I was not very specific in my wording of a post and two people rightly corrected me. So I thought to myself, what if I purposefully wrote a garbage post, aggregated all the necessary corrections, and made a new post with the corrections. Then I thought about this experiment:
Here are the rules:
- The first comment will be a poor definition of bitcoin by me
second commenter:
- if you would be the second commenter and you think my definition is perfect zap me
- If you would be the second commenter and you think my definition is mostly correct, maybe just needs a different word or two, correct me in a reply to my definition
- If you would be the second commenter and you think my definition is wrong correct me in a new comment thread
third commenter:
- If you would be the third commenter and you think the first definition is perfect, zap that comment.
- If you would be the third commenter and think the second definition is perfect, zap that comment.
- If you would be the third commenter and think the second definition is close but not quite right, maybe just needs a different word, reply to the second comment with your update.
- if you would be the third commenter and think the second definition is wrong, needing more than a few tweaks, write your own definition
Zap as much or little as you want. If you like 3 definitions, zap them all the same amount or zap them based on some ranking.
So on and so forth.
In writing this out it is starting to feel overly complex so not sure how many people will participate, but if people participate I expect it to take very few iterations to reach a consensus.