Lay knowledge is information that comes from non-expert sources. It is valuable because it can include knowledge that traditional peer-reviewed knowledge typically cannot. Websites like Wikipedia would ultimately benefit from the incorporation of lay knowledge into their pages.

“Information” in a general sense consists of two halves: empirical (how something is measured) and perceptual (how something appears to be). In other words, information is both subjective and objective in nature. To convey information without any loss of detail, both halves of this picture must be included.

In its current state, Wikipedia falls short of what I would call an ideal information-delivery system. All edits are blended into one “binary truth”, which itself is a fallacy^[1]. On the other hand, lay knowledge is known to be highly variable and often differs from person to person (which is what makes it useful). There is no single source of lay knowledge, so by blending all sources into one, Wikipedia simplifies complex issues into whatever the predominant view is. This flattening results in a loss of information.

Tomorrow’s media will be inclusive of both news and what people have to say about it. In other words, it will be bi-directional: not just reporting the facts, but also how people react to them. Only very recently has this become a possibility.

Another problem with Wikipedia is that it does not attempt to differentiate between lay knowledge and peer-reviewed, factual knowledge. This is problematic, because for controversial topics, opinions often become mixed in with facts. Lay knowledge is opinionated by nature, but it is also necessary to include – so by merging lay knowledge with peer-reviewed knowledge without any visible separation, Wikipedia unknowingly blends facts with opinions.

Favoring one source of lay knowledge over another may be detrimental to reliability, but I am under the assumption that it’s always better to see at least some lay knowledge than none at all, even if those sources are biased. The inclusion of lay knowledge, no matter how slanted, can provoke discussions and help define the sides of any politically-charged issue, leading to further inquiry and refinement.

Spectrum operates on the idea that there are many interpretations of the truth, and that it is impossible to convey a politically-charged truth using only one voice. So whenever there is a dispute on the facts, that needs to appear in its full context; not hidden or simplified. Opposing views shouldn’t be edited away like they are on Wikipedia – that information needs to be organized and preserved.

The only real solution to this dilemma is to voice all opinions and conflicting facts in a multi-partisan fashion. Rather than picking one “valid” interpretation and conveying information with only that voice, an array of diverse, slightly biased voices will result in a much better approximation of the truth. Technology is a great way of organizing these overlapping truths (without which, this “solution” might turn into a shouting match).

Basically, we need to exaggerate the fact that Wikipedia (and information in a general sense) is written by multiple people with multiple biases, and that diversity of opinion is a good thing.^[2]

“A broad range of sources – each with a slightly different bias – contributes to the best approximation of the truth. The aggregate of all subjective reports approaches objectivity… Riemann sums [in calculus] offer a great example of this. The more sides/slices (i.e. perspectives) you find, the more accurate your result is. Whereas the mainstream media offers only a few “generic” perspectives, MetaTracker combines a much greater number in order to achieve a much better approximation of the truth.”

What Wikipedia needs is a way of organizing conflicting facts. What the media ecosystem needs is a way to:

• See multiple sources of lay knowledge, including all conflicting interpretations – and what differs between them.
• See the facts, i.e. what is universally agreed upon. Wikipedia does a good job at this already, except for where the story differs between sources.
• Discuss the story with people who share the same perspective. This is achieved by clustering people into ideological groups based on peoples’ reactions to opinionated articles (‘agree/disagree’ feedback).
• Discuss the story with people who believe differently, in order to uncover differences and inconsistencies – until the point is reached when no more debate can occur (“I believe x, you believe y, there is no objective measurement, we can agree to disagree.”) Then, the result of that debate is embedded within the main article and shown as an ‘indefinite’ or ‘unresolved’ truth.

What I describe is essentially a platform that could be build atop a website like Wikipedia; a framework for discussing opinionated topics and finding how to best deliver the “objective truth”, i.e. the refined aggregate of all perspectives.