get ready for apps to add "login with nostr", absorb data from it, and call themselves "built on nostr"

these are DINO apps that will try to lock you in into their legacy-thinking, while pretending to empower you and speaking empty words of decentralization

Madeira's cool and all, but this is the real atlantis:

they absolutely should.

when i was looking for an image to use as banner for "white genocide" community on NOSTR i went to Google Image search to look for images of white children ... and i couldn't find any suitable ones for a banner because Google has censored that search term. i had to use "WW2 era classroom" or something like that as search term and that way found some black and white images of white children of suitable dimensions to use for banner.

i should have been able to just go to gab and image search for "white children" and immediately get relevant results in full color.

i'm banned by Torba because i'm a Jew and mock Christianity but somebody should pitch that idea to him.

I have recently launched Wikifreedia, which is a different take on how Wikipedia-style systems can work.

Yes, it's built on nostr, but that's not the most interesting part.

The fascinating aspect is that there is no "official" entry on any topic. Anyone can create or edit any entry and build their own take about what they care about.

Think the entry about Mao is missing something? Go ahead and edit it, you don't need to ask for permission from anyone.

Stuart Bowman put it best on a #SovEng hike:

> The path to truth is in the integration of opposites.

Since launching Wikifreedia, less than a week ago, quite a few people asked me if it would be possible to import ALL of wikipedia into it.

Yes. Yes it would.

I initially started looking into it to make it happen as I am often quick to jump into action.

But, after thinking about it, *I am not convinced importing all of Wikipedia is the way to go*.

The magical thing about building an encyclopedia with no canonical entry on any topic is that each individual can bring to light the part they are interested the most about a certain topic, it can be dozens or hundreds, or perhaps more, entries that focus on the edges of a topic.

Whereas, Wikipedia, in their Quijotean approach to truth, have focused on the impossible path of seeking neutrality.

Humans can't be neutral, we have biases.

Show me an unbiased human and I'll show you a lifeless human.

*Biases are good*. Having an opinion is good. Seeking neutrality is seeking to devoid our views and opinions of humanity.

Importing Wikipedia would mean importing a massive amount of colorless trivia, a few interesting tidbits, but, more important than anything, a vast amount of watered-down useless information.

All edges of the truth having been neutered by a democratic process that searches for a single truth via consensus.

# "What's the worst that could happen?"

Sure, importing wikipedia would simply be *one* more entry on each topic.

Yes.

But culture has incredibly strong momentum.

And if the culture that develops in this type of media is that of exclusively watered-down comfortable truths, then some magic could be lost.

If people who are passionate or have a unique perspective about a topic feel like the "right approach" is to use the wikipedia-based article then I would see this as an extremely negative action.

### An alternative

An idea we discussed on the #SovEng hike was, what if the wikipedia entry is processed by different "AI agents" with different perspectives.

Perhaps instead of blankly importing the "Napoleon" article, an LLM trained to behave as a 1850s russian peasant could be asked to write a wiki about Napoleon. And then an agent tried to behave like Margaret Thatcher could write one.

Etc, etc.

Embrace the chaos. Embrace the bias.

it is absolutely sensible. but so is eating animals.

people literally just create accounts and dump their entire hard drive worth of memes because why not ? they aren't bots. they are memefags.

99% of people have no original content to contribute but anybody an aggregate thousands of images of memes and then just upload them to every site that allows it.

this results in a situation where there may be thousands of copies of the same image on the internet, with perhaps dozens if not hundreds of copies of it on Gab alone.

HE'S DOUBLING DOWN ON IT, AMAZING

In most cases everyone has access to the file either way.

Note that I don't say this against NFTs.

Indeed, I'm not against NFTs, while I think DRM is trash.

NFTs don't manage copyright and they aren't DRM.

Want to have your Wikifreedia changes back into someone else's entry?

* Alice writes about the Argentinean Corralito from 2001

* Bob forks Alice's article, adds how each argentinean province started issuing their own fiat shitcoin , and then sends a "Merge request"

* Alice likes what Bob wrote and merges it

* If Bob is satisfied with the result of the merge he can "defer" his entry to Alice's, so he doesn't have to keep maintaining his own article

People ask "what would happen to bitcoin if the power grid went down"? I know what would happen — computer chips would become the new cash. Very hard to counterfeit, easy to recognize, impossibly scarce.

Yeah, the d tag is what is reviewed normalized (lowercase, s/ -/) so no need to pull in any schema.org craziness

Have you thought about incorporating NIP-32 for part where there are multiple articles about the same subject?

That is the one I was planning to use for movie reviews for example (many reviews referencing the same movie).

Just need a standard format for the link. I would imagine something using a schema.org definition?