Kinda like WikiData? [0] [0]: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page
I recently began using WikiData for a large project and have to say that it's surprisingly great.
DIRT Protocol raises $3M to build a Wikipedia for structured data
11–20 of 95 posts
Re: DIRT Protocol raises $3M to build a Wikipedia for structured data
#12Can someone explain how exactly DIRT protocol will do moderation? From their site [1] it seems like they do some sort of moderating of crowd-sourced structured data. But this is where I am a bit confused: "DIRT maintains accuracy because every contributor needs to deposit tokens to write data. If the data is correct, it is freely shared. If the data is incorrect, anyone can challenge the data and earn tokens for iden…
Hi! Thanks for the question. DIRT works well for objective information. In the cryptocurrency use case, this could be the ERC-20 smart contract address for a token or a list of investors for a project. To flag information as incorrect, you need to take tokens and challenge the data. A challenge starts a vote and anyone in the DIRT network can vote with their tokens on what information is correct. The vote winner and…
Interesting. It's similar to how Stack Overflow's reputation system incentivizes quality questions and answers, except that in DIRT you use tokens, and tokens cost money (correct me if I'm wrong).
Unsolicited startup idea: build a more accurate Stack Overflow with DIRT.
Re: DIRT Protocol raises $3M to build a Wikipedia for structured data
#13Can someone explain how exactly DIRT protocol will do moderation? From their site [1] it seems like they do some sort of moderating of crowd-sourced structured data. But this is where I am a bit confused: "DIRT maintains accuracy because every contributor needs to deposit tokens to write data. If the data is correct, it is freely shared. If the data is incorrect, anyone can challenge the data and earn tokens for iden…
Hi! Thanks for the question. DIRT works well for objective information. In the cryptocurrency use case, this could be the ERC-20 smart contract address for a token or a list of investors for a project. To flag information as incorrect, you need to take tokens and challenge the data. A challenge starts a vote and anyone in the DIRT network can vote with their tokens on what information is correct. The vote winner and…
What systems are in place to prevent a malicious actor who is well funded from spreading disinformation and/or discrediting factual data?
Re: DIRT Protocol raises $3M to build a Wikipedia for structured data
#14"Wikipedia for structured data" seems like an odd tagline when Wikipedia already has a Wikipedia for structured data.
Thanks for the feedback! One of the differences between DIRT and Wikipedia is that we place a higher value on information accuracy. For example, in the cryptocurrency market project teams often list investors and advisors as affiliated with their project when they are not involved. A Wikipedia list of investors would not be sufficient. You want these project teams to have skin in the game and something to lose if the…
So wikidata but for crypto? That's pretty thin. Why didn't you try to 'update' wikidata?
Re: DIRT Protocol raises $3M to build a Wikipedia for structured data
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi! Thanks for the question. DIRT works well for objective information. In the cryptocurrency use case, this could be the ERC-20 smart contract address for a token or a list of investors for a project. To flag information as incorrect, you need to take tokens and challenge the data. A challenge starts a vote and anyone in the DIRT network can vote with their tokens on what information is correct. The vote winner and…
This doesn't answer the more important question. The issue isn't how do you handle "incorrect" information, it's how do you REMOVE information. Basically, when someone doxxes someone, and dumps the result onto your system, how to you remove it? If you don't have a facility for rendering intentionally malicious information impossible to access , your system is fundamentally broken.
I think the tough part is deciding who should be the arbiter or whether information is intentionally malicious. Censorship can be a real issue.
For the DIRT protocol, if want to remove information, you also need to deposit tokens and put forth evidence to convince voters in the network to side with you. If you lose the vote, then you would also lose tokens. We put forth an economic penalty for being inaccurate.
Re: DIRT Protocol raises $3M to build a Wikipedia for structured data
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi! Thanks for the question. DIRT works well for objective information. In the cryptocurrency use case, this could be the ERC-20 smart contract address for a token or a list of investors for a project. To flag information as incorrect, you need to take tokens and challenge the data. A challenge starts a vote and anyone in the DIRT network can vote with their tokens on what information is correct. The vote winner and…
>> To flag information as incorrect, you need to take tokens and challenge the data. A challenge starts a vote and anyone in the DIRT network can vote with their tokens on what information is correct. The vote winner and majority voters earn tokens. The vote loser and minority voters are penalized. You're right this only works well for objective information or facts. Hence, any articles that hint of an opinion (i.e.…
Thanks! What we have for v1 of the protocol is really the starting point. There are also other extensions that could support subjective information. For example, it could be similar to Reddit's upvoting system. You can stake 100 tokens to say Domino's has the best pizza, and I can counter with 200 tokens to say Papa John's is better. Items are ranked on the list based on the token stake. There would be no challenges or voting in this model.
Re: DIRT Protocol raises $3M to build a Wikipedia for structured data
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the feedback! One of the differences between DIRT and Wikipedia is that we place a higher value on information accuracy. For example, in the cryptocurrency market project teams often list investors and advisors as affiliated with their project when they are not involved. A Wikipedia list of investors would not be sufficient. You want these project teams to have skin in the game and something to lose if the…
So wikidata but for crypto? That's pretty thin. Why didn't you try to 'update' wikidata?
With wikipedia or projects like Open Street Maps, vandalism, spam, and poor data quality are problems at scale. In particular, crowdsourcing does not work for curating commercial data or information where you can profit by spreading misinformation.
For example, in the cryptocurrency space. Projects raise funding through initial coin offers (ICOs). In an ICO, you can contribute ETH to a smart contract for the promise of tokens in the future. Having an openly editable list of ICOs and their contribution address would not work. The list would be quickly spammed because malicious actors have a really high incentive to put their personal wallet address as the contribution address.
Re: DIRT Protocol raises $3M to build a Wikipedia for structured data
#18So it's Wikidata but with "blockchain" stamped on it to raise more money?
Re: DIRT Protocol raises $3M to build a Wikipedia for structured data
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi! Thanks for the question. DIRT works well for objective information. In the cryptocurrency use case, this could be the ERC-20 smart contract address for a token or a list of investors for a project. To flag information as incorrect, you need to take tokens and challenge the data. A challenge starts a vote and anyone in the DIRT network can vote with their tokens on what information is correct. The vote winner and…
Interesting. It's similar to how Stack Overflow's reputation system incentivizes quality questions and answers, except that in DIRT you use tokens, and tokens cost money (correct me if I'm wrong). Unsolicited startup idea: build a more accurate Stack Overflow with DIRT.
Yes - That's a great analogy. On the moderation side similar to Stack Overflow, Reddit, HackerNews with reputation and points. On the writing side, we put a higher bar on data accuracy and deposits to share data.
Re: DIRT Protocol raises $3M to build a Wikipedia for structured data
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> To flag information as incorrect, you need to take tokens and challenge the data. A challenge starts a vote and anyone in the DIRT network can vote with their tokens on what information is correct. The vote winner and majority voters earn tokens. The vote loser and minority voters are penalized. You're right this only works well for objective information or facts. Hence, any articles that hint of an opinion (i.e.…
Thanks! What we have for v1 of the protocol is really the starting point. There are also other extensions that could support subjective information. For example, it could be similar to Reddit's upvoting system. You can stake 100 tokens to say Domino's has the best pizza, and I can counter with 200 tokens to say Papa John's is better. Items are ranked on the list based on the token stake. There would be no challenges…
What prevents entities who can afford to lose the most tokens from establishing what is listed as 'correct'? What mechanisms are there to prevent those with the greatest token number from establishing what is accurate?