In order to have many articles on the same topic, you must have a way so
that the readers have those articles ranked. This way, the reader would
instantly see the article he most trusts, no more effort for the reader.
I dont know whether trust is required to be formalized for a small group of
developers working for a project, but it is necessary for a project like
Wikipedia where there are thousands of contributors.
Google found a trust metric to rank the internet. He ranked pages by having
sites trust sites(links).
We need to study and formalize a trust metric (with people trusting people )
for that kind of revolution of a distributed Wikipedia to take place.
*None of the previous proposals tried to cooperate with someone that is
working on trust metrics.*
I think that the best way to go forward is to create a distributed wikipedia
and let it be a test bed for a few trust metrics.
I am not a developer but I recently started working on creating such a trust
Here is another more mature effort on the study of trust metrics.
On 1 July 2011 09:27, Alec Conroy
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Nikola Smolenski
> On 07/01/2011 09:15 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> Per HaeB's link, this is a perennial
proposal. People like the idea,
>> but in eighteen years - back as far as the Interpedia proposal, before
>> wikis existed - no-one has made one that works. Why not? What's
>> failing to go on here?
> Per HaeB's link, IMO no proposal was
specific enough, and no proposal
> was actually done.
I don't know why it took so long, but
here's my guess. It hasn't
worked for the past 18 years because prior to wikipedia, nobody ever
got anything like this to work. It took a Jimmy to look at patent
absurdity of 'anyone can edit' encyclopedias and somehow see that it
was working in an amazing and world-changing way.
The fact that Github's git-backed wikis haven't been seized upon
suggests to me that there's no demand for a distributed wiki system
amongst the *readers*.
It's like the perennial proposal for multiple article versions on
Wikipedia for each point of view. This solves a problem for the
*writers*, but makes one for the *readers*. They seem to want one
source with one article on a topic, else they'd just hit the top ten
links in Google instead of going to Wikipedia. (Wikinfo has tried
implementing this. Its readership is negligible compared to Wikipedia,
but its writers enjoy it.)
Why do people want ten Wikipedias to look up instead of one? They
observably don't - they want a source they can quickly look up
something in that they can reasonably trust to be useful. They only go
to multiple sources if that one starts sucking.
A distributed wiki proposal needs to clearly solve a problem the readers
There are several such perennial proposals that are ignored because
they are actually about solving problems for the writers, and not
solving problems for the readers.
foundation-l mailing list