Why would this be useful? Consider WikiPedia.
Why should there be just one reputation system for WikiPedia. Will everyone agree that contribution X is better than contribution Y? It would be more elegant if the raw reputation data were available (as Bayle's document format, or otherwise) and then people could apply their own criteria to choose how to take that raw data and apply it to produce a view of WikiPedia edits customised to their own tastes.
The problem I forsee with this is access to the data and computation. Say I wanted to view the WikiPedia entry on blues music. What would my computer (or the intermediate server creating the view for me) need to get?
1. The text itself
2. Who made which edit / contributed what text
3. The category of the text (entertainment:music:blues in this case)
4. Any reputation certificates of those contributers in this area
(and can reputation certificates cover negative reputations?)
5. The additional information needed to judge the worth of those granting those certificates
The problem is 5. Effectively I would have to download (or have pre-downloaded, via subscription maybe usenet or bittorrent like) the complete web of trust - all the certificates for all of the contributors of the WikiPedia. Maybe there is some pre-generated abstract I could compute in downtime, that would allow me to judge the trustworthiness of certificates from a new entry I am visiting? Thoughts?
douglasr (at) chiark.greenend.org.uk