What is is a digital platform for trusted online consensus building.

Through the process of  negotiating an ‘’ on the consensus building platform, a trusted and shared narrative is published. The collaborative narrative is written, edited, vetted and composed purely from rational and collaborative behaviors and then featured as a main article in the library, called the ‘aiki atheneum’.

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

Using the platform, resolution is the only outcome if users continue discussion. It offers a unique approach to the “conflict of idea” and a solution for false consensus, fake news, misinformation, online deception, harassment, bullying and intimidation by rebuilding a trusted web from the ground up.

How does work?

aiki wiki works by giving users the ability to assign values to each other’s statements instead of “thumbs up or down emoticons”. Pairing with this is the programmatic assigning of editing permissions to users. Editing permissions are earned in aiki wiki through hard won negotiation between users. Each “aiki wiki” can have hundreds of permissions assigned to one article.

This also allows the must trusted members of a community to emerge as “admins” to any given article, a higher permission rewarded to the users with the highest count of rational and collaborative behaviors.

This is all accomplished programmatically on our side, but it equally is guided by the users themselves, who very much ultimately affect the outcome of an aiki wiki resolution.

Why do you say it produces ‘mutual resolution’?

Resolution is the only logical outcome of an discussion because editing permissions are won in pairs between two conflicting editors who make rational choices in their exchanges with each other.

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

This changes the consensus building process into a mutually beneficial ‘game’, where admitting errors in assignments allow a user to win a permission just as much as highlighting an error made by another user. can only fail to produce a resolution for an individual (as opposed to the collective) if an individual chooses not to complete the discussion and leave. To the collaborative, even if one user chooses to leave the discussion and their specific point of view open before resolution, another user can come in and easily take up their space in the consensus.

As long as any user stays inside of the consensus honestly, then resolution is the only result that can logically happen.

Since the discussion itself is what generates, edits, and refines the article, users are more likely to stay inside of the discussion so they can influence the output.

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


No matter what point of view or group exists in a collaborative, each point of view is going to have a segment of their adherents who tend to be more rational initially than others.

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’?

The platform doesn’t really identify if ‘users’ are rational, just if their behaviors are. Rational behaviors from a set of choices are actually easy to identify.

Rational ideas, however, and irrational ones – are very much identifiable, and these ideas get broken down and contextualized properly. Our behaviors in a consensus are actually very different when we are dealing with rational, consistent ideas as opposed to ideas without any consistency.

Additionally, 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.

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. If they are honest, all of their responses in consensus building will show rational behaviors and they should expect to be awarded dozens of editing permissions.

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

Voting up or down 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 a sign of a more open and civil 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? is designed under certain principles.

It does not seek to change the user’s behavior, just change the environment the user is in.

It follows the principle that if there exists a rational environment for the free exchange of ideas, then people will naturally adjust their behavior to the environment. 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.

So just makes it impossible for trolls to compete in a rational consensus or gain consensus where none is warranted.

Everyone can make their own choices how they choose to communicate in an

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. aiki wiki is an idea whose time has come.

Bill Maher just interviewed Obama and Obama talks about this necessity 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.

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

Wikipedia We Have a Problem grew from me just researching for I have a massive curiosity for online discussions and especially “wikis” in general. In both wiki wars that I involved myself in, I adhered to ‘rules of engagement’ formulated in aiki wiki, and I wanted to see how that outcome would play out in a hostile environment on a platform that is not suited for social interaction.

Additionally, my fascination with ‘wiki wars’ and my own wiki idealism was the conclusion of my TEDx talk, “Google Consciousness”, where I noted that Israeli and Palestinian Wikipedia editors were able to build shared narratives, a feature of what I believe will be social media evolving to replace government as we use it today, alluding to something like an ‘aiki wiki’.

What was OS 0 1 2?

aiki wiki is somewhat derived from a very experimental, and very fun viral media project I co-created  fifteen years ago in 2002 called OS 0 1 2.

It was an essay that was collaboratively written online in a very organic manner, literally by copying and pasting emails and forum texts into a web page manually.

The essay itself was just a collection of rules for the construction, deconstruction, valuation, and analysis of the document itself, in many ways a homegrown, organic precursor to a  “smart contract” with a playful theatrical twist.

It originated from AOL message boards online protests about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. At the time, I participated with others in the creation of an online character called “Bubblefish” the “Flame Warrior”, performing theater, and confronting pro war “trolls” on many forums, “tricking” them into having a rational discussion about going to war.

It has been offline for a few years, but the last ‘updated’ OS is available here.





1 Comment

  1. Freedom of access to information ought to be censored – for the benefit of decent-minded human beings, to defend them from humanoid monsters that look, talk annd act worse that wild beasts of prey.

Leave a Reply