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?

  • Steve@communick.newsEnglish
    171·
    1 day ago

    More opinions means more people searching for truth together and finding new things.

    Finding more opinions, not truth.

    If someone finds something new and share it, that could be reviewed and researched by people faster.

    More information also means quicker double-checking for what is true

    Slower. They must search through the deluge of opinion that grows exponentially faster than any truth could ever hope to.

    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.

    Neither are made for truth.

    Truth is a constructed entity.

    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.

    • lacaio da inquisição@mander.xyzOP
      18·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • Steve@communick.newsEnglish
        2·
        21 hours ago

        “Best” isn’t a question of truth.
        Truly there is no “best”.
        Truth only describes what is, without any judgement.

      • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
        131·
        1 day ago

        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.