[eecc]

WOT signed endorsements. Back when I had time I drafted a P2P application to share papers and execute peer review via GPG based digital signatures. Signed metadata - at least that was the plan - allowed communities to endorse, retract, flag spam in a distributed opt-in manner.

It's rotting on GitHub, never managed to drum up enough interest...

[CuriousSkeptic]

I’ve been toying with a similar idea but as a means of crowdsourcing a current best understanding of what science suggest. Primarily to weed through all the wild nutrition recommendations floating around into sensible advice based on what can actually be supported. I’m sure the idea extends to other areas.

In my mind it would be some reddit/Wikipedia kind of thing where advice and understanding would be debated using some formal language elements based on rdf or whatever to build up a knowledge graph usable inside applications.

[sam_lowry_]

Sounds like a great idea. WOT did not work for general public, but scientists are very different.

[mjevans]

Things that work for the general public need to be far less technical and way more automatic; from an end user experience perspective.

WoT could work exceedingly well for a decentralized replacement of Facebook... though at that point there's also the issue of competing against a walled garden with moats and most of the population already inside.