Do you believe that the world would be better if everyone shared this moral system, or is this more of a nihilistic "This is the best way for a individual agent to act for their own true gain, but I certainly wouldn't want every agent to act this way" sort of deal?

I ask because it really does seem devoid of any traditional "goodness", except for the part that encourages wisdomists to protect all wisdom, including the wisdom of others. It espouses wisdom and creativity as virtues, sure- but what part of wisdom and creativity, as defined in the paper, can't go into the act of publicly torturing you to death in an agonizing fashion? Quick thinking, medical knowledge, and cruel creativity would all be quite helpful there, and nothing in wisdomism seems to prohibit it provided that it can be reasonably called safe in context and lead to a net increase in wisdom among members of the public who are watching the spectacle and collectively gaining more wisdom from it than you're losing from the trauma. New information would be learned; the fact that the information has no utility is irrelevant to the wisdomist, since the paper explicitly contrasts itself with utilitarianism by saying that it values wisdom instead of utility.

Does it matter if it's the same wisdom, repeated over and over? Are two wise minds with the exact same wisdom better than one? Is the same wisdom spread between multiple minds less worthy than the same wisdom in one mind? Who decides what counts as wisdom and what counts as mental "noise" or garbage? Is consciousness required for wisdom to count? How about qualia? Does it have to be accessible to others?

Hopefully you see where I'm coming from now, though I would actually like to hear your answers to those questions. I see nothing of actual utility here, and nothing particularly wise either. It encounters the usual pitfalls of a system with arbitrary values, with the added issue of a larger amount of ambiguity than the average moral system.