51–60 of 176 posts
What will be the monetisation ?
So far looks like tools for companies & pro research, like their query builder. Will be interesting to see if it scales up...
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.
> Golden’s mission is to collect, organize and express 10+ billion topics in an accessible way, presented in neutrally-written and comprehensive topic pages. How do you plan to uphold the neutrally-written part? Wikipedia does not really do this; many editors try, but it is very difficult. This is especially true seeing as every one carries personal biases. How will you make sure opinions that do not agree with the m…
I do really appreciate their priority to keep open logs -- make sure editors and admins can be held accountable for making changes to the tone or frame of an article.
> 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...
"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?
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.…
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 and its still running today. I can see the worry but there are many options on creating backups and dumps to the text, so we are agreement that more knowledge is better and thanks for the support.
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.
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?
1) What makes Golden so different than Wikipedia that we should stop using Wikipedia and use Golden instead?
2) I randomly clicked into the Beyond Meat page on Golden [0] and I am comparing it to Wikipedia's page for the same company [1]. I can see you personally made 10 contributions to the article, more than anyone else. Why do you think I should read Golden's article instead of Wikipedia's article?
3) You want to stop deletion of data. When is content not worth keeping? For example, would you want an article written about every street in the world? How would you write an article on Golden for this [2]? My first click on Random Article on Wikipedia returned this [3]: how would you write the article for H. Day on Golden?
4) How will you implement fact validation?
5) > We also believe there are many more features that users want, like a knowledge feed, keyboard commands, AI assisted feedback on editor contributions and tables that can automatically update.
As a long time Wikipedia user, I can tell you I have never wanted any of those features, maybe with the exception of the auto-updating tables pending more information about what that actually means. How do you know that people want these features?
[0] https://golden.com/wiki/Beyond_Meat
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Meat
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…
How will you be handling "soft" topics like history? What about the handling/records of/provenance of artifacts? Who is the arbiter of Truth? Will this wind up like Snopes or Wikipedia with an entrenched viewpoint that is dogma and defended at all costs? How will you avoid this? Will alternative views/paths of inquiry be considered seriously? For example; vaccination efficacy research? I understand this is a hot-butt…
Is it Wikipedia - but with a modern editor?