|
|
|
|
|
|
by bstrama
36 days ago
|
|
|
Nice! I'm thinking on how can I make it more interactive.
Those author styles could work well, will check that out. Btw how would you imagine such dispute? What do you think could be the trigger for the article to be regenerated? |
|
|
* readers can request reviews from certain perspectives: "new discovery", "historic reinterpretation", etc. The reviews specifically search for related sibling articles, and seek to create ever-larger areas of consistency. (The same prompt admonition against "nothing actually true" could be paired with "but other Halupedia articles are diegetically true"
* a background process clusters articles, and picks pairs within some neighborhood for dual-harmonization - where they avoid contradictions & adopt meaningful (& deep-anchor) cross-links to each others' sections. Repeated, or to the extent contexts allow expansion of synchronized revision to N-tuples of articles, this creates a tropism towards a shared (un)reality.