To the creators of Golden: how do you view Golden in comparison to Everipedia?
I just took a look at Everipedia, and it looks like they are just cloning content from Wikipedia. At least that's what it seems like based on the article on E. coli.
Golden: Mapping human knowledge
81–90 of 176 posts
Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Sad to see the most important set of questions in this thread not only go unanswered, but downvoted too.
Speaking as someone who asked a similar question: I doubt they're going to answer this, because it would tip their hand, and no possible answer would benefit this little publicity junket/advertorial PR dump.
If they say they're going to moderate the site such that vaccines don't cause autism, in their view, that's taking the "party line dogma all alternative views are crushed by moderator fiat" approach, as per the comment you're replying to.
If they say it's going to be a free-for-all, they're implicitly saying that, unless they get a team of users onboard to stamp out nonsense quickly, their site is going to be Yahoo Answers with more Ajax, and a clearinghouse for "Big Pharma Chemtrails Cause Morgellons Vaccines To Sterilize White Babies" type nonsense, because the extremists always seem to have time to spread their idiocy into any unmoderated or lightly-moderated forum.
However, the questions still have value, if only because the answers resonate in their nonexistence.
Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Jude from Golden here. Good question. We are opening up useful queries over time for users eg https://golden.com/y-combinator-w19-companies/ Future paid/business tools will include using our AI assisted editor for private companies, private storage of their knowledge so we can continue to open up more queries to the public. Our north star is to get to a more open knowledge base than what is currently available. Also…
Given than Wikidata is published under a CC 0 licence there’s nothing preventing Golden from using it as a knowledge source. Unless Golden provides a better editor experience I see no reason for anyone to contribute to Golden rather than Wikidata.
Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge
#84Jude 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…
You say that you'll be doing more media and learning oriented content than Wikipedia: how are you planning to support this - given how many contributors Wikipedia has? (And if you don't mind then maybe you could go deeper into how would you compare to Wikipedia. :) Good luck!
Jude from Golden. Beyond the blog post in terms of more learning content - video and extensive further reading links can help in this area but at the core much deeper pages eg https://golden.com/wiki/Cryobacterium vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryobacterium
In terms of numbers of contributors we believe Golden is at the stage where 1 hour editing on Golden produces more content/data than alternatives and the friction to edit is much lower. Are you looking for more depth on comparisons beyond the blog post?
Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge
#85Cynical 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…
It seems like Wikipedia might have some inherent incompatibilities with what they're trying to do, such as its editorial rules and its definition of notability, which can't easily be "fixed" by whatever definition of fixing they need. I appreciate a more inclusive view of notability that lets you take it all in and surface whats relevant more selectively although that is open for insane amounts of debate around it as we've seen on Wikipedia.
Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge
#86Cynical 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…
> Also, what are your thoughts on the morality of essentially crowdsourcing all the input that you will feed to your query engines and profit off people using? Aren't you essentially making your contributors all unpaid workers?
My mind went in a different direction, although your point is very valuable and the question needs to be asked.
My concern is this: Wikipedia editors work hard to maintain a level of quality high enough that the kooks and cranks and racists of the world feel like Wikipedia is biased against them. Well, guess what: It is. Wikipedia gives no platform to people who think vaccines cause autism. NPOV is biased towards the scientific consensus.
So, will Golden even attempt that level of quality? Will it keep the constant tide of insanity out or will it be inundated by the loudest few who believe the craziest shit? Crowdsourcing is dangerous when some people are endlessly motivated to game the system, and I don't just mean making Moot win Man Of The Year competitions.
Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge
#87It looks good from a visual and usability standpoint. But it's kind of odd how there's already a cluster of articles on synthetic biology, but nothing written about Escherichia coli.
If the idea is to catch up and eventually overtake Wikipedia in content, that seems extremely ambitious.
Luckily the name Golden is pretty generic so maybe they plan to pivot towards whichever industries adopt it more?
Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge
#88My 2c on design, while scrolling article, sidebar is highlighting current paragraph and that jumping is very annoying in current color, it should be much lighter..
Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge
#89Jude 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 your vision is different from Freebase and other ontology projects?
Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say that you'll be doing more media and learning oriented content than Wikipedia: how are you planning to support this - given how many contributors Wikipedia has? (And if you don't mind then maybe you could go deeper into how would you compare to Wikipedia. :) Good luck!
Jude from Golden. Beyond the blog post in terms of more learning content - video and extensive further reading links can help in this area but at the core much deeper pages eg https://golden.com/wiki/Cryobacterium vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryobacterium In terms of numbers of contributors we believe Golden is at the stage where 1 hour editing on Golden produces more content/data than alternatives and the frict…
> In terms of numbers of contributors we believe Golden is at the stage where 1 hour editing on Golden produces more content/data than alternatives and the friction to edit is much lower.
In my experience as a Wikipedia editor, 80% of the time I spend writing an article is searching for (good) sources; 10% is editing friction like looking for the right infobox or the right model for what I want (although that time is reduced by experience); 10% is actually writing the article. Wikipedia’s contributing documentation discoverability is quite bad.
Your “high resolution” citations is a really great idea I wish WP would had. Does it support having multiple citations for the same part of the content? Overlaping parts?