Hey nostr, what do we think about starting decentralized wiki? With btc donation, etc.
nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m nostr:npub1a2cww4kn9wqte4ry70vyfwqyqvpswksna27rtxd8vty6c74era8sdcw83a nostr:npub17u5dneh8qjp43ecfxr6u5e9sjamsmxyuekrg2nlxrrk6nj9rsyrqywt4tp nostr:npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpev
Dr Huberman is not the first one and there is clearly a trend. Bizarre reality we live in.
p.s. Sorry Jeff, forgot to tag you as well nostr:npub1s05p3ha7en49dv8429tkk07nnfa9pcwczkf5x5qrdraqshxdje9sq6eyhe.
Might be cool if you could have it were edits and additions required the author to use pow keys. Maybe they could only be used once. Just thinking out loud. 😅
Yes please ?
I do not like Lex and his pseudo influencing but I am all for a decentralized wiki via #nostr protocol.
Where can I zap for this? What ideas are there already?
At this point, mainstream dismissal is becoming a badge of value lol
How is this different from the current Wikipedia? Users decide what is on the page. If you don't like it, change it?
How would a 'decentralized' version fix this issue of changes in narrative among the majority?
Also just thinking loud: a decentralized consensus with a monetary reward for change acceptance and a penalty otherwise. A flavor of Proof of Work.
Working on just that, its super early but I think there is a lot of possibilities without adding much complexity.
A nostr-native knowledge base comes with decentralization and censorship resistance baked in. To keep signal high, relays will need to decide on who to allow writing privileges. Users connect to the relays they want to curate their feed. Leveraging the interoperability of nostr, and you can get branching modular articles, where full articles are composed out of smaller notes. Smaller notes mean you can display content in different ways. Now its not just a wiki, or blogging platform, but a distributed knowledge base.
Write an article with multiple sections, one sections might be documentation to the tools you created with tutorials on how to use them. Users can comment on any note giving criticism or commentary. Other authors can use existing article notes to create their own articles.
I can't see how you would keep it neutral. Using "likes" to prioritize information would probably become a mess
Yes we need this. Wikipedia has lost neutrality and is now a joke. Its not simple though to converge on one truth, no easy solution is known.
If neutral the alternative must allow for multiple options and how do decide which are so fringe they can be dropped?
How would that work? How would it differ from wikipedia? You would need to zap for contribution, then who would approve it? So if I zap 0.1sats, I would be able to say horrible thing on your wiki page? I don't get it.
A simple web of trust system could change how we view wiki pages. Imagine only seeing content that your local trust network finds relevant. Multiple versions of a page may exist, but you'd only see others if you seek them out. Plus, only the author can edit, ensuring authenticity without interference from outsiders.
"Wikipedia is an Information Warfare Tool," writes Dr. Mercola.
How can nostr address this problem?
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/09/joseph-mercola/wikipedia-is-an-information-warfare-tool/
