Apply HN: Wikipedia for how, and how well, we know what we think we know

I want to combine Wikipedia, argument mapping, and prediction markets to make a collaborative website for productive large scale argumentation, that will collect and organize all the world's inferential knowledge into a single vast graph, visually show the logical relationships between ideas as connections between nodes on the graph, allow for concepts to be iteratively clarified and improved on, and quantify the degree of support (in both the rational and democratic senses) that every individual idea has. The exponential curve of advancing understanding that we are on is driven by the increasing spread of more reliable knowledge to more participants working from a more complete database: the printing press + the scientific method + the university + the library has given us the modern world. Spreading and examining knowledge more reliably and widely will enable more minds to contribute more usefully, and will bend the curve even more sharply upward. We can do this by creating a collaborative graph-building sandbox in which users can create and place nodes (each containing a single idea), and connect them to other nodes with virtual elastic threads to show the logical connections between them: a node upstream of node X is an idea that X depends on, and a downstream node is an idea that depends on X. Users can vote on the connections they think are appropriate for X by drawing threads of their own: connections that most users endorse will pull closer together. Nodes containing the same idea stack to occupy the same place in the graph, and user ratings of the strength and clarity of each version of the idea float the best and clearest statement to the top of the stack. Users can't edit other users' statements, but voting on which ones are best allows us to improve on weak versions of decent ideas without making us settle for Wikipedia's committee style production of a single article and the edit wars that go with it.