> I'm quite curious if there is a group of like-minded individuals out there who would participate in a wiki that attempts to summarize (with degree of certainty) the current known knowledge.
> I'm quite curious if there is a group of like-minded individuals out there who would participate in a wiki that attempts to summarize (with degree of certainty) the current known knowledge.
i.e. if CNN, the WSJ, and the NYT report X is Y, that will count a lot more about X being Y than X actually being Y.
Wikipedia is a wonderful resource and it definitely partly scratches this itch, and I appreciate your sharing it, but I am looking for something that occupies a slightly different space.
All of our epistemology is based on testimony. And in the degenerate but common case where the credibility of the source isn't considered, our epistemology devolves into memes.
If Wikipedians apply consistent effort towards reconciling contradictory information in favor of seeking out better* sources, then that makes it as robust a system as we know how to make.
*I don't know how to define "better" or "credible"
I don't think it's entirely a bad idea. It would be hard because it would be an elitist endeavor. As in, criteria and protocol would have to be established by a small group ahead of time rather than democratically. Such institutions are vulnerable to capture or stagnation. But they can be really useful while they are true to their mission.
It’s also bad at a question like “Is coffee bad for me?”. I’m not saying Wikipedia is good. It’s just not what I’m looking for here.