Some interesting ideas there, but it would have been much better if he actually started by presenting and giving evidence for there being a problem other than "I want a space for my truth".
In particular, he mentions "Allow multiple, competing articles per topic", but I think that would go against the whole idea of an encyclopedia. As I see it, if we can't arrive at a single synthesized truth about a topic, then we don't have an encyclopedic article.
>In particular, he mentions "Allow multiple, competing articles per topic", but I think that would go against the whole idea of an encyclopedia. As I see it, if we can't arrive at a single synthesized truth about a topic, then we don't have an encyclopedic article.
Reminds me of Knol - Google's attempt to create a Wikipedia competitor (closed in 2012):
>Any contributor could create and own new Knol articles, and there could be multiple articles on the same topic with each written by a different author.
This is analogous to the "freedom of speech on campus" moral panics of a few years ago. Wikipedia isn't under the thumb of an oligarch, so use the language of free speech in bad faith to whip up a general willingness to destroy it.
In particular, he mentions "Allow multiple, competing articles per topic", but I think that would go against the whole idea of an encyclopedia. As I see it, if we can't arrive at a single synthesized truth about a topic, then we don't have an encyclopedic article.