not only can you now read what "truth" is directly in nostr

nor merely able to formulate your own definition of "truth"

you can now *zap* wikifreedia entries, right from Nostrudel.

you'd have to be blind to not see how big nostr is going to be

https://next.nostrudel.ninja/#/wiki/page/naddr1qvzqqqrcvgpzpsrqkv079washexnjw78cs9gppy2yku0pc8nst94kjwr00m5wm95qqzhgun4w35qdj74at

https://image.nostr.build/e0dd436f3c115dff303a4c51199d09abb4155b13ae5eddc812e46483a22a00e7.png


The real Truth Social


Non-contradictory statements. 🙌

This will save me so much time in future arguments.


:blobDance:


When looking at the diff, where can I click to see the article I like better?


The two truth entries are claimed to each be the fork of the other. Huh? What's the truth there?


haha must be a bug nostr:npub1ye5ptcxfyyxl5vjvdjar2ua3f0hynkjzpx552mu5snj3qmx5pzjscpknpr


This is the beauty of building on nostr. You implement a feature and the content is already there.


until the wheels fall off/ training wheels?


🍑GM


I have wanted a collaborative decentralized wiki for a long time. But isn’t this about subjective knowledge instead a single truth?


in a way, yes.

My position is that there *can't* be a single truth, and when you are forced to arrive to a single position (because there must be a canonical entry), then you are forced into a form of politicking that deviates from finding truth and it's much more about power.

Needless to say, Wikifreedia is implemented like this for technical constrains: there *can't* be any canonical entry because, who's the arbiter of what's canonical? There is no global namespace.

What I've done with wikifreedia (in a very early way) is provide the tools to:

Read:
* Navigate via web-of-trust scoring to surface the most highly-aligned version of an entry.

Write:
* accept someone's entry as "my" canonical (i.e. you can fork someone's entry, modify it and then they are free to "defer" their entry to yours, or vice versa, if they update their entry in a way you agree with you can "defer" your version to theirs. -- This forking and deferring mechanisms are all part of the NIP.

The web-of-trust approach gives some interesting byproducts, like the fact that you can compute a network that "disagrees" with yours.

In that way, you can surface entries that are from different points of view than your social graph would agree with.

Hope this makes sense; I'm very interested in this stuff, I had a long conversation with Larry Sanger a few weeks ago and we discussed this stuff at length.

Perhaps if you're into this kind of thing we should do a panel at Nostriga about it.


I agree 💯 with this:

“My position is that there *can't* be a single truth, and when you are forced to arrive to a single position (because there must be a canonical entry), then you are forced into a form of politicking that deviates from finding truth and it's much more about power.” 🎯

This is why #WoT cannot yield a single, universal “reputation score.” There is no such thing. Reputation must always be calculated from someone’s perspective. It’s a deep principle, analogous in many ways to Einstein’s principle of relativity.

https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot1-sf/blob/master/Principle-of-Relativity-for-WoT.md


Been thinking about colaborative decentralized wikis. And how to organize content.

https://wikifreedia.xyz/nkbip-01/dc4cd086cd7ce5b183

I have other ideas regarding network effects and our bias to wide open relays, so i'm putting a pin in this and will come back to it.


I forked the fork of nostr:npub1cpstx8lzhwctunfe80rugz5qsj9ztw8surec9j6mf8phha68dj6qhm8j5e from my original post. 🤔🤔🤔


There is a lame X-files joke here


I'll have to look into it. Although I have found a few pages that seem to reference each other in a loop


Of course in many cases there can't globally be truth but you may care/weight some groups as having better signal with respect to what you care about. Wide open is a great first step but i know the optimal is to have more community and themed relays where individuls are more likely to enjoy interacting with each other.   if i want to learn about the technical side of nostr development  i want credible sources from developers who know what they are talking about with some technical proficiency, WOT doesn't solve less credible or external to the domain even if their trust is high.

Humans typically are not great with a fully connected friend/association network (everyone sharing the same relays could be viewed as a fully connected community even if they aren't followers of each other, but because they fish in the same pond. I'd expect that most of the time humans had most heterogeneneity was during and immediately after war. There were individuals at the edge who crossed boundaries (merchants, performers, etc)

there is an ongoing "problem" of big relays centralizing nostr. What is going on however is that those on nostr are quite likely to aligned on some principles. We get some others that expect different and leave because they don't want to deal with the extremes.

believe it or not, those on nostr are not a shrunken proportional representation of humanity. We are actually a single community with a smaller portion at the edge because they are in the wrong community. They have no other community because there is no framework which aligns for them yet.

more segregation is benificial because that is how niches grow. The fundamental architecture however allows individuals to connect to different communities that they align in a whole spectrum of possibilities. This is a  magnificent but underdeveloped aspect of nostr - relays with various levels of openness and themed community values.

It is a well known phenomena that natural networks generally are not fully connected because there are physical constraints that exist (neurons - metabolic and spatial density, circulatory system, tree networks) where paths have fractal throughput - they are scale free and are small worlds (groups of nodes with many connections, sparse connections across groups, efficient navigation). The internet generally doesn't have that constraint (beyond POW as an acknowledgment) and think that we should have the all to all connections.

we need a framework to tweak the knobs of exclusivity on relays. You shouldnt be obligated to continually mute what you dont want to see. This falls straight into the harassment problem which ill save for another note. Regardless, this framework will:
1) help the network and individuals will have a higher probability of connecting with individuals they value
2) traversal between groups (proportion out your posts to different relays/communities)
3) you'll have a lot less to worry about in terms of fitting a too general WOT curve, or mass reporting/muting individuals you want out of your feed.

I love wikifreedia, but we need micro wikifreedias where there is strong social concensus about the ideas within a homogeneous groups and a framework for discovery and traversal (apply, show credentials, pay fee, pledge qualitybcontent). We shouldn't want a nostr (& wikifreedia) where all ideas are shown evenly. Both classes of users - highly specialized, highly diverse and hetergeneous should be able to flourish.


The wot is a great feature, probably would cover the top 20%ile of individuals who are within 4 follow distances. Though, that bottom 20th percentile of individuals who are within that distance you really don't want to see.

The Wikipeedia approximation and enhancement from nostr and WOT could work with a default score set high, but having even more specialization and mixing would be enhanced through the tools that allow you to configure how open your community is, and governed by a subset of stakeholders for the relay being operated.

Finally, the users will settle into some Pareto Optimality of engagement in any such community: some may be appointed moderators in a community, or an individual just interested. The Reddit community model is great for this type of interaction, just that its centrality can remove individuals from that entire network of which nostr removes by design.


⚡ LIVE FREE ⚡