Golden: Mapping human knowledge
Cynical self: They raised a $5mil round just to re-do wikipedia with more self-referential VC pats on the back.<p>Intrigued self: If there is anything worth raising money for, it is building out a collective knowledge base for all of humanity.<p>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 concept of a collaborative process on a scale not seen before. If you are interested in making wikipedia more useful with more linking on in-depth knowledge, more multimedia, and a richer UI for editing, why not build something that builds on wikipedia instead of building something entirely new?<p>Academic self: You are throwing out ideas like &quot;cover all topics that exist&quot; and &quot;neutral objectivity&quot; as if entire fields of human inquiry don&#x27;t exist into what those things even mean. You seem to dislike the current editorial standards of wikipedia, but I&#x27;m not at all clear where Golden will draw its lines or how?<p>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&#x27;t you essentially making your contributors all unpaid workers? If you are serious about building out a for-profit version of wikipedia, why not figure out ways to distribute micropayments based on how useful others find the information someone took the time to contribute (as an example)