Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

ibis.wiki

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 266 posts

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#121

Post by DonsDiscountGas »

vintermann wrote: post #85
sebtron wrote: post #28

I do not understand how federation is going to solve the problems mentioned in the homepage. Surely it is going to make them 10x worse, right? The same incidents can happen, but it becomes impossible to moderate the content.

Oh, there will be plenty of problems and mistakes. The question is, should people be allowed to make their own mistakes, or should Jimmy Wales' mistakes take priority?

People can make whatever websites they want, that doesn't mean anybody else is going to view them (let alone contribute).

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#122

Post by agumonkey »

npteljes wrote: post #116
agumonkey wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if this has a name, it's a common reflex that pops up regularly, and yeah most of the time nothing comes out of it.

Dunning–Kruger effect might have something to do with it. People spotting issue in an established project, having an idea about how to improve it, but no actual experience in running such projects or even knowing the history and context of the established project. And the lack of this knowledge helping to overestimate their ability and perceived chance of success.

True, but I think there's a social/group aspect to it too. A lot of projects start like this, people all thinking it's time to start fresh only to devolve into nothingness in a few weeks.

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#123

Post by DonsDiscountGas »

bawolff wrote: post #46
sebtron wrote: post #28

I do not understand how federation is going to solve the problems mentioned in the homepage. Surely it is going to make them 10x worse, right? The same incidents can happen, but it becomes impossible to moderate the content.

The problems mentioned aren't even real problems: - jimbo making CoI edits. He got caught, and edits were reviewed for appropriateness. System worked as it was supposed to - college drop out on arbcom (for those not in the know, arbcom is kind of like an internal court to solve user disputes. They are not allowed to solve content disputes or say what an article should say, only user behaviour problems). How is that a…

> How is that a problem? You don't need a degree to mediate user disputes

You probably shouldn't be lying about having one though

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#124

Post by account42 »

labster wrote: post #33
techaqua wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this could be an alternative to fandom.com

There are already alternatives to Fandom. I volunteer with Miraheze.org, which hosts wikis without all of the ads, has been up since 2015, and has recently become a US nonprofit. We're currently geared towards more technical users, but we're trying to make more tooling to simplify wiki administration as we've taken on more users. I also hear wiki.gg is pretty good, but they're focused on gaming wikis. A lot of Fandom…

> of course Fandom is like Hotel California, you can check out any time you like but your wiki content will never come down

And Jimmy Wales' Fandom puts enough effort into SEO that combined with their size their version will likely appear in search results before the actually useful ad-free community run wiky :|

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#125

Post by account42 »

bdjsiqoocwk wrote: post #66
chris_wot wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever tried to edit on Wikipedia? It’s one of the most toxic places on the Internet. I’m partially to blame for that, btw, as I started the admin’s noticeboard.

I don't care. As a consumer, I don't care how they do it, what I care is they have an infinite amount of high quality information.

These things are not unrelated.

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#126

Post by [deleted] »

j_maffe wrote: post #71
chris_wot wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever tried to edit on Wikipedia? It’s one of the most toxic places on the Internet. I’m partially to blame for that, btw, as I started the admin’s noticeboard.

I've edited on Wikipedia for several years and everyone I've interacted with has been nothing more than helpful. Sure, they don't shy away from pointing out the flaws in something I wrote. But I appreciate that level of honesty and transparency. Could you share what area you've experienced editing in that caused you to have this viewpoint?

[deleted]

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#127

Post by account42 »

sn0wleppard wrote: post #32
sschueller wrote: post #30

Ibis is a large hotel chain. I am not sure using this name is a good idea.

Well, it was also the name of a bird long before that

I think GP's point is that the name will need to compete with existing much more popular uses in online search results and similar limited spaces, which makes it a bad choice even the the hotel chain doesn't have an exclusive claim to the name.

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#130

Post by tux3 »

Loughla wrote: post #117
tux3 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia has a similar problem to Stackoverflow, though nowhere near as bad, where the active community members really care about rules and have a whole established process and tooling for efficiently dealing with new contributions that don't necessarily meet that bar. It all sounds utterly reasonable from the point of view of the community, who is most exposed to very low-quality content, spam, and vandalism. But n…

The problem with this, with Wikipedia specifically is the good faith part. It isn't adherence to strict rules that is the problem. It's the massively toxic little kingdoms that have become established among power users/moderators. Like it or don't. Them is the facts.

On the other hand, it is very democratic. With many of the flaws of a democracy,

If you see a kingdom, in principle and in practice the emperor has no clothes. No single person has any special power or ownership over articles. If someone acts that way, you get to tell them what you think of it, if you like, and you'll very much be in the right. And if you are, others should agree and side with you.

There aren't moderators as such, people are supposed to talk to each other, directly. If you don't like how someone seems to act like they own the place, it won't change unless you tell em how you feel!

The thing is people who aren't afraid to give their opinions tend to talk over quieter people. I'm afraid I don't have a very good cure to offer, but please don't feel like anyone's too big of a power-user to have a little respectful, civil chat with. Please, template the regulars! They either respond politely, or they lash out and make an ass of themselves in public.

The problem is the rules apply equally to everyone, but the power users know exactly where the line is and how the bureaucracy works. "The law, in its majestic equality, allows administrators and newcomers alike to revert edits per policy, report 3RR violations, and open AN/I threads about people they don't like"

Post reply on HN