The idea is to not address this quandary at all, but to let individual people organize their own "Worldviewpedia" according to their belief. I would have roritharr.worldviewpedia.org and could start writing my drivel down there, and maybe copy something I agree with from schoen.worldviewpedia.org and some other stuff from infowars.worldviewpedia.org.
This would allow me to fully rationally work through those topics and connect them to adjacent topics of the global consensus narrative I still believe in.
This may push some people into an ever deeper rabbithole, but it might also cure a lot of the "5 min expert" syndrome we've seen.
>This may push some people into an ever deeper rabbithole, but it might also cure a lot of the "5 min expert" syndrome we've seen.
But people being pushed into an ever deeper rabbithole of lies and extremism is a much bigger problem than "5 min expert" syndrome, and the former inevitably feeds the latter.
Sure, people have the right to their recursively self-reinforcing reality bubbles because freedom of speech and all, but societies decohere when their members violently disagree on even the fundamental aspects of reality.
The decoherence is in some sense inevitable but the proliferation of viewpoints will make it to some extent self-correcting and prevent any particular viewpoint from gaining hegemony without being grounded in pragmatic utility (which is not to say that it will be ground in truth).
Wouldn't maintaining a fork of Wikipedia all on your own be a huge about of work with relatively little benefit in terms of helping other people learn about your views and your knowledge?
It would be a huge amount of effort just to keep up with other people's mainline Wikipedia edits on a handful of articles that you already knew were relevant to your interests, and prospective readers would have a super-hard time finding your versions, and also distinguishing "Wikipedia articles that you had the opportunity to edit and keep up with" from "copies of mainline Wikipedia articles that you actually disagree with, but that happen to be present in your fork because you haven't had the time to edit them, or you haven't even noticed that they're there".
Or would you have a fork in which the only articles actually present were ones that you had edited, and all others produced a redirect to Wikipedia with an interstitial message indicating that you hadn't had any opportunity to review that content?
>Or would you have a fork in which the only articles actually present were ones that you had edited, and all others produced a redirect to Wikipedia with an interstitial message indicating that you hadn't had any opportunity to review that content?
Something along those lines, the work is kind of the point. Maintaining a coherent but alternative worldview on your own is a gruesome task, the more neatly it fits into the global consensus, the easier it is going to be to maintain, allowing for radical ideas which are nonetheless consistent with f.e. our laws of physics would be much easier than trying connect free energy to the laws of thermodynamics.
This would allow me to fully rationally work through those topics and connect them to adjacent topics of the global consensus narrative I still believe in.
This may push some people into an ever deeper rabbithole, but it might also cure a lot of the "5 min expert" syndrome we've seen.