Ah Folksonomy. Had completely forgotten that del.icio.us site :) I agree completely on the authentication being important. I referenced IPLD in another comment

Ah Folksonomy. Had completely forgotten that del.icio.us site :) I agree completely on the authentication being important. I referenced IPLD in another comment. My thinking was to try and build on top of that initially, at least while prototyping, to really shed the idea of having a single moderated database to rely on, can’t really imagine how to do that without strong authenticity. When it comes to different audiences I’m hoping to address that by layering. A layperson will read books, blogs and news. Those will contain various contradictions and misunderstandings of publsihed research and pure myths. I’m thinking a similar layering. Start with any unqualified statement. If it is interesting (contradicts “wisdom”, leads to new prescriptions, or whatever) interested parties debate it’s quality, adding metadata and rules to the graph until consensus on desireble inferences is reached, rendering it uniteresting to debate further. I’m thinking something akin to Wikipedia authoring here. Now people will have different agendas, so a common shared consensus on a specific set of conclusions is probably not viable. Therefore I’m thinking some kind of personalized, or community curated, axioms and rules will be a thing. Perhaps not unlike how rules for spam filters are maintained and used. As a byproduct, a formal definition on which axioms and weighting’s exactly leads to conflict between groups could be a useful tool in some context. (I’m hoping a system like this could be helpful in accelerating diffusion of beliefs, to not spend decades on debates on wether global warming could be important, the next time an important question comes up)