this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

Fediverse

17535 readers
3 users here now

A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.

Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".

Getting started on Fediverse;

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, no, wouldn't touch that from a longstick, specially from the political slant it's coming from. Wikipedia itself already has enough problems, Ibis is just asking to be a misinformation hub.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

@AMillionNames @nutomic In which case the ibis, a species of bird that's also known as the bin chicken, might be a fitting name for the platform?

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2018/apr/09/bin-chickens-grotesque-glory-urban-ibis-in-pictures

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

This is a great project. I had the same idea myself, and posted about it, but never did anything about it! It's great that people like you are here, with the creativity, and the motivation and skills to do this work.

I think this project is as necessary as Wikipedia itself.

The criticisms in these comments are mostly identical to the opinion most people had about Wikipedia when it started - the it would become a cesspool of nonsense and misinformation. It was useless and worthless when encyclopaedias already exist.

Wikipedia was the first step in broadening what a source if authoritative information can be. It in fact created richer and more truthful information than was possible before, and enlightened the world. Ibis is a necessary second step on the same path.

It will be most valuable for articles like Tienneman square, or the Gillet Jaunes, where there are sharply different perspectives on the same matter, and there will never be agreement. A single monolithic Wikipedia cannot speak about them. Today, wiki gives one perspective and calls it the truth. This was fine in the 20th century when most people believed in simple truths. They were told what to think by single sources. They never left their filter bubbles. It's not sustainable.

To succeed and change the works, this project must do a few things right

  1. The default instance should just be a mirror of Wikipedia. This is the default source of information on everything, so it would be crazy to omit it. Omitting it means putting yourself in competition with it, and you will lose. By encompassing it, the information in Ibis is from day 1 greater then wiki. Ibis will just supersede wiki.

  2. There should be a sidebar with links to the sane article on other instances. So someone reading about trickle down economics on right wing instance, he can instantly switch to the same article on a left wing wiki and read the other side of it. That's the feature that will make it worthwhile for people.

  3. It should look like Wikipedia. For familiarity. This will help people transition.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for the support. I think the era of single, centralized sources of information will soon be in the past.

  1. This would be a project on its own, with writing import scripts, hosting an instance etc. Certainly not something I have time for, just like I'm not running a Reddit mirror for Lemmy. If you or someone else wants to set it up, go ahead!
  2. How would you detect that it's the same article, only from having the identical title? That could fail in lots of ways.
  3. I agree about this.
[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago
  1. I just assumed that would be easy, that you would have one instance with no actual content. It just fetches the wikipedia article with the same name, directly from the wikipedia website. I guess I didn't really think about it.

  2. I guess that's a design choice. Looking at different ways similar issues have been solved already...

How does wikipedia decide that the same article is available in different languages? I guess there is a database of links which has to be maintained.

Alternatively, it could assume that articles are the same if they have the same name, like in your example where "Mountain" can have an article on a poetry instance and on a geography instance, but the software treats them as the same article.

Wikipedia can understand that "Rep of Ireland" = "Republic of Ireland". So I guess there is a look-up-table saying that these two names refer to the same thing.

Then, wikipedia can also understand cases where articles can have the same name but be unrelated. Like RIC (paramilitary group) is not the same as RIC (feature of a democracy).

I do think, if each Ibis instance is isolated, it won't be much different from having many separate wiki websites. When the software automatically links you to the same information on different instances, that's when the idea becomes really interesting and valuable.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

First of all I welcome this idea, and think it's ok if there's many different types of encyclopaedia on different perspectives. Now, how will a decentralised wiki deal with something like a rando claiming to be uni professor and inserting thyself in admin position over time? How is activitypub helpful in writing wiki?(Edit credits?)

Finally a site you might find helpful: https://wikiindex.org/ (https://web.archive.org/wikiindex.org/ as it seems to be down)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Adding reference to HN submission of this article. Discussion thus far has 233 comments.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Looks very broken on mobile.

1000021481

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Not sure what the use case is for a federated wiki. It lets you... edit a different wiki with your account from your initial one? View pages from other wikis using your preferred website's UI? Know which wikis are considered to have good info by the admins of the wiki you're browsing from?

This is presented as a solution to Wikipedia's content moderation problems, but it doesn't do much against that that wouldn't also be done by just having a bunch of separate, non-federated wikis that link to each others' pages. The difference between linking to a wiki in the federation network, and linking to one outside the federation network, is that the ui will be different and you'd have to make a new account to edit things.

I suppose it makes sense for a search feature? You can search for a concept and select the wiki which approaches the concept from your desired angle (e.g. broad overview, scientific detail, hobbyist), and you'd know that all the options were wikis that haven't been defederated and likely have some trustworthiness. With the decline of google and search engines in general, I can see this being helpful. But it relies on the trustworthiness of your home wiki's admin, and any large wiki would likely begin to have many of the same problems that the announcement post criticizes Wikipedia for. And all this would likely go over the head of any average visitor, or average editor.

I don't know. I'm happy this exists. I think it's interesting to think about what structures would lead to something better than Wikipedia. I might find it helpful once someone creates a good frontend for it, and then maybe the community can donate to create a free hosting service for Ibis wikis. Thank you for making it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I think this would be immensely helpful for niche topics, but I don't really see it as much of a direct competitor to Wikipedia. Interwiki links have been a thing for a long time, but they're not really used that much. They also are used by specialized shortcut syntax instead of using a more intuitive domain name syntax. So let's say you have a wiki for the Flash TV show and you want to link to an article in the Flash comic wiki. This would be great for that. Maybe have "search related wikis" as an option to search some hand picked wikis?

But for going head-to-head with Wikipedia, I don't really see it so much. Part of the success of Wikipedia is that it forces editors to work in a single namespace, debate the contents, use a common set of policies, and so on. There is also a lot of policy, process, human knowledge, and institution built up over the years geared solely towards writing an encyclopedia. If you go to Wikipedia, it may not be perfect, but it will have gone through that process. Trying to wade through hundreds of wikis to find a decent article does not sound like a treat, especially if effort gets spread across multiple wikis.

Like with Lemmy, I am excited to see where this goes. And nutomic, congratulations with your daughter!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think this would be immensely helpful for niche topics

This.

I dont know how many people here are aware of Fandom, formerly known as Wikia. Basically what they are trying to do is collecting niche topic wikis in order to profit as much as possible. Very much criticized over the years by contributors for their practices.

Ibis could be the answer for niche wikis who dont want to be associated with Fandom/Wikia.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Fandom was exactly what I was thinking of. Just maybe without having more ads than content. That I'm not a fan of, especially for volunteer supplied content.

Extra thought on search: add a weighting option so individual servers can be searched, but don't come up as high in the rankings. So keeping with the superhero theme, have the Flash comic wiki with a 1 weighting and the more general DC comic and Arrowverse wikis with 0.8 weightings.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Based on how ...certain... Lemmy instances have handled themselves, the intention to deal with "Wikipedia content moderation" here is almost certainly not to make a freer version of Wikipedia, but to make heavily censored content enclaves with the same obvious editorial restrictions concerning certain topics you find on certain large instances.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Crazy how many people can suddenly peer into the future when this post was made! I hope they can use this power for good, maybe save us from horrible tragedies in the future instead of wailing about a Wikipedia alternative. Great work nutomic! I hope folks pitch in to help this project you've begun.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Half the comments in this thread are the exact same as when we started working on a reddit alternative lol. "I don't see why you're doing this, reddit works fine for me."

Also I'm pretty stunned that more people aren't aware of wikipedia's many scandals and issues. I suppose if you use a site every day and don't see what's going on behind the scenes, you don't seek these things out.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

You just have to prove them wrong then like you did with lemmy great work .

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

I suppose if you use a site every day and don't see what's going on behind the scenes, you don't seek these things out.

This ignorance is just more reason to continue working on the fediverse to help break these walls down, you are on the right path. o7

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Thank you for that. It will probably work well in pair with Lemmy. The ability to compile a community or instance knowlegde out of the comment section and to an organised wiki will be very nice.

But if someone here reading as the time and skill, the sofware the fediverse is lacking is tv tracker.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Doesn't work with javascript disabled.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›