We should have access to a Borges/Thomas Pynchon style dictionary of many possible paths to information. That kind of thinking should be encouraged. It can be c

We should have access to a Borges/Thomas Pynchon style dictionary of many possible paths to information. That kind of thinking should be encouraged. It can be confusing and controversial. - I would avoid giving the impression that a simplified narrative is established (unless it won a nobel or is really beyond any reasonable doubt). - End the use of "controversy" sections where it is used to minimise the impact of perfectly acceptable science. This is clearly used as a tactic in certain instances to minimise results. - Allow for mixed expert, AI, conventional editing. There is nothing wrong or elitist with including edited articles by academic experts as cut outs of a particular topic. Almost like if scholarpedia and wikipedia were merged. - Try to combat omission biases. There are some pretty wild ones on wikipedia. - New results should be handled properly in terms of editing and language. - Reproduce multiple versions of the same text to show how it would be different if certain hypothesis/experimental results were valid. This is easy to do if using LLMs.