it's already in the protocol; you don't have to do anything

the composability+organic-fragmentation of nostr permits having as many viewpoints as you need

Knowledge bases living on relays. User connects to the relays that offer useful information to them. Client aggregates the notes into a single navigable network

Developers have picked up on #nostr because of its coding simplicity. If contributing to a wiki could be simple for non-devs, and done within your nostr client, it could open it up to a wider set of perspectives.

A large part of the digital world we experience has been crafted by men of a certain age range. Grateful for what’s been built yet also looking forward to how nostr will continue to expand to include more points of view.

Having more inclusion of people of different genders, places, and walks of life should be encouraged to enrich our cyberspace libraries. This may come from education, word-of-mouth, ease-of-wiki-use, access to wikis from our nostr clients, and ways of engaging with the community to encourage contributions.

Moderation issues will arise, where it will be important to prevent censorship of minority points of view, perhaps in similar ways to what nostr is already trying.

Nostr builders have been giving people more choice, as that trend continues, it will be one of our greatest allies for protecting differences of opinion.

Perhaps we’ll have community hubs around topics of interest and those hubs will have simple ways of contributing to their wiki topic directly in your nostr client, with options for structuring and displaying information. All of it connected to a larger wiki with multiple branches.

Perhaps wikis could serve as a topic discovery tool and they could be followed like hashtags can be followed now, but also navigated across, so as to discover deeper or broader topics.

Could this #nostrwiki also be a type of Quora?

So many possibilities, so much hope for information to be shared across the globe.

let the people fight it out, and stay out of the way.

Need input from the many projects that have aimed to improve upon wikipedia already. Citizendium, Handwiki, and Sanger / Knowledge Standards Foundation / Encyclosphere, even self-admittedly biased ones: Rationalwiki, Conservapedia.

I think the issue is not to aim for a variety of contributors, but to allow the crowd to sort it out, and to allow for user-side filtering. It is the same challenge as with algorithms - allow for a market of filtration of data. Do not aim to restrict data.

With an encyclopedia page - the basic model would have multiple versions of the page available to the reader, with the reader choosing whose version to trust based on presets, preferences, defaults (be careful!) and the advice from peers.

The more advanced model (which has some effort and discussion into it already in various places around the internet) would involve realtime dynamic population of generated text based on user choice and bold, italic, or differently colored fonts to show various levels of trust of the information provided, based on user's preferences, presets, or the preferences of trusted peers.

Now, there are possibilities to have the page generated in realtime by ChatGPT-like services and data vending machines...