Sky,

Thanks for asking! There are many reasons. Let me try to document some of the reasons here.

First, you mentioned what can be consider to be all the primitive evil things about "canonization" methods in the past, like emanating from on high (as in you will want what God tells you to want and if you want anything else you can just go to hell), or some singular 'authority' imposing their will from on top of some hierarchy towards the "sheep", all in "unquestioned", and "traditional standards of normalcy".

Personally, we want to chuck all this primitive evil stuff. We are tiring of all the faithless immoral selfish people at the tops of these hierarchies that don't trust the people at the bottom to be able to know what is best for them. Not only do we want to know what all the people at the bottom want, we want to give the people at the bottom the ability to declare what is and is not cannon in a way of their choosing, rather than have it solely come down from the top.

Every religious organization has their own special way they determine what is and is not "canon". And the Canonizer can adopt all of those methodologies, for the type of people that think they want or trust that. For example, some people may initially choose a "Canonizer" that filters out everything but what is "supported" by their prophet, "quorum of the 12", or whatever. Everyone will be free to choose a Canonizer that works best for them. (How do you think a true "Prophet" will behave when the Canonizer tells him that 91.6% of his "flock" wants something different than he does?)

We're not too worried about people that are already progressive thinkers, not following the heard, like you. Most progressive thinkers, like you, bristle because of the mentioned baggage some of these religious terms we like to use carry. But you are not the primary target. It is the poor still blinded by their primitive religions, "sheep" like people we would like to target and help. There are a lot of people in this world that don't have an intellect as trustworthy as that which people that are already progressive thinkers have. They need a bit of a leg up, on how to live a more moral life, and how to better find and know what it is they really want. The current batch of primitive "canon" which has so far been the only one to give them what they think they need, is just blinding them and leading them to choose death and the grave rather than a much more glorious and real heaven.

Also, we can spend a lot of time studying, and becoming an expert in a few moral issues, but in no way can we become an expert in them all; neither can any single leader of any hierarchy. And we are about to be faced with an exponentially growing amount of critical moral issues and choices, like humanity has never had to face before. If some think global warming is a critical moral issue that we must act on now, wait 20 years! Right!? How are we going to be determine the best moral behaviors on all such issues? Wikipedia doesn't help a lot, since it is always locked down on any controversial topic because everyone is trying to get their POV in, and everyone else's out. Do the primitive scientific journals, with a few peers taking forever to review them, help us little guys out much today? Especially morally? The bottom line is most all of us need a moral leg up, so we can keep up with the moral state of the art on all these increasingly important moral issues coming at us like freight trains.

We want to track all you progressive thinkers way out ahead of the herd. We want to keep track of which ones turn out to be in the "right" camp the soonest. We want to get a comprehensive and quantitative measure of just what it is all of you think, and who you trust. We want concise well documented easy to understand reasons for why you are pushing in certain moral directions. We believe these are the kinds of things that can give us little guys the ability to morally keep up. Hopefully some day we will be able to select a Canonizer that keeps track of people's reputations, and values the likes of all of you (and who you trust), and ignores all the previously mistaken and primitive corruption of the herd. We believe such a system will be able to morally direct our lives, and help us better know and get what we really want.

How do you think primitive moral canonization methods of the past will compare with modern networked, bottom up, merit based, maverick led canonization methods of the future? Surely it will be survival of the fittest, as far as canonization methods go right? And when the religious people see these new canonization methods working reliably, time after time, in comparison with the gross immoral failures of the past, which ones do you think they will start trusting and using more to morally guide their lives?

We also like the word Canoizer because of how it can be used in different ways such as "The Canonizer" of course refers to http://canonizer.com. "A Canonizer" can refer to a selectable canonization algorithm. And the "Canonization Process" is the process of attempting to get your POV as high, and as well accepted as possible in a POV structure. While less well accepted POV is naturally pushed lower and into less well accepted statements.