problem with that is you will need to verify if data is true somehow…
No, I disagree and this is crucial asI think its held us back. Absolutely no verification is needed at all. No government can police this. Its up to the individual reader to figure the truth or not.
I am not suggesting reproducing Wikileaks attempt to influence the broken global media to pay attention to its leaks. Rather I am suggestion a global data base that will of course fill with spam (and limiting the space that takes could be an issue) that would have a sophisticated search front end like Watson’s debater.
Through out the ages people have resorted to putting the “truth” in symbolism and vague verses. This would be a place for the unvarnished version. It may be that people study the data like archaeology with data mining tools, but the pieces will fit together.
Do your remember the story of what he East Germans did when the wall came down? They tried to quickly shred and burn and endless amounts of documentation. A lot of that shredded paper was kept fed through special scanners that culled the data from it and was just to pursue justice.
Let me give another example. Firms in the US this practice of settling out of court with one party for some society damaging bit of crime or evil that impacted many lives or a whole class of people. They will then subsequently be allowed to ship all documentation to a firm that will shred, burn acid wash and bury all documentation or evidence. This is supposedly so firms don’t face serial lawsuits from blood in the water and things getting blown out of proportion and context. Well this data base would stop that nonsense. Monsanto’s record would be more cumulative and more binding.
@Warren. @dallyshalla is correct. WikiLeaks works because they verify the information before release. Without that filter, authentic documents will be impossible to separate from spam / misinformation. This becomes increasingly difficulties because publishers will necessarily be anonymous.
Anyone will be able to publish unverified documents anonymously with SAFE, the main value of connecting them together is if you have some confidence in what’s there, same for Wikipedia. Imagine what value Wikipedia would have if it wasn’t policed by editors who require everything started to be backed by a referenced source.
Wikileaks still has the highest bidder phenomenon of having to get the sponsored media to deseminate. This app will errode privacy to an extent but the gossip input will to an extent provide plausible deniability where needed. Cant even agee on climate change. If the past were stable or extant and we had a time machine we still would not have complete ageement even if we could show juries events from every angle over and over again. But if we want to turn the spy eye around and rise above our black mail society, this is needed- the most important foreseeable app short of raw higher AI which will again complicate this situation.
This is needed and inevitable. Will MaidSAFE block it? Do you agee that it is inevitable? I can see that the PR of messing with the viability of major curriencies and being more of a threat to injustice than Wikileaks may not be welcome at this time, but its an implication of the tech unless its somehow engineered out.
Update in response to @Blindsite2k below, (I didn’t want to disrupt responses) but to elaborate on Wikipaedia (vice Wikileaks) Wikipaedia is a sponsored medium even when it tries to say it isn’t. This 'I’ve seen in action. Very telling that Wikipaedia used to threaten us with ads. Its useful but highly censored.
I’m with @Warren on this one. I too would like a wikileaks style wiki that wasn’t moderated and based on search. Enough with the top down system of deciding what “truth” is. Do your own research. Information shouldn’t be eliminated just because it doesn’t have citations in triplicate (That would eliminate any discoveries individuals made, any personal experiences, any media that wasn’t acredited but still had valid information, and don’t get me started on the various subjective experiences.). No I would much rather have a “wikipedia” that didn’t censor or moderate or try to decide FOR ME what was “true” or not. I’d rather set my own filters and searches thank you. If you get a user that only wants verified information with citations then you can set a filter for that. If you don’t consider anything from the CDC credible you can set a filter for that. If you are looking for every submitted reaction might have had to a particular drug or herb whether it’s backed in tripplicate by a study or not you can search for that. If you’re looking for the lost tomes of such and such spiritual path you can search for that too. Yes in this case I fully agree with @Warren when it comes to my research I do not want to be censored or moderated and would prefer filters and searches. Truth is ultimately subjective.
Moreover I don’t see any reason why we’re fighting about this. It’s a app. We want an unmoderated wikileaks, you prefer the moderated version. Big deal, you can use the moderated version and we’ll use the unmoderated version.
Ultimately I think where we disagree here is on who controls the “filter.” I would prefer to be in control of my own filters and searches. You seem to think we need some kind of authority to do that.
Lol, all of SAFE will already be a sort of unfiltered wiki leaks, just from its design and the free-flow of information that it allows for.
So I wouldn’t worry too much about someone having to specifically make an app for that one
Don’t confuse wikipedia with wikileaks. The blurb above was in reference to a wikipedia style site or database.
There’s some huge similarities here tho
yeah, it sounds like you’re just describing The Web. Or more specifically, just Maidsafe’s web.
I would just like to resurrect the idea of Wikipedia being hosted on Safe - I mean the “as is” Wikipedia. I believe they were struggling for funding and millions of people use it - are they not worth approaching? Surely it would generate loads of Safecoin hits. Does it involve loads of re-writing/coding?
Dude you should totally check out the website page I made around this exact idea:
What is the “as is” Wikipedia?
I think those “wiki” things are conventional thinking, and that’s even assuming they aren’t infestations of intelligence agencies, and that their blind spots and peculiar editorial practices are accidental.
Time, I think, to get outside the box, sample the view from Olympus, whatever metaphor you want to use. Time to exercise ones imagination and build new things that leverage the new possibilities.
Couldn’t any docs or data released on the wikileaks app on the Safe Network be verified as being authentic by users with trusted reviews/knowledge.
Example, Edward Snowden/Julian Assange are verified members of the editorial team, and can receieve positive/negative scores via users paying tokens to vote for their level of trust? Another example would be that an article or trove of data is dumped on the network pertaining to sensitive information (Panama Papers for example) by an unknown/new source and can be verified by trusted reviewers such as the two mentioned above, or trusted journalists after having read through the docs and verified as true or false.
Trusted by whom, and why?
Why would you trust them?
Oh no, not up and down voting again! And on what basis do these “users” give an opinion on the trustworthiness of such people?