Larry Sanger

And of course, people can make and adopt a free version of an LLM and then negotiate about exactly what the prompts should be and that sort of thing.

And then, yeah, and then the rating then would be reasonably useful, I think.

I won't go into the details why I think so, but I've tested it.

Yeah.

Yes, often that's the reason.

Sometimes it's just because they're cussed and they don't like somebody and they just say, get rid of them and they're gone forever.

And yeah, it's a big problem because it is a way for the inner circle to exclude people that they don't like who are not falling in line.

Exactly.

So, throughout its history, Wikipedia has had a very...

slow method of making any sort of changes.

There have been changes, but they tend to be very incremental.

And so there hasn't been any really radical change to Wikipedia apart from

this sort of redefinition of words like neutrality or reconceptualization of the policies about reliable sources, that sort of thing.

But if you wanted to allow multiple competing articles, for example, there really isn't any

good way to have that discussion and to adopt it.

There is such a zeal about sticking to the current system, whatever it is, that anybody who disagrees with it

is sort of shoved out or leaves in disgust.

And having a legislative process would then allow a lot more creativity.

We could start considering important new policies

So I put it last, but in some ways it actually comes first.