Seems like an interesting idea, but it’s light on details such as how consensus is actually achieved. Infobombing is a common tactic (sometimes called the Gish Gallop), where one person will spew multiple claims and sources (which are in of themselves quite often wrong), shifting the burden of fighting not only each incorrect point but refuting each citation, usually exhausting the opposition, especially when they are a minority view (see how well transgender topics fare against “moderate” views even on here for example).

One person would not have much power in the collaborative system, unlike the current system where someone who amassed a lot of followers can spew whatever they want for a long time.

2 critical questions:

It seems you want to have debates in the back-end before publishing anything. What have you learned from Nupedia, and how do you expect your system to work differently? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia

It seems you want to use a scoring/voting system. These have some known issues when you're trying to find facts. Have you considered how to prevent gaming? One famous (albeit fortunately failed) example of such an attempt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

> I give an extensive explanation on the economics of free speech here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8HbvC6vqIY

If you are posting ad for your product - why you expect people to go through an extensive explanation in a video form?

No, if I posted links to the actual product on HN comments I'd be accused of "shilling" it by someone and downvoted for that. (Search this page for the word "shilling" for instance, it's already happened.) So often I prefer to discuss the broader topic until the product is good enough to just submit to HN as a submission. I encourage you to watch the video discussion with Noam Chomsky, or read the text on rational.app for TL;DR

Shilling with extra steps is still shilling. If you're going to do that might as well actually write out what your proposal is so we can skim it.

A paragraph (or page) of someone being self promoting is something i might read if its on topic and sounds like they have something insightful to add. A video has almost zero chance.

Seems many people think differently than you.

> where people have to duke it out and address all serious arguments before the public sees it

This has come up a bit recently. However, I think you're underestimating the effect of "Sea Lioning" and alike. Experts are often busy, doing important things in their respective fields. They don't have time to duke it out.

I think it could be a fairer way of including experts. Text has a way of levelling trolls and experts.