Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Golden: Mapping human knowledge

golden.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 176 posts

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#61

Post by coldacid »

pradn wrote: post #48

One reason why I like contributing to Wikipedia is because it feels like I'm contributing to the knowledge-base for all of humanity. Why should I spend my time working on a VC-funded version instead of at a non-profit? VC companies go bust all the time. I would have little share in the governance. Plus, it seems like you all are using public labor for private profit. That all said, more knowledge is better than less.…

Between the politics (both internal and external) around Wikipedia, I gave up as an editor years ago. To me it sounds like Golden actually wants to be a repository of all information, rather than a byzantine bureaucracy that pretends to play encyclopedia.

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#62

Post by hk__2 »

pradn wrote: post #48

One reason why I like contributing to Wikipedia is because it feels like I'm contributing to the knowledge-base for all of humanity. Why should I spend my time working on a VC-funded version instead of at a non-profit? VC companies go bust all the time. I would have little share in the governance. Plus, it seems like you all are using public labor for private profit. That all said, more knowledge is better than less.…

Same here. Why should I contribute to Golden for free, where people have to pay to make queries, when I can do the same with Wikidata, which is queryable by anyone?

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#63

Post by evo_9 »

all2 wrote: post #56
evo_9 wrote: post #17

How will you handle people that want to add knowledge that isn't accurate such as flat-Earthers, anti-vaxxers, etc? Seems like only a matter of time until you're overrun with contentious and vocal minorities that have nothing better to do than undermine our species longterm survival.

There's a pile of bias in this question, but it such an important question that needs to be answered. Nazi policies were the defacto "science" for a decade-and-a-half. @Jude, how ill you prevent similar dogmas from taking hold? Especially if they are the popular dogmas?

True I am heavily biased toward the truth.

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#65

Post by lkj »

So for one of your "showcase" pages, the "Golden AI" plagiarized Wikipedia content and now you are in violation of the CC BY clause Wikipedia uses: https://golden.com/wiki/Product_Hunt/activity/user/golden-ai

How could that happen?

What will happen now?

How will you prevent such copyright violations in the future?

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#66

Post by coldacid »

Cynddl wrote: post #22

> The arbitrary threshold of what is notable and what is not doesn't cut it in the Knowledge Age. There are currently 5.8 million English language articles in Wikipedia, and Google had 1 billion objects (200x Wikipedia's size) in its Knowledge Graph when it launched in 2015. We estimate internally that there are 1000x the entities to cover than what Wikipedia has today. It’s an exciting challenge! This is a very weir…

>Why not helping Wikipedia and contributing to this huge open knowledge base? The rules set by the WP community for acceptability clearly do not imply that “actual technologies, projects, products, theoretical electrical components and academic ideas” might be removed if written there, as the author suggests.

There are rules as they are written, and there are rules as they are actually enforced. Wikipedia has long had a great divide here, especially thanks to rules-lawyering deletionists and political cliques amongst editors.

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#67

Post by hk__2 »

ztratar wrote: post #31
teddyh wrote: post #27

> Today, we have a great opportunity to use new technologies to solve the problems: […] real identity […] > Join Golden > First Name Last Name Yeah, no. A “real names” policy is a really terrible idea , for reasons outlined here: https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Re...

I'd like to see a breakdown of the benefits next to the costs. As it stands, the article you link here is a judgement seeking non-anecdotal data.

Additionally, splitting in "first" and "last" name is a terrible idea for a service that aims to be international. Not all names can be split as "first" and "last". Some people have two "last" names. Some languages (e.g. Hungarian) put the family name before the given name.

https://uxmovement.com/forms/why-your-form-only-needs-one-na...

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#68

Post by oldgun »

coldacid wrote: post #61
pradn wrote: post #48

One reason why I like contributing to Wikipedia is because it feels like I'm contributing to the knowledge-base for all of humanity. Why should I spend my time working on a VC-funded version instead of at a non-profit? VC companies go bust all the time. I would have little share in the governance. Plus, it seems like you all are using public labor for private profit. That all said, more knowledge is better than less.…

Between the politics (both internal and external) around Wikipedia, I gave up as an editor years ago. To me it sounds like Golden actually wants to be a repository of all information, rather than a byzantine bureaucracy that pretends to play encyclopedia.

> To me it sounds like Golden actually wants to be a repository of all information

And based on what information did you draw that conclusion? A well-articulated self-description from a VC-funded startup? Or does it mean some competitor failed in some way automatically makes it favorable and trustworthy?

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#69

Post by pradn »

judegomila wrote: post #55
pradn wrote: post #48

One reason why I like contributing to Wikipedia is because it feels like I'm contributing to the knowledge-base for all of humanity. Why should I spend my time working on a VC-funded version instead of at a non-profit? VC companies go bust all the time. I would have little share in the governance. Plus, it seems like you all are using public labor for private profit. That all said, more knowledge is better than less.…

Jude from Golden here. This knowledge base is for all of humanity as well. I think the important part here is that we are putting out the content on CC-BY-SA-4.0. There is also risk factor to a donations model for WP and to not having enough revenue to invest in the tools needed to go 1000x on the topics + other features that are important to build. If it means anything, I worked on my last co (Heyzap) for 9 years an…

Thank you for your response. I'm greatly encouraged that the license is CC-BY-SA. That's definitely in the public good.

I do believe there is space for non-Wikipedia knowledge repositories. Look at Wikia, for example. People do want to store all their fandom knowledge somewhere. It's just that Wikipedia might not be the place for it.

I also agree that the underinvestment in tools can limit contributions. Wikipedia's new visual editor is the biggest step they've taken in making editing easily accessible. They also have new translation and analysis tools. Not to mention all the specialized wikis under the umbrella - Wiktionary, Wikidata, etc. I do wonder if it's enough though.

Thanks for your work. I hope you can find a balanced business model.

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#70

Post by hk__2 »

Dirlewanger wrote: post #54
billmalarky wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Really terrible" is a bit harsh imo but your comment is very insightful. Perhaps there is a middle ground? Some kind of novel solution that accounts for data coming from "real names" vs pseudonym differently?

If the problem is one of credibility, maybe some manual process that verifies the user is part of some prominent organization i.e. a professor in a given field or something could work. Give the user "flair" (similar to how reddit does it for r/askscience). They keep their pseudonymous username, but they're also recognized as an important figure.

> If the problem is one of credibility, maybe some manual process that verifies the user is part of some prominent organization i.e. a professor in a given field or something could work.

Only accepting users from prominent organization would compromise the goal of having 1000x more content than Wikipedia (see the failure of Nupedia).

Post reply on HN