Author 1m1 (1m1-github)
ALGO Requested 200000
Humanity keeps reliable knowledge in white papers. White papers are summarized in encyclopedias. The best (though not perfect) existing encyclopedia is Wikipedia. Let’s bring it to web3.
Given any statement (a sentence, a white paper, an article, etc.), anyone can vote on the veracity (as a number) of this statement between 0 and 1, 0 meaning absolutely false, 1 meaning absolutely true, or any number inbetween.
Each voter will own on-chain identities (NFTs) which are attached to the vote.
A frontend allows any user to inquire the average veracity for a given statement filtered on some combination of identities.
“What do professional biologists think about Darwin’s paper on evolution?”
“What do people of my city think about the paper that claims that timezones and daylight savings are useless?”
Every person is free to choose it’s own judgement of any statement. Now we provide transparent data to help the person choose make up it’s own mind.
The voting is incentivised via reward coins, which could be traded in open markets, giving them value.
We would start with universities, by handing out academic identities via academic emails. The burden of identity checking is kept with universities. After, institutes of accreditation can be added (e.g. Lawyers, Doctors, etc.). Eventually, governments will be giving their citizens identities on-chain. Any and all reliable on-chain identity providers can be added to the system.
We get a single source to check the veracity level of any statement for any given group.
Link for details
xGov-32 - wiki3 by 1m1-github · Pull Request #32 · algorandfoundation/xGov · GitHub text`
Have you canvassed any universities to see if they would even consider allowing crowd-sourced information as de facto information? I know I was never able to cite Wikipedia in any research I did in Undergrad or Grad. I feel this would be classified as the same level of academic integrity.
I’ve seldom seen Wikipedia pages that had wrong or misleading information on them (if they did, it was corrected very quickly), as the mods on that site are pretty reliable. Wikipedia is great for general overviews. I just don’t see this beating something like arxiv.org or other peer-reviewed journals for academic research.
arxiv.org is not peer reviewed tho. its a great place where you can upload your papers too and make them accessible to everyone. its really annoying when journals hide publications probably financed by money which came from the government and do a bit of peer reviewing (done by people who are not getting paid besides the ones really working at the journal maybe) and release the paper then behind a paywall for 30-40$ per paper… its ridicolous. ok rant over sorry
this whole idea seems to rely on universities cooperating. without experts the information might be far away from being trustworthy, why should universities have an interest in something like that when something like wikipedia is out there? i will be honest i heard some bad stuff from editors over at wikipedia which have too much power and can choose to ignore other people but in general it seems to work decently. universities wont care about “reward coins” or stuff like that
wiki3 is a system that transparently allows anyone to 1) vote for the veracity of any statement, connected to the voters’ various identity tokens and 2) query the votes given any statement.
universities are a good starting point as they are the main employers of scholars, hence their opinions are most valuable to anyone interested in the truth. generally, voting is open to anyone.
as a first university, i am talking with people from MIT. if this proposal gets support, i think Silvio would help with convincing MIT to pilot the project as well.
wikipedia contains content, edited. arxiv contains content, unedited. wiki3 is to contain votes of people holding identity tokens.
in the future, a person will e.g. hold identity tokens proving "i am resident of city A, a citizen of country B, a professional belonging to guild C, a university degree holder of field D, a parent with E kids, a member of F, etc., etc.
this one persons’ vote then informs the aggregated vote of each of the identity groups the person belongs to.
anyone else can then query e.g. “what do people with at least E kids think of this statement?”, etc.
it is about transparency of judgement, via on-chain voting connected to proven identities
Hi, how are you doing voting? Have you checked onchain voting system Vote Coin? Introduction - VoteCoin
Its on algorand, supports delegation of voting power, supports encrypted voting, fully implemented and open source, and more… The vote coin token is btw the #6 token at the moment at vestige.
Identities management by central authority can be done by the central authority by it self when it verifies the account… It calls Trusted list management in the specs. The identity management by NFT (some asa issued and held on account) has an issue that if person looses the private key to that account, he looses ability to vote, or should the university issue another NFT and when person finds the original mnemonic to that account does he have 2 votes?
It might be interesting to have the vote coin standard being used for the Wiki management.
Btw for this grant program there is request of extension for vote coin open apps to be able to manage github repository by onchain voting.