Jul 10, 2017 · 1 min read
This is actually promising. It’s much better than wikipedia. In fact it’s the opposite of Wikipedia, if it turns out as you say.
Wikipedia thought it could get away from having an opinion on what the truth was. “It’s about verifiable sources, not truth!” But all that did was push the conflict over to which sources were “true”, where it was settled by horse trading and power games in the spaghetti which is Wikipedia’s unacknowledged power structures.
Agreeing on the truth may be hard, but not nearly as hard and dangerous as agreeing on who the truth-tellers are.
