Topic: Knowledge As A Service (Read 127 times)

That is indeed a sword that cuts both ways.  The experts have the interest but interest itself does not necessitate expertise. 

To address this:  DAO jurors can subscribe to the type of knowledge that they have an interest in validating.  As an example, if I have a special aptitude for Logic, I can enroll to be in DAO juries that adjudicate Logic questions.   I stake a small amount to do so, but I earn a small profit if my vote matches the ultimate DAO decision.

In this way, those that have the expertise and interest over time have better scores, thus more weight in the vote.  Those who have the interest, but not the expertise, lose their small stake and earn nothing but even this helps to finance the final result of validation. 

Does something like that address your concern?

M

Knowledgecoin.io

What about bias towards involved input for voting?
"Interest Bias"  that could be a divertive.

Exactly right!  A centralized news organization supposedly has a team of people bringing us "facts".  But we have no way to verify for ourselves what is valid or not, what context was dropped, what headline was ignored. 

When the internet mobilizes to answer a questions (e.g. 4chan, or others) it has awesome results but there is no way to easily sift through any garbage and false claims without doing a deep dive yourself. 

What is needed is a decentralized solution that let's every member easily verify what others have already done.  Then it becomes a real pyramid of knowledge where we save each other time.  A true repository of validated (and self-verifiable) knowledge that cannot be stealth edited by the powerful. 

M

knowledgecoin.io

The idea is interesting really  a decentralised news organisation which reports everything in real time and is recorded in blockchain so that every report and news can be verified without modifications, I guess if there can be a decentralised system, press and news media will get really very high power and independence to raise voice for citizens and keeping us aware of what's going on!

You are not wrong. 

A simple "1 man, 1 vote" system ends in disaster.  But what I am proposing is that every single member of the community must (as a knowledge consumer) be able to self-verify a claim for themselves as needed.  To submit and vote on new claims (as a knowledge producer) one has to have a successful track record of being proven right by the DAO and something at stake if one is wrong. 

I know this is a thorny thicket, but I think if the arguments can be broken down into small enough modules, there is a pathway through. 

M

knowledgecoin.io

Indeed, an anonymous jury system could be used and over time the best jurors for certain kinds of questions would be obvious... the best jurors being the ones who most often predicted the ultimately correct DAO outcome.  (This is essentially selecting for experts without the need for credentialism).   

The "special panel" would simply be a subset of the jury pool who have an automatically assigned heavier weight given their past performance on a given topic.  But beginners and noobies can vote also (like being an alternate juror on a weighted curve) as a "training vote" to see how well they do. There are many parts of an argument and if it can be broken down into small enough pieces, almost anyone would be able to add value sometimes. 

Also, if I proposed a claim as knowledge... and staked a bounty against myself that the DAO would ultimately prove me correct... members (at a small cost) could wager to agree or disagree and win/lose if I am correct.  In this way, they have something at stake and even if they are constantly wrong, they are paying for the incentives to make the entire network more and more correct over time.

Over time, you end with a pool of DAO validated claims (knowledge) with the ability to challenge accepted ideas when new evidence is proposed.  Granted, any member would need to have the tools to self-verify any part of any claim quickly and transparently. 

But doesn't that outcome seems quite valuable if achieved? Highly validated claims with evidence, context, logic and reasoning all validated and self-verifiable. The scientific method applied to all of human knowledge.  It seems possible.

M

knowledgecoin.io

In theory, This should be the proper way of validating information same on thesis validation but since the aim of the project is a complete decentralized validation, There aim to work like a DAO which gives power to all the token holders to validate. This will work if there's an exception such as a special group of panel which describes as your suggestion of professional that will do a final validation to all the result produced by the public input on the said data validation.

"The Knowledgecoin ecosystem has the unique quality that all concepts, context, logic and reasoning can be examined and self-validated by every member of the community."

The masses cannot be trusted to determine what is true, false, accurate, or even inaccurate. We live in a world where 75% of the population believes that God snapped his metaphysical fingers and created the universe — all with zero evidence, barring some books written by bronze age authors.

This video comes to mind:

https://youtu.be/6NTkXIidCU0?t=25

IMO, it would be better to have information validated by those with the credentials to do so, rather than letting anybody have their say.

I wanted to test the community for some interest about a decentralized solution in order to learn what is true. 

I do not mean like a wikipedia where you do not know the bias of the anonymous author.  Or a news channel where (maybe) you know the biases

I mean a decentralized solution where claims are validated by the community on the levels of concept, logic, reason, and evidence. 

The world seems like it is killing itself over how to decide what is true.  How about we give it an answer before it succeeds? 

M

knowledgecoin.io