Kwapia: Where anyone can become an information creator with just a few clicks.
TLDR: Kwapia = Twitter meets Wikipedia, powered by ChatGPT.
Imagine a platform where everyone, regardless of their background, can create and share information with the objectivity, neutrality, and completeness of Wikipedia, presented with the engaging style of Twitter influencers.
|Topics||Narrow: knowledge only||Broad||Broad: Any information can be provided by ChatGPT|
|Presentation||Long + dry||Very short + engaging||Short + engaging|
|Objectiveness||Good||Joke||At least as good as ChatGPT|
|Discoverability||Bad: search engine only||Good: by recommendation system||Good: by recommendation system + search engine|
|Creation||<1% of users create||<1% of users create||Hopefully 100%|
|Profit Mode||Non-profit + donation||For-profit + ads||Non-profit + ads in the form of content|
Discover & read short & brief threads
Creation: Every thread is created by seeds (topics) + nutritions (prompts).
Plant (create a thread):
- Choose a seed (topic)
- Choose a nutrition (prompt)
- Plant your seeds with nutritions
- Then your thread will be available to be harvested in 30 - 60 seconds. Done.
- Extract: If you ever find you are interested in read or create more, simply click “Extract”: it will generate a few related seeds (topics) for you for the next round of creation.
- Research: Wait. What if I have my own seeds(topics) or nutritions(prompts)? You can use “Research” to create them.
- Transplant: But what if I don’t like all of these seeds(topics) or nutritions(prompts)? You can create a finished thread in ChatGPT and “transplant” (share) it here (Not ready yet).
Why another media? We already have traditional media, social media and Wikipedia. Let me explain:
The problem of our media:
Issues with Traditional Media You Might Agree On:
- Paywalls: Not everyone can get past them.
- Bias and Division: It’s often about political sides or what country you’re in.
- Young People Not Reading: Only about 5% under 24 read regularly in the U.S., and it’s even less in places like China.
Problems with Traditional Media You Might Disagree On:
- Too Long: 140 characters should be enough, right?
- Not Smart Enough: Just kidding, but who says you need an IQ over 120 to write for newspapers?
- Fighting Fire with Fire: They love bad/evil ways to spread news. Is using bad tactics to stop bad people/stuff really the best we can do?
Problems with Social Media You Might Nod to:
- Fake News Everywhere: It’s a real problem.
- Clickbait: Those headlines that promise a lot but deliver little.
- Stuck in a Bubble: Hard to see different opinions.
Community note is an answer to misinformation and it helps but it is not enough.
Wikipedia Helped But Not Enough
Where It Falls Short:
- Not a first choice for news: People still prefer traditional media
- The definition of knowledge is too narrow
- Too long for some cases
- Not personalized
- Do you know the top articles only have a few million views a week on Wikipedia?
- Its heavy reliance on search engines to provide answers to questions is old-fashioned.
Many enjoy reading Wikipedia, but if you ask your family, colleagues, or friends, how many articles they read daily, what would they say?
Imagine wanting to learn about the connection between Cognitive Behavior Therapy and Chinese philosopher Wang Yangming. Would Wikipedia give a straightforward answer? It can only link Cognitive Behavior Therapy more with Greek philosophy. The topic structure of human knowledge on Wikipedia is an oversimplified and rigid model and far from optimal.
Consider your children wanting to learn about Greek history; can Wikipedia offer an illustrated, engaging narrative with sound?
Have you ever considered the experiences of non-English speakers with Wikipedia? It’s 2023, so there is still a language barrier to human knowldge?
The gap between Wikipedia’s vision and human demand:
The Wikipedia aims to provide “the sum of all human knowledge,” yet ‘sum’ should imply a summary, according to founder Jimmy Wales.
It’s a ambitious and well-intentioned vision but loses touch with practicality: Wikipedia answers less than 5% of human queries.
The dilemma: When Wikipedia-level knowledge isn’t available, its impact is limited.
We often need concise information rather than long, exhaustive articles dubbed as ‘knowledge’ on Wikipedia.
A substantial market exists for social media, but it’s frustrating that most influencers lack the ability and motivation to present information neutrally, objectively, and comprehensively.
What Lies Below the Iceberg Matters, But Is Often Overlooked
Is it possible to surmount the issues posed by traditional media, social media, and Wikipedia? Kwapia is an early attempt to address these challenges collectively with AI’s help, specifically using ChatGPT in its initial version.
- Web 1.0: In Yahoo’s era, around 1998, content was produced by professional writers for the masses.
- Web 2.0: From 2005 to the present, with platforms like YouTube, TikTok, Meta, and Twitter, the general populace began creating content.
- Web 3.0: This term has been adopted by the crypto community to mean decentralization.
The trend is unmistakable: more people are becoming content creators, and the barriers to content creation are being lowered.
Let the crypto community have their version of Web 3.0. I propose that Web 4.0 should be where every user can create for others.
Could we close the gap between content creators and consumers? Kwapia is an exploration of this possibility.
About the Name & Logo:
The logo depicts a baby capybara riding a turtle, inspired by an actual video available online.
Kwapia is a combination of ‘quark/capybara’ and ‘utopia’.
A quark is the smallest known particle, and the hope is that Twitter-like threads of a few hundred characters each could represent the smallest unit of information.
Capybaras are known for their emotional stability and friendliness, often mingling with a variety of animals, including predators. It’s hoped that Kwapia can coexist with existing media platforms, hence the preference for a .org domain over a .com, although this may change depending on financial sustainability.
The quality of content varies greatly, and not all of it meets high standards. Affording the use of advanced AI like ChatGPT at scale is challenging. Additionally, there’s the issue of content duplication.