The future of Steemit follows kyriacos (and others such)

In my previous post I have contrasted Steemit as a platform for valuable content creation with its more illustrious competitor, Facebook (although precisely how valuable Facebook content is remains open to debate). On the other hand, my first days on Steemit were a bit disappointing as most posts I'd read seemed of relatively low quality. Then I discovered @kyriacos and his thoughtful posts. My first (and second ... and probably also third) reaction was jealousy: deep inside I hoped I would be the first Steemyan to write such thoughtful posts.

But having gotten over that, I reckon this kind of content will significantly contribute to making Steemit a great platform for content creation as quality will draw more people to Steemit, both to read and to create their own quality content.

One thing that should be carefully considered though is the very concept of quality: who gets to decide that a post is of a higher quality than another? The classical answer to this is "people voting" - this is applied on a large scale in real life in democracies - people get to select "the best government" by voting for it. In the area of content creation, this is also how a concurrent site, Quora, functions: the more a contribution is upvoted, the more chances there are that other quorans see it. The underlying assumptions is that of the "wisdom of the crowds" - the ability of a large number of autonomously thinking agents to statistically "zero in" on the right answer. As I've already said in my previous post, sadly we cannot vote for the truth.

It would follow that absent an external, independent factor, people (steemyans included) are liable to get fooled into upvoting for low quality, questionable content that has simply managed to speak to their limbic brain, to their emotions. This is after all how the mass crazes have taken hold throughout history: a phenomenon which made possible manipulating vast masses of people into wars of religion and other atrocities. People got burned at the stake for claiming that the Earth was round.

So what could that external, independent factor be that would act as a guiding light, validating the overall direction of our collective brain process, preventing us from falling prey to that self-reinforcing circle of believing that we are right because there's a lot of us (making the same mistake)?

I don't know but I would be happy for @kyriacos to chip in and suggest something.