#15. Crediting Novelty

Thus, we have developed an infrastructure whereby questions submitted on computer interfaces directed to individual healthcare professionals are organized so that organized computer interface answers can later be reflected back by the computer system to these individual healthcare workers. The computer system develops information trails, left by individual end-users, so that the computer system can direct specific communication to each individual end-user along the same trail in reverse.

To review: We know that end-users vary, that their jobs vary, that their patients vary, that symptoms vary, but that those entities can be organized and analyzed if we place them in variables (which themselves can vary, but that's later). Again we cannot make the mistake of limiting the input of information from these end-users, since they are the ones who are building their own system; rather, we know whatever system we create will not be perfect, so we must include the ability for users to amend it. Lastly, we also know that the scientific method asks questions, but answers to those questions actually spur a multitude of new questions.

(We must realize that the difference between a question and an answer becomes rather blurred at this point. Since end-users are submitting accounts of inadequacies within their own system that is presenting them with questions, they are actually questioning the authority of the system—which returns even more questions. We could go 'round and 'round with this debate of what constitutes a question versus an answer, so let's move on.)

Therefore, we must submit to end-users question/answers that are already established (from previously answered question/answers) in a different format from question/answers that are new. When question/answers are submitted to end-users from the computer system, their routine ones must be easily manipulated by clicking buttons, or similar third-key experiences, such as dragging pull-down menus—unless they are new questions/answers to the system—new answers must be typed; it is this ease of manipulation itself, that which differentiates routine from novelty, which can credit users with their own authoring.

For example, say we have created an interface that holds the question, "What is your last name?" However, family names in some cultures precede individual names—so the question does not capture accurate information as it relates to some end-users. We can employ this variance as an opportunity for our own growth, as well as crediting those who grow the research system.

This can be accomplished when some individual may claim the fact that in his culture family name comes first; this can be done by selecting the option, "This Question Does Not Fit," whereby he will be allowed to type information into a field directed to the creation of an entirely new Question Card (Development of these newly added Question Cards may be either reviewed first by authorized researchers, or submitted electronically with no oversight—nevertheless, the new cards are submitted into the system to be reused by others).

Therefore, research credit can be established for individuals as they submit information that finds faults with their system. (External rewards can be linked to this function, but let's just acknowledge its existence for now.)

This system not only allows users to upgrade their own system that they use, similar to the way that Wikipedia allows users to input information for upgrade, it also credits each user with the authoring of each amendment made. However, unlike Wikipedia, which submits one information interface to everyone, no author of novelty need be necessarily constrained to the practice of a preceding individual; each individual person has the ability to add information to this reverse data mine.

We will next investigate just how that individuality is expressed to each human individual.