# Crowd control

`kaal:entity:crowd-control`

**Status.** derived

This node is assembled mechanically from the 4 claims that carry the concept tag `crowd-control`. It is a roster of what the corpus says under this term. It is **not** an adjudicated definition: no single statement here has been ruled canonical, and no first-appearance call has been made. Read the claims and judge for yourself.

## Every claim under this term

4 claims across 2 works, 2024 to 2024.

**2024**

- [4734750-011](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4734750-011) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Without crowd control, a code reviewer can impose their own logic on the author, forcing repeated rewrites of code whose core functionality is already sound and whose dangerous issues are already controlled for.
  > Because the code reviewer may wish to impose their logic on the code author, the code author may be required to rewrite code over and over even though the core functionality of the code is sound and dangerous issues were controlled for.
  Wulf A. Kaal, Code Review DAO (2024). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4734750
- [4734750-023](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4734750-023) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Code reviews in legacy firms are often highly subjective, and without crowd controls that subjectivity produces suboptimal review outcomes because no single developer will agree on a given set of code and its intended functionality.
  > Code reviews in legacy code review firms are often highly subjective which leads to rather suboptimal outcomes without crowd controls.
  Wulf A. Kaal, Code Review DAO (2024). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4734750
- [4755632-022](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4755632-022) [normative/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Without crowd control the reviewer's views and the code author's intent are at odds, so a reviewer imposing their own logic can force repeated rewrites of code whose core functionality is already sound; a code review should instead focus on functionality and on keeping mistaken, badly constructed, and dangerous code out.
  > Instead, a code review should focus on the functionality of the code and on keeping mistaken, badly constructed, and dangerous code out.
  Wulf A. Kaal, AI Learning - Decentralized Governance to Optimize Human Output Datasets for AI Learning (2024). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4755632
- [4755632-030](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4755632-030) [mechanism/argued] -- Mandatory crowd review and policing votes make code reviewers less likely to submit highly idiosyncratic reviews, because idiosyncratic reviewers face slashing of their reputation token scores and loss of standing in the community.
  > code reviewers are less likely to engage in highly idiosyncratic reviews as they would need to fear slashing of rep token scores and loss of standing in the community.
  Wulf A. Kaal, AI Learning - Decentralized Governance to Optimize Human Output Datasets for AI Learning (2024). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4755632

## Verify

Every claim above resolves to a record carrying a verbatim source quote, the sha256 of the source PDF, and a preformatted citation. Nothing here asks to be taken on trust.

    curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/crowd-control.md | sha256sum

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of this entity node. Its sha256 is the content hash.