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.