This is a deeply philosophical question that masquerades as a technical one.

There are few shortcuts to go from information to knowledge. “there are no solutions, only tradeoffs.”

But relying on your social graph to get a glimpse of the world is a deeply natural and human approach and can act as the starting point of an unbounded search for truth. Hence one of the first tools I’ll leverage for Wikifreedia.

The Wikipedia approach, on the other hand, is inherently non-voluntary and bounded, fully reliant on consulting an expert/editor for the state of the world. 

That’s why it’s finite.

“what’s the best version” becomes a trivial question: the approved one! But all the nuance of reality is fully lost in exactly the same way hidden non-voluntary algorithms deciding what’s relevant to you on Twitter. 

 Won’t wot have significant limits at the scale of Wikipedia? There’s no way your extended circles will have significant weight on the majority of the published info. 

 It will skew to have weight in the edges of the things you might consult.

Also, web-of-trust networks have far larger reach than is immediately apparent a due to exponentials

https://townsquare.media/site/519/files/2020/03/GettyImages-1203443447.jpg 

 Are editors expected to maintain their entries on a topic? Will they become able to merge a fork and not care about it anymore eventually? 

 Yeah, an editor willl be able to propose having their entry merged into someone else’s and “defer” their entry to the other version. 

 it would be cool to surface areas where diverging webs of trust overlap between teo npubs. I.e. I could search for where @saif and paul krugmans world views are similar 

 Yes, this is something I’m deeply interested in and will be exploring with some DVMs; I want to leverage “opposite” web of trusts where you can find people with whom you would disagree in things so you can discover points of view you agree with and disagree with.

Kinda like Reddit’s “controversial” on steroids. 

 very cool. godspeed🫡 

 Deep philosophical? Are you writing a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD, Ph.D., or DPhil) text? 

 I mean, yes, but also I was thinking, the moment I saw it, it'd be similar to "Twitter community notes" (popular/top ones win the potential/near-truth, where the actual truth comes from the viewers own research if they decide to)