I remember someone shared a federated alternative to Wikipedia here and I don’t remember the name of the project. Perplexity, Google and alternativeto.net are no good in finding it. Does anybody know its name?
I remember someone shared a federated alternative to Wikipedia here and I don’t remember the name of the project. Perplexity, Google and alternativeto.net are no good in finding it. Does anybody know its name?
What benefit would there be to federation? You can already download all of Wikipedia, and you can host your own wiki.
Also, it just occurred to me using the Lemmy “Search” function to look for it. It is there. The name is “Ibis”.
First of all, there is the problem of senior editors being in control and if you do anything, they just revert it, or delete it. There are reasons why there are already many different wikis and not just one.
Then as the other commenter shared, they have the goal of a neutral point of view, but that’s an idealistic goal that can’t be reached. The neutrality with which something is presented is sometimes a problem. For example in political spheres it can make more sense to read two very biased articles from opposing sides, than one that tries to present both sides objectively.
So it would be really helpful to see side by side comparisons or disambiguation pages that lead to different perspectives.
And you can sort of do this already, but the point of federation is also that it’s more tightly integrated than “you can have your own forum” which was true before as well.
Neutrality, and they just say massacres maybe happened 1984 sikh one says like 10 ppl died
All people could contribute to the different instances and create a web of knowledge. If someone thinks a certain instance opinion of Robert F. Kennedy is wrong, they can contribute to another instance on the same topic giving references (even if different) as well.
I really think this is a better way of contribution. In this way, everyone gets to have their opinions preserved and at the same time contributing together. And to Truth, no less.
These instances would be connected by the ActivityPub or other.
Anyway, I’m sure there is a project like that out there already, and I’m also sure someone posted it here. I just don’t remember the name.
Opinions only obfuscate truth.
More opinions means less truth.
The world does not need a fucking opinionpedia. We have enough morons filling the internet with bullshit; having an authoritative, factual source for a wide variety of data is a good thing.
I have no desire to read some crackpot’s opinion on RFK. Objective facts are critical to a healthy society. We can see how bad things get when people tear apart the fabric of knowledge and replace it with misinformation.
Fuck that right in the ear.
You understand that you never actually had unmediated access to “the fabric of knowledge”, right? You just had sources that you agreed with
And adding a trashcan full of opinions takes everyone further from truth, not closer.
That’s not true. More opinions means more people searching for truth together and finding new things.
If someone finds something new and share it, that could be reviewed and researched by people faster.
Centralizing truth has a much more destructive aspect when dealing with truth. This can be seen practically on the difference of reach between the Fediverse and Facebook, for example. Facebook (centralized) is ground for fake and hateful news, while the Fediverse (decentralized) brings meaningful diversity and insightfulness.
More information also means quicker double-checking for what is true, regardless of political spectrum, even though Ibis main instance took care to add a “No politics” rule. Regardless of this, I see potential for including political debate as well.
Truth is a constructed entity. A heated debate in Brazil for more than a decade. I’m from Brazil, but Brazil is central on this in the sense that it is leaving the western spectrum to join the Global South, so this topic has been very heated for the last decade, generating real economical and political crisis (economy down 3% and impeachment in 2015/2016). It is felt around these parts in a very special way. So I’m sure that what people called “post-truth” on the original Ibis post is the way to go.
Finding more opinions, not truth.
Slower. They must search through the deluge of opinion that grows exponentially faster than any truth could ever hope to.
Neither are made for truth.
Truth is discovered, not constructed. You may be thinking of consensus this whole time. Consensus is absolutely constructed. But consensus isn’t truth. Sometimes they align. More often by accident then by intent.
Let’s say you have two chemical processes. Process A and Process B.
If Process A has an efficiency of 95% and Process B an efficiency of 97%, does that invalidate process A? Something similar can be seen in Bamboo scaffolding in China. Is Bamboo scaffolding better or worse than metal scaffolding?
Now let’s say that Process A has an efficiency of 97% and Process B an efficiency of 97%. Which is the best method?
If centralization in technology and science were the optimal way to go, these questions would be invalid. But things that work only in one way are dumb.
“Best” isn’t a question of truth.
Truly there is no “best”.
Truth only describes what is, without any judgement.
That’s not two different opinions, though. You just posted two accurate facts. An accurate Wikipedia will post both of them, and it has nothing to do with any individual’s opinion on Process A being a ploy by Big Pharma or Process B being a liberal psyop. An accurate Wikipedia will also not post about either being the “best.” That’s not its job.
Your bamboo scaffolding example is actually a good one, but not in your favor. Bamboo scaffolding is a great option in places where bamboo grows naturally. In other parts of the world where bamboo is less common, metal scaffolding is usually a more economic choice. Neither is “better,” and encyclopedias should not suggest that one or the other is.
This whole thing is why the Wikipedia “opinion” editor tag exists. Its whole point is to mark places where an article needs editing because the content is subjective or not supported by verifiable fact.
The scientific method is not an evaluation of truth, it is morseso a separate concept
If you want different opinions you can go to Conservapedia and see how factual the content is there.
That’s because Facebook has discovered that fake and hateful news gets lots of clicks and engagement, and boosts their bottom line. Wikipedia has no such profit motive, nor does federated social media. It’s the economics that make them different, not the server paradigm.
Is…this your first day on the Internet? That is almost never how it works. You get one side posting sourced, verifiable, provable information at best. At worst, both sides are posting cherry-picked half-stories that agree with their preconceived ideas. In the end, no one changes their minds, but the people who are willing to stay and post about it for longer are the ones who are seen later on as the “winners.”
I’m reminded of a line from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: “Archaeology is the search for fact, not truth. If it’s truth you’re interested in, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.”
Similarly, encyclopedias are not where to go for truth. They’re where to go for fact, and fact isn’t decided by consensus.
Not everyone’s opinion deserves a platform.
We don’t need more relativisation of facts, we need the exact opposite. Contrary to a way too widespread belief, opinions are not automatically something to respect and are not all equal, there can be shitty opinions based on shitty facts.
if you want an opinion go to a blog
People tend to disagree about everything, even the shape of the earth and the effectiveness of vaccines, as mad as that may sound. As a result, a federated encyclopedia would probably diverge and fork numerous times, resulting in countless competing versions. How would you merge them back together?
It wouldn’t be controlled by one foundation, so agewalls couldn’t be enforced
As a website or service, sure. But the Wikipedia has been available to download for offline use since basically its inception. This is how users in places with poor internet connections can still benefit from the Wikipedia. Certainly, the idea of distributing Wikipedia on disc is a bit odd.
But whether it be smuggling books across the Iron Curtain, downloading swaths of paywalled scientific papers from an MIT computer, or accessing information about abortion, the pursuit of knowledge is a chiefly human trait and one not easily suppressed. But if all those, the Wikipedia has the best track record for being openly available and free (as in speech, and as in beer).
Anyone – not just the Wikimedia Foundation – can protest a proposed age restriction against Wikipedia by sending out enough Wikipedia CDs that would rival AOL’s 1990s campaigns. So too could one print a physical volume, just to prove the point that anti-proliferation of information is a lost-cause.