Wikipedia presents truth mixed with falsehoods as stories, in a neutral authoritative tone, deferring to "reliable sources" that it has curated to craft a desired narrative. Maybe that's a problem with encyclopedias in general. A real global knowledge-base would be the complete opposite: any source allowed, no expectation of truth or authority, sometimes personal opinions and analyses, with data-points just loosely weaved together by topic.
I have been thinking about an alternative lately since I find the whole idea and management of "Wiki" poor and believe it's outlived its usefulness. It was a good experiment but I don't imagine wikis being the primary encyclopedia format for Web3+. We need a distributed replacement where information flows out as small consumable "factoids" from individuals and small news sources, enforces strong connections to the original sources, stores the data on some kind of robust network (using something not domain-specific like IPFS), and is syndicated by aggregator sites where the crowd collects the factoids into topics and prioritizes them.
I have a lot of ideas but need to do more research on other distributed databases to find out what's already available and what's novel.
I have been thinking about an alternative lately since I find the whole idea and management of "Wiki" poor and believe it's outlived its usefulness. It was a good experiment but I don't imagine wikis being the primary encyclopedia format for Web3+. We need a distributed replacement where information flows out as small consumable "factoids" from individuals and small news sources, enforces strong connections to the original sources, stores the data on some kind of robust network (using something not domain-specific like IPFS), and is syndicated by aggregator sites where the crowd collects the factoids into topics and prioritizes them.
Wikipedia presents truth mixed with falsehoods as stories, in a neutral authoritative tone, deferring to "reliable sources" that it has curated to craft a desired narrative. Maybe that's a problem with encyclopedias in general. A real global knowledge-base would be the complete opposite: any source allowed, no expectation of truth or authority, sometimes personal opinions and analyses, with data-points just loosely weaved together by topic.
I have a lot of ideas but need to do more research on other distributed databases to find out what's already available and what's novel.
I have been thinking about an alternative lately since I find the whole idea and management of "Wiki" poor and believe it's outlived its usefulness. It was a good experiment but I don't imagine wikis being the primary encyclopedia format for Web3+. We need a distributed replacement where information flows out as small consumable "factoids" from individuals and small news sources, enforces strong connections to the original sources, stores the data on some kind of robust network (using something not domain-specific like IPFS), and is syndicated by aggregator sites where the crowd collects the factoids into topics and prioritizes them.
Wikipedia presents truth mixed with falsehoods as stories, in a neutral authoritative tone, deferring to "reliable sources" that it has curated to craft a desired narrative. Maybe that's a problem with encyclopedias in general. A real global knowledge-base would be the inverse. (any source, no expectation of truth or authority, sometimes personal opinions and analyses, with data-points just loosely weaved together by topic) I have a lot of ideas but need to do more research on other distributed databases to find out what's already available and what's novel.