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

161–170 of 176 posts

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#161

Post by Retra »

asdffdsa wrote: post #133
llamataboot wrote: post #73

Cynical self: They raised a $5mil round just to re-do wikipedia with more self-referential VC pats on the back. Intrigued self: If there is anything worth raising money for, it is building out a collective knowledge base for all of humanity. Angry self: Wikipedia is quite literally one of the most amazing things that the internet and millions of strangers have ever produced together, and lives as a vital proof of con…

To angry self: I dont entirely trust Wikipedia to give an objective/apolitical view of things all the time: there've been times where articles have been noticably influenced by a defacto, anachronistic political (progressive) position. I wouldnt mind having a redundant source of information where the possibility exists of current politics corrupting its articles' integrity

Many people have tried this, and they invariably end up creating propaganda cesspools like conservapedia. Progressivism fundamentally values objectivity, so I don't think you can easily exclude the former without also losing the later.

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#162

Post by asdffdsa »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #149
asdffdsa wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To angry self: I dont entirely trust Wikipedia to give an objective/apolitical view of things all the time: there've been times where articles have been noticably influenced by a defacto, anachronistic political (progressive) position. I wouldnt mind having a redundant source of information where the possibility exists of current politics corrupting its articles' integrity

> articles have been noticably influenced by a defacto, anachronistic political (progressive) position I hate it when the right pretends that everyone is biasing everything in terms of a progressive agenda, when that's just not the case, even in Wikipedia's case. There was the case of Cross doing absolutely right-wing, biased, pro right-wing Israeli governments entries and edits and being protected by Wikipedia edito…

Ok, my point still stands then; it's good to have multiple sources of information

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#163

Post by herogreen »

judegomila wrote: post #16
herogreen wrote: post #10

I hope it will not be registration walled like Quora but more open like stackexchange websites or hn. I refuse to participate to registration-ponzi-scheme. What will the content licence be ?

Jude from Golden here. We won't do the reg wall - hold me to it :>. We want the information to be open and EASY to access, thus no reg screen. CC4.0

Thanks for this answer. Good luck with the project!

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#164

Post by adamsea »

judegomila wrote: post #107
llamataboot wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for replying! I agree micropayments are incredibly difficult to make work, as is evidenced by the race to the bottom advertising model that seems to be everywhere all-the-time. I hear from you that you want to essentially cover 10 billion topics, and essentially validate that they exist, but that says nothing about validating the content of what someone is saying about it, nor organizing it, etc. I hear lots o…

Thanks so much, in terms of the hard questions after todays madness of launch comes down a little I'll tackle the hardest comments/questions here. In the coming months we will do some technical blog posts to explain how we will tackle the problem space. Many of the problems we have not figured out yet and welcome the community to contact us with new ideas. I 100% agree some of the problems are very hard. In terms of…

Hi Jude,

On your page you said "If an extremely niche topic is valuable to just a handful of people and positively contributes to society, it will have a home on Golden."

Who will make that judgement call of what "contributes to society", and who will be paying their salary?

You also said "We believe this advanced query tool is extremely useful for investment funds, large consultancies and large companies, so please get in touch if you want to experience one of the best query tools out there."

That sounds great but its a far cry from "human knowledge". There wasn't much about advanced query tools for academics, nonprofits, activists, or government employees.

Sorry to be so cynical but one can only hear so much of "making the world a better place", to quote Silicon Valley.

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#165

Post by adamsea »

judegomila wrote: post #4

Jude CEO and Founder of Golden here. Super excited to take this live. We are out to build the next place for canonical knowledge on the Internet. It has been a long-term mission for me to open up the knowledge coverage of billions of niche topics, companies, technologies and new concepts. Our aim is to cover in excess of 10bn topics in high detail over time. Although we all love Wikipedia, there have been various iss…

What about poetry, art, music, social movements, and, you know, culture?

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#166

Post by adamsea »

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…

If the knowledge is for all of humanity will you be incorporating as a B-Corp or some other form of social benefit corporation?

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#167

Post by adamsea »

judegomila wrote: post #52
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.

Jude from Golden here. Great question. We are actively monitoring all the changes right now, building up the community with a scientific/industrial focused seed and building out UI and AI to track the flat earth type changes that might come up in future. I think if we can get transparency on their best arguments/evidence and see the best counters it is going to become clear that the earth is round in that example. Le…

Who gets to decide who is a scientist and who is not a scientist? Scientists?

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#169

Post by AsyncAwait »

asdffdsa wrote: post #162
AsyncAwait wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> articles have been noticably influenced by a defacto, anachronistic political (progressive) position I hate it when the right pretends that everyone is biasing everything in terms of a progressive agenda, when that's just not the case, even in Wikipedia's case. There was the case of Cross doing absolutely right-wing, biased, pro right-wing Israeli governments entries and edits and being protected by Wikipedia edito…

Ok, my point still stands then; it's good to have multiple sources of information

Sure, I agree with that.

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#170

Post by jplayer01 »

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?

Wikipedia is incredibly selective about what they allow to have its own page. They simply aren't interested in being a huge open universal knowledge base - it's aggressively curated in an awful way that isn't immediately obvious. I've seen notable/important/interesting people be removed simply because they didn't meet some arbitrary level of notability, even if they had high impact in their respective communities. That kind of selective enforcement and control of information is what we should be fighting against, not encouraging.

Post reply on HN