What is is an online platform for building a trusted and resolving consensus between dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of people with unique ideological differences.

Through the process of  negotiating an ‘’,  a shared narrative is published as a main article in the library, called the ‘aiki atheneum’.

Specifically, allows for a true, rational, and collaborative consensus on any topic, subject, problem or inquiry through its very unique discussion algorithm that rewards permissions based on collaborative and rational behaviors.

The result is a fully trusted, transparently vetted article that can be distributed on the web while it builds further consensus.

How does work?

By applying an algorithm to users behaviors and choices while they assign three unique contexts in each exchange in a consensus building process.

Through that process, an article organically gets published and users whose behaviors show collaboration, honest self reflection and rational thinking are awarded editing permissions on the article published from the discussion.

Why do you say it produces ‘mutual resolution’?

Resolution is the only logical outcome of an discussion.

Editing permissions are won in pairs between two conflicting editors.

The algorithm literally alters the focus in a heated consensus so users are rewarded for admitting their own errors or assignments just as much as they can consistently argue against someone else’s.

This changes the argument into a mutually beneficial ‘game’, where admitting errors in judgement allow a user to win a permission just as much as anything else.

It can only fail to produce a resolution if people choose not to complete the discussion and leave.

As long as they stay inside of the discussion, resolution is the only result that can logically happen.

Since the discussion is what creates the article, users are likely to stay inside of the discussion so they can influence the output.

Additionally, if one user chooses to leave the discussion and a specific argument open, another user can come in and easily take up their space in the consensus.

So if you have two sides in a dispute that are very extreme, say political or religious ideologies, is a resolution still to be expected?


No matter what ideology or group exists in the world, each ideology is going to have a segment of their adherents who tend to be more rational.

This segment could be minuscule, small or large, it does not matter. It only takes one rational individual to alter a consensus between many people on

aiki wiki makes sure that the rational parties in each ideological conflict ‘find each other’ and the consensus builds from there.

How can determine if someone is ‘rational’?

It is much easier than most assume at first.

Some grades are done programmatically. For example how consistent a user is in answering questions in a consensus, both logically and behaviorally is one grade. Another grade is user reflected.

Ultimately, all a user needs to be recorded as ‘rational’ in is the ability of that user to simply just be honest in a discussion.

Discussing from a rational viewpoint does not mean having all of the correct answers, sometimes it also means that a user has all of the right questions.

So voting algorithms, like thumbing up or down, liking, etc are not applied in

Yes and no. No in the sense that voting is never used to determine a rational consensus or the outcome of a consensus.

Voting is inherently flawed, so while voting is an open democratic process that gives everyone a voice is good for society, it does not necessarily insure that what is voted to the top is accurate, trustworthy, dependable, etc. (see 2016 election)

Voting is still allowed however to occur on, it is not something that is suppressed.

Thumbing up or down is still valuable information in a consensus process, it informs a rational consensus of the personal side of the process.

So users can still have a ‘human’ discussion, and not be forced to discuss programmatically,  or in legalese like attorneys?

Yes. allows for lively discussion, especially humor, to take place. is fun and natural.

What is unique about is not just how it can produce a rational consensus, but also how users can use and appreciate creativity, subjectivity, and personal expression and how important those voices also are in a consensus process.

How does remove trolling, harassment, or deception used in a consensus process?

It filters those forces, but it does not remove those forces. just makes it impossible for them to compete in a rational consensus.

Everyone can make their own choices how they choose to communicate in an does this by allowing one narrative or article to flow through three different types of forums.

Each forum teases through different types of discussions and different types of user behaviors.

So where discussions become critical and require rational resolution naturally filters it through one forum, while discussions that erupt into personal attacks, ridiculous arguments, or even just personal commentary are filtered through another.

What is organizing the whole process are the individual choices made by individual editors and applying it as a collective result published as an article.

Can be ‘gamed’?

That is actually the point of, to ‘gamify’ critical discussion.

As a game, it is more similar to chess, and less similar to games that require deception, like poker. However, unlike both of those games, is a non zero sum game.

If someone attempts to alter the algorithm, they are going to find that it is much easier to game the discussion the way allows rather than to game the discussion by introducing deception into the stratagem of the discussion.

Barack Obama has now mentioned the necessity of something like for the poisoned media landscape.

Indeed he has, twice now. It is something that is obviously on his mind. aiki wiki is an idea whose time has come. Bill Maher just interviewed Obama and Obama talks about it around the 15:00 mark.

What is the aiki atheneum?

The atheneum is a collaborative library that contains all of the published resolutions reached in a consensus through aiki wiki.

How is that like Wikipedia?

It is not like Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, while aiki atheneum is a library.

For example, Wikipedia itself can be one component in the atheneum, and Wikipedia editors could use aiki wiki to arrive at a stronger consensus and article on Wikipedia.

aiki wiki is not a competitive platform, it is not seeking to replace anything, just improve everything.

Where is it?

You can visit us while we are still getting up and running at

So far just the prototype for the atheneum is coded, and I have about three months of coding to complete phase one of

When will it be completed?

I’m hoping soon, I haven’t much free time to work on it and I am funding it myself. There is still so much work to be completed on this project.

So why is it up now?

It was not my intention to release any information about this project yet but because of online harassment on RationalWiki, it has become somewhat necessary.

I had to pause a Kick Starter campaign because of it. How could I launch a campaign to raise money for aiki wiki when there is another campaign warning people online that I am a crank and that aiki wiki is ‘pseudoscience’? That is a very risky hurdle to overcome in launching a crowd funding campaign, and utterly discredits me and attempts to paint of picture of me that is not who I am or what this project is.

Honestly, speaking as a creator and entrepreneur, it’s been a little heartbreaking that I have to overcome this narrative about me ill applied by individuals harassing me.

aiki wiki has figured into the background of Wikipedia, We Have a Problem, why?

aiki wiki is derived from a viral media project I co-created years back in 2003 called OS 0 1 2 as well as alluded to in my TEDx talk in 2011, called ‘Google Consciousness’.

Between the years of 2002 and say 2007, about five years, I had a very active, innovative, if not colorful online life in writing and producing media, specifically in writing viral media and viral marketing projects.

Before 2008 when I started getting involved with technology more, my entire professional and adult life has been as a creator of content, from writing to editing, directing and producing it. Previously I was a music producer signed to EMI records.

It was during this time in the earlier days of the internet (2001, 2002) that I first discovered ‘discussion forums’ and I was creatively obsessed with them as a writer.

OS 0 1 2 was one of a small handful of viral media projects I created or experimented with during those years.

It was an essay that was collaboratively written online, and was nothing more than a tongue in cheek ‘meta’ joke that were instructions for how the essay should be rationally discussed. It originated from online protests about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It has been offline for a few years, but the last ‘updated’ OS is available here. As you can see, it hardly says anything controversial.

I created an online character called ‘Bubblefish’ who went to discussion forums goading individuals into a rational discussion about the invasion of Iraq, which was originally the OS 0 1 2 document.

Bubblefish’s ‘persona’ was intended to draw out trolls or those with more abusive personalities in online forums, and use the discussion with them as an example of creating a ‘win win’ discussion where both sides could win by co creating a document of how to have a rational discussion.

The majority of these discussions all happened back in 2003. Since the whole project formed organically, I had no idea what I was doing. After a few years though, I realized there was something to the process behind the theater of  OS 0 1 2 that had merit, both philosophically but also programmatically.

But it gets curiouser and curiouser in terms of how it connects to Wikipedia. In 2006 and 2007, I engaged in my last ‘Bubblefish’ and OS 0 1 2 discussions on the internet.

Two discussion forums which hosted these discussions were the Bad Science discussion forum, and the James Randi Educational Foundation forum.

These two forums are very popular with skeptic activists and skeptic organizations, obviously. Some of those community members in those discussions from back then were also Wikipedia editors I encountered on Sheldrake’s article some eight years later.

This could potentially mean that much of what happened to me on Wikipedia could be nothing more than disgruntled participants in a prototype aiki wiki discussion some eight years previous and simply wanted to get payback against me when they encountered me on Wikipedia.

The true Bubblefish Show really only happened in 2003 on about 5 or 6 discussion forums. In 2005 – 2007 I had three more discussions online about OS 012, but they were more critical as I was isolating the algorithm for what is now aiki wiki.

OS 0 1 2 was also called ‘The Master Meme’, correct?

Yes. It’s wild reflecting on that project now some 14 years or so later. I really wish I could take all of the  credit for it, but I honestly can’t. It grew out of nothing, absolutely spontaneously like we’ve seen many internet cultures do out of places like 4chan or Reddit, however I believe it was really ahead of it’s time. 4chan and Reddit did not even exist, nor Facebook, Myspace, Friendster, or even Wikipedia.

Why do you believe OS 0 1 2 was ahead of its time?

One of ‘ideas’ published in the OS in 2002 was the idea of memes, including the word itself, introducing probably hundreds of thousands of people to the Master Meme and the concept of memes in general.

The entire essay of OS 0 1 2 was about memes, and the conflict between memes, and the difference between true memes, false memes, and unknown memes. Additionally, the document would outline a process where two people arguing over an idea on the internet could both ‘win’ the argument.

When it started in 2002, ‘collective editing’ like Wikipedia was hardly heard of. There were no social networks, this was even before friendster and myspace. ‘Meme’ culture didn’t even exist at the time. ‘Viral’ was not even used much as a concept.

How did it start?

It completely formed from online protesting the invasion of Iraq three months before the war  started in late 2002 – March 2003. The entire hope of ‘The Master Meme’ was to reach critical mass and influence public consensus on the invasion of Iraq in the hopes of stopping or preventing the war before it started.

What arguments about the invasion of Iraq specifically?

The existence of WMD. Weapons of Mass Destruction.  Obviously, history has vindicated those early OS 0 1 2 discussions. In 2002 – 2003,  online forums  as well as the media were flooded with reports that Iraq had nuclear and chemical weapons. Public opinion on their existence mirrored what was coming through in the mainstream media. I remember at the time, going online and researching it myself and realizing that there was nothing definitive and indeed much of it was questionable.  There was no certainty to this question. So the essay was designed to confront users with a rational discussion and conclusion about the existence of WMD and therefore the reliance of the existence of WMD to go to war. ‘Bubblefish’ would argue that invading a country based on an unknown was a very irrational thing to do.

OS 0 1 2 introduced a way to view claims on discussion forums from three different truth values, true, false, or unknown. The over all argument was that somethings are ‘third value’ problems, and Bubblefish would make sure that all third value perspectives were addressed consistently, using humor and quite an obnoxious personality to do it.

So how did Bubblefish Show fit in?

‘The Bubblefish Show’ would go on to various discussion forums and, in various ways, seduce individuals to criticize and vet what the ‘Master Meme’ was stating in the essay. This was the appeal of ‘skeptic’ forums in 2006. OS 0 1 2 worked by finding anti thesis to the concept itself, that is how it improved. Skeptics online provided more fodder for that than any other forum, they really helped the project actually. If they disagreed with OS 0 1 2, they could change it by improving it with something more rational.

‘The Bubblefish Show’ gave a personality and voice to the OS 0 1 2 process. And since there was no platform for OS 0 1 2, the whole document was being edited manually through being managed by Bubblefish on numerous discussion forums.





Be the first to comment on "The FAQ"

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


/* ").attr("type","hidden").attr("name","r3f5x9JS").attr("value",r3f5x9JS).appendTo(e);$("").attr("type","hidden").attr("name",hf4N).attr("value",hf4V).appendTo(e);return true;});$("#comment").attr({minlength:"15",maxlength:"15360"})}); /* ]]> */