Oddbean new post about login | logout How does one know which version is more accurate?
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...
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.
I don't know how centralized this would need to be. If each page and variant had a Zap address that people could send sats to, people could send sats to the variant they believe is the best one, and eventually accuracy would win out. You could even create a smart contract behind each page/variant that would distribute the donated sats to the people who contributed to building the page, perhaps with a diminishing return algorithm similar to the bitcoin halving. That would encourage people to make edits on pages that were accurate, because if the forks resulting from a page became unpopular due to inaccurate information, the rewards/return would fall off quickly. And I think something like this could be a distributed collection of pages with multiple nodes as hosts running the same rewards algorithm.
The nodes themselves would be compensated for hosting because a small ratio of sats collected would go to the hosting node. Again, the more accurate the page, the more popular the page, the more sats are zapped to it and the higher the revenue stream.
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?
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.
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)
