> but would that substantially improve on the current capabilities of Wikipedia?
Absolutely it would. Just as a quick example, there was an author whose name was red on Wikipedia, which I think means that someone intended to make a page for them at one point.
I created this page and it got blocked by a 17 year old because there wasn't enough citations. This was an author of 20 books, but Wikipedia won't allow his page because there wasn't... newspaper articles written about him??
Why should this information be lost to the world because Wikipedia is run by bored megalomaniacs?
I think that Larry Sanger's vision is to create a federated network of multiple encyclopedia's that can each specialize in their specific area. But Noosphere seems to want to be the P2P version of that. Cut out the middle man, I suppose.
I’m sympathetic to that failure mode of Wikipedia, but in this utopic vision, if there is no mechanism regulate which content gets to claim priority for stubs, what stops spam/ads from flooding the network?
Absolutely it would. Just as a quick example, there was an author whose name was red on Wikipedia, which I think means that someone intended to make a page for them at one point.
I created this page and it got blocked by a 17 year old because there wasn't enough citations. This was an author of 20 books, but Wikipedia won't allow his page because there wasn't... newspaper articles written about him??
Why should this information be lost to the world because Wikipedia is run by bored megalomaniacs?
I think that Larry Sanger's vision is to create a federated network of multiple encyclopedia's that can each specialize in their specific area. But Noosphere seems to want to be the P2P version of that. Cut out the middle man, I suppose.