Haven't digged much into it... But what makes canonizer different from wikipedia?
Wikipedia works great for encyclopedic consensus information that everyone agrees on. But if there is any disagreement, at all, the focus and edit wars quickly focus on that, everyone gets hurt and leaves, unless you like spending your life flaming with endless edit wars. Anything at all controversial (all important things) like global warming just don't work at all.
Also, there is no measure of the quality of information with Wikipedia, and for that matter, that is the problem with the entire internet and everything out there.
Canonizer.com solves both of these problems by adding "camps" The I3 people create and wiki their camp and the Etherium people create their camp, and everyone indicates which one they currently have as their working hypothesis that it is the best one.
Each reader can select their experts by selecting their preferred canonizer algorithm on the side bar, and "canonize" things accordingly. In other words, 80% of your chosen experts might be in the I3 camp, and 10% of them in the Etherium camp....
The scientific proof comes from the free market, falsifying the incorrect theory camps, and forcing everyone into the same one. But of course, if the popularity swings to support a dumb currency, while smart/agile currencies are really better, the majority will join the dumb camp, at least temporarily, but such will not convert the smart experts. Eventually the best camps will out perform dumb camps, the early minority supporters of such taking lots of money away from the flash and crash, pump and dump ones.
The goal of Canonizer.com is to measure, in real time, how much support there is for each theory, before expending the effort to do the real world experiment, putting it on the market. Then you can track to find out which are the best experts, in the 'right' camps the earliest, once the experiments are completed, so you can trust them more the next time...