Replying to Avatar Bowtied Peasant

Been thinking about this too.

Wikipedia is great for some things, but still prone to the political bias of editors. Some better game theory is needed to keep them honest & neutral.

Zaps / micropayments provide a possible incentive, but the danger of a simple zap reward (~ single upvote) is that it may encourage political populism on one side or other ("Trump/Biden is a dork" would likely get millions of partisan zaps).

Some kind of net up/down vote might be better - but this still fails to achieve balance on Reddit. Might work better on Wikipedia, though, given that it's not so divided into sub-communities?
Avatar
Julian 🏛️🪐 2y ago

Yeah that’s the essential problem (people buying their version of truth).

Maybe an ideal UI would actually signal that i.e that there are competing, highly upvoted / zapped answers to the same controversial question

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Bowtied Peasant 2y ago

Yes, that might be one way (though many Wikipedia wars are over the titles and *existence* of articles, not just their content). There are several collaborative governance / collective intelligence platforms (eg Loomio, democracy.earth etc) which are trying to solve similar problems. Will be fascinating to see if frictionless micropayments makes any of them more feasible.