Let’s say someone created a Wikipedia clone with Activitypub support, so you can freely read and edit articles on other servers. Basically the same way that Lemmy works. What would be a good name for such a project? Bonus points if the name goes with a cute animal mascot.
Edit: Here you can see the names of existing Fediverse projects.
You must log in or register to comment.
As it stands now, you can download all of Wikipedia for offline viewing. It’s not restricted in any way. And since Wikipedia is looking for objective truth, not opinions, I’m not sure what benefit federation would do. You want it centralized, not broken up. What happens when two instances decide that their version is the only correct one?
I just don’t see any benefit. This feels like when everyone was slapping “blockchain” on things because it was the current buzzword. What is Wikipedia failing at currently that decentralizing it would make better?
What is Wikipedia failing at currently that decentralizing it would make better?
Just like reddit (and many other services), its a centralized US-based service, has a history of scandals and conflicts of interest, has ties to the US state department, and is dominated by a small group of editors (despite its perception as being a universal unbiased knowledge store).
There’s definitely a need to decentralize knowledge, move it away from US control, and allow the collaboration that activitypub provides.
Federation, by it’s very nature, is “if I don’t like you, I can just make my own instance and do whatever I want”. How will you find objective truth when people can’t even agree within their own country? You really think we won’t just end up with LeftyWiki and RightyWiki and CommieWiki and FacistWiki? Because federated code would encourage this. You’re literally adding problems when your problem is people based, not code based.
There are plenty of Wikipedia articles which are not objective, particularly when it comes to politics or history. Of course federation means there would be many different wikis. That makes sense, for example different countries should have their own independent wikis, instead of using one controlled by a different nation.
Yes, we can have a US wiki, a Russia Wiki, a China Wiki, a North Korea Wiki, and none of them will agree with each other and you will have reduced an encyclopedia into worthless anecdotes and opinions.
Wikipedia has very major problems, but almost nobody is aware of them. Give this article a read to get an idea.
Those seem to be the same criticism almost everyone levels at the org, and that are more or less intrinsic to an open platform. mainly that anyone can edit it. How does federation solve these issues, seems to me it would make them much much worse.
Dude admitted higher up that it’s not the code, it’s the people in charge who are the problem. So all they’re really advocating for is starting their own Wikipedia. But of course, theirs will be “the real truth” when in actuality we will just end up with another version.
Let’s pretend I agree with the article. You’d still be in the same boat with a federalized wiki. It’d still be hundreds of thousands of volunteer contributors, and that’s where all the corruption supposedly lies. Except now it’s broken up amongst many many many places, and moderation is that much harder now. So, for the upteenth time, what exactly is Wikipedia THE PLATFORM failing at, and why is the fediverse a solution to that specific problem? What part of wikipedias code or implementation is broken and what will the equivalent federated code/setup look like to combat this? Because if you’re just going to point to corrupt people, I have a whole world for you to take a look at. Corruption isn’t a uniquely Wikipedia problem and isn’t caused by their code.
It sounds like you didn’t read the article at all, because it clearly explains how Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales himself is involved in many such cases of corruption and manipulation. The code is not the problem, but the fact that a single organization has full control over the site and can decide which contributions get accepted or rejected.
So, you STILL HAVENT ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
What part of wikipedias code or implementation is the problem? And how will the fediverse solve this?
IF dude is corrupt, what’s to stop the next fediwiki from being corrupt too? After all, since it’s federated, if I don’t like your “facts”, I can just defederate and spread my own “facts”.
So maybe do some reading of your own and answer my question. What’s wrong with the Wikipedia CODE that federated CODE will solve and how? Otherwise all you’re really advocating for is starting your own Wikipedia, and no one is stopping you.
This is just “old thing + new buzzword”.
What’s wrong with the Wikipedia CODE that federated CODE will solve and how?
Wikipedia is centralized, and doesn’t allow collaboration by self-hosted servers. Activitypub allows this. You seem to not understand the point of the site you’re using right now.
I understand the point. I also know that we’re currently defederated from hexbear and a few others. So in effect, there is less openness currently in Lemmy than on Wikipedia. How exactly is being able to do that.going to give us objective truth and not just 500 echo chambers?
I bet a year ago you would have said the exact same things about Lemmy, and yet here you are.
I understand the difference between a centralized and decentralized service. I WANT Wikipedia to be centralized. I’ve said that since the beginning. Objective truth has no business being splintered up.
