[smart (OP)]

Soon, we the people will use artificial intelligence to decentralize Wikipedia and let information become a free public resource again!

[RD]

... decentralize Wikipedia and let information become a free public resource again!

Wikipedia is a free public source of information.
If for some reason you don't like Wikipedia, there are other Wikis ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wikis

[smart (OP)]

Wikipedia is a free public source of information.

"There's no such thing as a free lunch." - Milton Friedman

[Bored chemist]

Soon, we the people will use artificial intelligence to decentralize Wikipedia and let information become a free public resource again!

"There's no such thing as a free lunch." - Milton Friedman

You seem to have ended your won thread.

[evan_au]

"There's no such thing as a free lunch." - Milton Friedman

Wikipedia is not free. And even if it were, it would not make it dishonest or undesirable.

As one of Wikipedia's more regular users in a rich country, I am regularly asked to donate.

we the people

There are countless contributors who spend a lot of time on it (I've even made a couple of tweaks). It was created by "we, the informed people who are generous with our time".

But it is a valuable resource for the many people around the world (in many languages) who simply can't afford an Encyclopedia Brittanica (other encyclopedic compendia are available...). Just because you personally pay direct for a paper encyclopedia does not necessarily mean that it must be better in terms of scope, accessibility, portability, searchability, completeness or quality of the color images.

Soon, we the people will use artificial intelligence to decentralize Wikipedia and let information become a free public resource again!

The whole of Wikipedia was one input to a recent AI challenge: To play the game of Jeopardy (which it won easily).
But Wikipedia is much more affordable than a centralised AI server farm like Watson.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_(computer)

[alancalverd]

Information has never been more freely available. Not that it has made any difference to the gullibility and ignorance of the public, or improved the quality of life by one iota.

I do sometimes wonder about the value of information. Last week I heard a pilot explain that we were delayed by an air traffic control cockup "and we will be arriving at 9.20 pm". Of all the people in the world, that information was of the least possible interest to the passengers to whom it was addressed. Baggage handlers, taxi drivers, friends and families....hundreds of people could have reorganised their lives around that piece of data, but it was addressed to 200 people who, strapped into their seats with the doors closed, could do nothing with it or about it.

Same with train announcements, always made after the train has moved off: "this is the 0840 for Manchester due to arrive at 1105.." Yes, of course it is, which is why we have deliberately bought tickets for this one and not the 0920 to Bristol, or the Glasgow sleeper, for chrissake. If I object, could you possibly arrive ten minutes later? "There is a buffet car, serving hot and cold drinks and sandwiches" Indeed! What else would they be selling? Stocks and shares? Hats?

And the overhead admonition on motorways "plan your journey". No! I'm just going to get in the car and drive around at random as usual, until I have really annoyed whoever put the stupid notice up.

But I digress.

[Kryptid]

Soon, we the people will use artificial intelligence to decentralize Wikipedia and let information become a free public resource again!

Does Wikipedia make you pay to access their articles? It doesn't for me.

[jeffreyH]

These days if the word gate is appended to a noun it somehow appears sinister. I am eagerly awaiting tkadm30gate.

[evan_au]

Soon, we the people will use artificial intelligence to decentralize Wikipedia and let information become a free public resource again!

In fact, them, the ginormous multinational FANG companies have given us Siri, Hey Google, Alexa and Cortana, which are artificial intelligences which dole out the world's knowledge base, 1 sentence at a time.

In return, they keep track of everything you say to them, and use it to serve up ads that they think you will fall for.

The most useful thing they sometimes do is return a page from Wikipedia.

In contrast, when Wikipedia asks for donations, it does so on the basis that it allows them to be ad-free.
- They express concerns that advertising may distort Wikipedia's editorial freedom (as happens in traditional print and electronic media, and all political parties, as well as in search engine results).
- It also means that they don't give away your queries to an advertising agency.
- Of course, if you looked up Wikipedia via a search engine, you have already given away your interests to an advertising agency.

I don't see why you would give up a fully-democratic public domain non-profit  knowledge resource, and replace it by a money-hungry oligopoly? In fact, you prefer the profit motive that monetizes knowledge?