Everipedia conceives that it is building a better Wikipedia on blockchain. There is no shortage of complaints about Wikipedia and any attempt at a better one should be encouraged.
But the premise of Everipedia introduces its own problems. I have no issue with the concept of paying people to contribute to Everipedia, but I believe the core idea that the best content will rise to the top is flawed. At least if you’re concerned about veracity.
As an example, if you look at the music world through the idea of a free market lens, it’s easy to see the success of whichever artists are the most popular at any time. And they are aptly rewarded for that popularity. Nothing wrong with that. But if one were to say they are the “best” that music has to offer, I believe you’ll experience some opposing perspectives, particularly from those who consider themselves the most informed about music.
For example, it’s well known that classical and jazz performers are not as well remunerated for their efforts as pop performers, even though many would consider them “better” in terms of musical capabilities.
The very idea that true knowledge will rise to the top via a system of popularity seems counter-intuitive. How long would the world have been deemed flat if the concept of truth was based upon popular opinion? Would the discovery that blood circulates through the body have been delayed if prevailing beliefs were even more solidly formed than they were?
It could also be argued that independent thinkers will buck conventional wisdom anyway, and disprove it to such an extent that popular opinion will change. And I have no doubt that such will be the case.
Even so, that highlights the point: popularity and truth are not the same.
Regardless, Everipedia’s efforts are a step in the direction of improving worldwide knowledge propagation. If they don’t get it right, someone else will.