In a recent conversation on X, journalist Santiago Bustamante raised a legitimate concern: the widespread demonization of alternative information channels, labeling them as "hoaxes." Instead of restricting access, he proposes something more valuable: educating in critical thinking and encouraging cross-referencing between sources.

But... what about channels that lack any form of editorial or scientific review? Can they be considered valid?

The truth is that peer review remains crucial, especially in science and complex topics. However, we also recognize that during moments of high informational intensity—such as a crisis or unexpected event—editorial timelines may be insufficient. In that chaotic scenario, what tools do we have?

The answer points to the future: we need better digital tools. Systems that allow us to verify, cross-reference, and collectively discuss information without relying solely on centralized structures.

I propose the hypermedia protocol, which enables the discussion of topics while the article is updated in real time. The same process as Wikipedia but more dynamic in managing identities, permissions, and information tools.

The process should work as follows:

Someone poses a question or problem to solve.

The community begins to deliberate by sharing references.

The article is updated as sufficient veracity is achieved.

What do you think of this feedback process?