Such a productivity meter (mind if I rephrase it as 'contribution-meter'?) assumes strong identity, the lack of which I think has greatly contributed to the rise of the internet.

At the same time strong identity is at the core of the whole OpenID / OpenSocial /Social Graph debate. Are we trying to build something that should have been included in the first place?

Interesting question. I think the "lack of identity" to which you refer has greatly contributed to the rise of Telecom and Internet giants. Also has it likely played a significant part in the erosion of Net Neutrality. There are still far too many corporate-centric entities which control or wish to control and influence what is or becomes popular or noted in traditional media outlets (television, radio, cable, etc.)

Traditional media relies upon what marketing people call "push advertising" where people are encouraged to take what is being said in the commercial/infomercial as fact. The Internet, however, is literally able to generate its own "pull advertising" as it enables people to participate and research between or among alternatives. Think of the Mac VS PC VS Linux spoofs. Apple spends zillions of dollars in advertising (which is one of the reasons their products are so expensive!) and many PC manufacturers do, too ("Dude! You're getting a Dell). But Linux doesn't have any advertising, really . . . (Novell does not count), but that hasn't prevented it from gaining momentous adoption in recent years.

But anyway, before going too off-topic:

Maybe it's not that strong identity should have been "included in the first place," but that the infrastructure could have been planned better to include room for a more equitable exchange among "providers" and "producers" and "consumers". After all, it's not like the ISPs or Internet giants are actually the entities _producing_ most of what is interesting or useful on the web. Of course, those touting themselves as "providers" would like most people to equate them and pay them as "producers" and such.