Regardless if it's a wiki or not right now, documentation that is wrong and cannot be fixed is worthless

Not the op but I don't think it's a request, it's semantics. You are calling wiki something that is really not a wiki, because wikis are editable.

Consider leaning into “wiki” features fully so you don’t have to lose your name, and adding an edit button isn’t gonna be enough for most people IMO. As you can probably tell from these unusually hostile comments for HN (I think someone above even swore!), people are understandably protective of the wiki movement. It’s a bright, persistent star in a darkening internet, so seeing people use it to make money can be tough.

For example: what if instead of one document creator bot, you had an ensemble of personas that act out the motions of wiki editing - many diverse sources submitting small edits, experts reviewing edits before inclusion, etc. Basically just turning the simple 1-step citation verification you mentioned in another comment into a complex stage play of sorts, both for the sake of the bots (would probably cut down on hallucinations to follow Wikipedia procedures) and the humans (what’s the point of a verification tool that you can’t follow along with and meta-verify?). This also solves the edit problem, since humans can follow the same procedure and get the same automated reviews.

It wouldnt hurt to go open source, either! Either way cool project, Godspeed.

I haven't used it enough to know if the two models can feasibly coexist. It may be better to just name it more accurately. There will be immense demand for an "automatic documentation generator". A wiki, not quite as much.