The best-known Wiki-type software is MediaWiki, upon which the on-line Wikipedia encyclopedia operates. These software suites have very simple and open operating rules: anybody may register, intervene, modify the texts on-line. The documents produced with this tool are not exempt from conflicts (as illustrated by the "talk" tab of the article on the caricatures of Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten).

However, in this context, an external reference exists to arbiter the conflicts between participants: the scientific references that support or not the positions being proposed. The discussion is indeed in the order of truth, where an assertion may be proven right or false, according to objective criteria, or by making reference to scientific publications that themselves rely upon these criteria.

KuneAgi however operates in the order of action, where this external validation reference does not exist, and where uncertainty is, by essence, present. None of the questions raised in the introduction has any evident answer. The only means to decide is to start a well-supported discussion aiming at ranking the action proposals in hierarchical order. The result of this discussion will have no "objective" value. It will be valid for the collective that reached it, at the time when it was reached. This does not mean that it is of no value! If the discussion followed appropriate procedures, if the arguments exchanged were of good quality, the ranked list of resulting action proposals is the best result that was humanly reachable by this collective at that moment, the one that best fits its available information, its values and its priorities. This list is therefore fully legitimate to ground its decisions for further action. Indeed, when action is concerned, one must intervene in time and in the flow of History, act at the appropriate moment, and always in uncertainty. Our responsibility as humans is not to reduce this uncertainty to zero, because if so, we would be reduced to immobility, but to take all necessary measures for our action, exerted at this precise moment, to consider at best the technical advice and the moral judgements of all persons involved.

The absence of this external and objective reference judging the quality of contributions does not mean that the action decisions must be submitted to the arbitrary of a small, restricted group. On the opposite, it is important that the discussion be structured and organised along precise, rigourous and fair rules and procedures, if this discussion is to be held in a just and fair way, with no confiscation of word nor of power. It is KuneAgi's purpose to ensure that these procedures giving a fair place to each and everyone are "engraved in software".