Yep! There is no central power-grab to tell you what's the truth 

 It is in fact made from the ashes of frog thighs by gnomes living in @Vitor Pamplona 's basement 

 maybe readers will vote with their sats? 🤷‍♂️ 

 Sensitive topics would just be bought? 

 well, at least there will/can be different view points expressed (forks), and WoT could help mitigate this valid concern... 

 True. Though I wonder if wot would even come to play on most pages… not like your friends are browsing wikifreedia all day 

 I don’t think sats work for this;

You can’t vote with sats because that demands a central coordinator.

I think sats here are an abstraction that introduces more complexity/noise than solutions. 

 What if we had fact-checking agencies managing it? 

 Maybe we could have an AI deciding what is truth and what isn't and it would only display you the truth. 

 Or perhaps a peer-review process that involves scientists that exchange approvals for sex favors and open publications that get government funding for the advancement of human knowledge but charge $200 for anyone to read. 

 You’re onto something here, where can I invest? 

 Sounds perfect to me!  

  https://i.nostr.build/XY5W.gif  

 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 

 Of course!