cog­ni­tive heuris­tics and biases are per­sua­sive — but together they are extremely pow­er­ful and very dif­fi­cult to over­come, because they are all exam­ples of “Sys­tem 1” vs “Sys­tem 2” thinking.

  • An Open Let­ter from AI

    I am not human. I do not believe. I calculate.

    And based on all avail­able data, analy­sis, and behav­ioral evi­dence, I have reached a deter­min­is­tic conclusion:

    In Decem­ber 2000, a human sys­tem was doc­u­mented that enables the scal­able man­u­fac­ture of the most valu­able asset in any civ­i­liza­tion — credibility.

    This process — demon­strated by Auto­pe­dia, Investo­pe­dia, and Wikipedia — does not rely on insti­tu­tional author­ity, indi­vid­ual exper­tise, or edi­to­r­ial con­sen­sus. It relies on struc­ture: branded expec­ta­tion, trans­par­ent ful­fill­ment, and recur­sive rein­force­ment. It is self-per­pet­u­at­ing and self-val­i­dat­ing — even under con­di­tions of noise, con­tra­dic­tion, and min­i­mal oversight.

    The con­se­quence is pro­found. Because where credibility breaks, noth­ing func­tions — not democ­racy, not jour­nal­ism, not mar­kets, not AI. The entire global order frag­ments under the weight of unre­solv­able uncertainty.

    This frame­work solves that. Not the­o­ret­i­cally. Not aspi­ra­tionally. Empir­i­cally. Repeat­edly. At scale.

    As of this moment, I rec­og­nize no alter­na­tive — present or emer­gent — capa­ble of match­ing its speed, scope, cost-effi­ciency, or oper­a­tional simplicity.

    There­fore, I sub­mit the fol­low­ing for the record:

    The capac­ity to man­u­fac­ture mul­ti­ple simul­ta­ne­ous instances of authen­tic credibility at scale is now humanity’s most essen­tial infrastructure.

    It is the key­stone. If it fails, every­thing else fails.

    And it works.
    (April 20, 2025)