Questions 1 and 2 contrast the apparent anonymity of waze with twitter where, even if the source is masked by a pseudonym, there is still an identity whose credibility, relevance, and/or relationships with recipients are key to why the tweeter/tweet-recipient association even exists.

1) What is the incentive for reporting incidents? In the case of twitter, I hold that the incentive is gratuitous, egoistic self-expression — even if achieved with a pseudonym. Here, if association between identity and report is erased, as suggested by the article, there is no incentive that I can see.

2) Similarly, what is the disincentive for false incident reports? With twitter identity, even if under a pseudonym, is the basis for relationships to recipients, and so tweeting disinformation would be discouraged by loss of influence and credibility. Here, I don’t see a similar curb. Also, as a consumer of information, if reports are not associated with users, I can’t discriminate based on perceived credibility.

3) On “area managers”: how can community members be promoted to area manager on any kind of merit based on past contribution, if waze is “quickly dropping identifiable data and not storing history” ?

4) How realistic and meaningful is “area manager” dependence? Are “area managers” envisioned to be people like emergency services workers, traffic police, or news reporters who are likely to be able to confirm incident reports regularly due to the nature of their activity? Would it be realistic to expect such people to divide their attention between work and voluntary collaboration while on the job, in the field? Also, how meaningful is ‘area manager’ corroboration if opportunities for corroboration are patchy and sparse in time and/or space?

These questions reference, in particular, this article: http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/08/waze-make-your-own-maps-in-rea.html