Truth cannot be defined with strict rules. There's no algorithm for truth.

@iiii I'm not saying it will solve truth. It's just a more strict wiki than mediawiki. We can do semantic analysis on it and use it as an intelligent corpus for AI systems.

@taven restricting information because someone voted against it is not exactly a great solution as well. It can and will be abused

@iiii How is it different from the way mediawiki does it? Even everipedia uses voting.

@taven yeah, exactly. It's not different in concept. And it is being abused already

@iiii If all things are equal, then adding a validity checker using Quantification Logic is a feature that will enhance correctness of information on pages. Better than not knowing if arguments are invalid like on mediawiki pages.

@taven I would propose visually marking the rating of some piece (paragraph) according to how it was voted so that it is visible

@iiii That's already a feature I was planning. And users can also filter information based on premises they think is true to compile versions of wiki that are different for them.

Also, maybe adding some sort of ad-hoc filter which would show only those part that are above the user defined threshold

@iiii Yup was already planning on that :)

@iiii I hate to type this, but in my country truth is subjective. And I’m not trying to violate the no politics thing, however…

“Trump was the best president”

“Children can’t understand racial inequality”

“Gender neutral bathrooms will break the world order”

“Global warming is a myth”

All of those would be majority voted as truth here. How do you validate that with software logic when you use a voting system that the numbers would bear that out?

Now I want off this planet.

@atrabilious FYI conservapedia is a thing. Wikipedia is the majority consensus on issues. Even if you think Conclusion is false, it will not resolve to false if Premises are true.

So Jack can believe that all men are moral. And that Socrates is a man. But he will not be allowed to set his view as "Socrates is not mortal" if he already set those other two premises. So do you see how it will work in educating people about invalid arguments?

Mixed feelings. On one hand - majority opinion simply doesn't equal correctness. If I look at majority opinions on Facebook then frankly there is no more compelling argument against direct democracy.

On the other hand there are sites like StackExchange which is also voting based. However active users on this site are educated in their respective fields (usually). Even then, the "correctness" of upvoted responses is dependent on the specific StackExchange. It seems rather possible to find the correct approach to a specific problem in a specific language or framework. However when looking at SE:Workplace the "correct" opinions become often much more subjective and biased.

The outcome of the proposed enterprise might depend on the intended userbase.

@atrabilious there are topics for which there is no truth. So it's no wonder that there is seemingly no truth

A while back, I could say the idea is ideally compelling and has a 100% stronghold, but I hardly imagine it to be idiot-proof now when AI is learned to surf through any garbage and information relies on people. Just saying it so that you don't make promises that were not supposed to be realized.

That aside, this idea reminded me of the variable definitions in IDE: without any hassle, user will be able to determine in which pages certain token is used. Hence a better audit experience!

Adding to my statement: please don't propose it as debates resolutor, because I really love the concept behind the tokens you uttered and I don't wanna see it wasted on mere debates 😉

@taven Join my server: https://discord.gg/jMp64VH
Let's collaborate on this thing 👍👋

@vintprox Thank you for your input. It's called Debate Wiki, but it's mostly just a wiki with custom filters for propositions. I was inspired by the Kialo website to build this.