The problem

It's difficult to know what information is credible. Furthermore, it's easy for us to write off information by subjectively doubting the credibility of the author or institution that produced it.

The idea

Create a system of "universal peer review" for any piece of content on the internet. This system must be democratic and highly resistant to corruption such that users trust and participate in it.

There should then be a system to track and display credibility ratings for authors, intuitions, pieces of content, and even reviews and reviewers themselves.

Entities

• Review: A numerical score with optional commentary.
• Reviewer: A person who creates reviews.
• Author: A person who creates content.
• Institution: An organization releasing content from one or more authors.
• Piece of content: An article, video, podcast, etc.

Concepts and implementation

• Code is open source and PRs are merged democratically.
• Votes are weighted based on credibility, which for all entities starts at zero.
• Reviewers have their own credibility scores. When a high credibility reviewer gives a positive review of some other entity, that entity's credibility increases more than if it were from a low credibility reviewer.
• No single institution or owner controls the system. Data storage must therefore be decentralized, possibly using some sort of blockchain system.
• Reviews must be public and cannot be anonymous.
• Reviews can be reviewed and the effects propagate upward. In other words, if a review becomes less credible, it holds less weight in determining the credibility of the entity to which it was applied. Maybe this only goes one level deep, i.e., you can't review the review of a review, though maybe it could go infinitely deep.