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

Golden: Mapping human knowledge

golden.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–176 of 176 posts

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#171

Post by pigsonthewing »

judegomila wrote: post #98
llamataboot wrote: post #73

Cynical self: They raised a $5mil round just to re-do wikipedia with more self-referential VC pats on the back. Intrigued self: If there is anything worth raising money for, it is building out a collective knowledge base for all of humanity. Angry self: Wikipedia is quite literally one of the most amazing things that the internet and millions of strangers have ever produced together, and lives as a vital proof of con…

Jude from Golden here. Agreed that WP is one of the most amazing things ever built and interesting to see your various lenses on our mission. To the cynical self: see dropbox launch on HN back in the day. PS I’m no way claiming we are dropbox :> To the angry self: There are various constraints that we want to release ourselves from in working on this problem by starting fresh. We believe the constraint space is too h…

Hey judegomila,

You're using my images - hundreds of them, it seems - in breach of the licence. Where do I send my invoice?

I'm sure as you wish to be "on strong moral ground", you won't want to deny me what you owe me.

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#172

Post by lkj »

judegomila wrote: post #99
lkj wrote: post #65

So for one of your "showcase" pages, the "Golden AI" plagiarized Wikipedia content and now you are in violation of the CC BY clause Wikipedia uses: https://golden.com/wiki/Product_Hunt/activity/user/golden-ai How could that happen? What will happen now? How will you prevent such copyright violations in the future?

Jude from Golden here. We attribute to wikipedia in general which is inline with their TOS. Did we miss a place? We say when needed "Text adapted from the Wikipedia page "Product Hunt": https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Produc... FYI as well the copyright doesn't apply to the actual fact only the text and we give attribution as per their TOS in those cases.

I do not see attribution on https://golden.com/wiki/Product_Hunt

The vast majority of the text on that page is a verbatim copy from Wikipedia. You have to provide appropriate attribution.

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#173

Post by dzamo_norton »

VectorLock wrote: post #85
llamataboot wrote: post #73

Cynical self: They raised a $5mil round just to re-do wikipedia with more self-referential VC pats on the back. Intrigued self: If there is anything worth raising money for, it is building out a collective knowledge base for all of humanity. Angry self: Wikipedia is quite literally one of the most amazing things that the internet and millions of strangers have ever produced together, and lives as a vital proof of con…

It seems like Wikipedia might have some inherent incompatibilities with what they're trying to do, such as its editorial rules and its definition of notability, which can't easily be "fixed" by whatever definition of fixing they need. I appreciate a more inclusive view of notability that lets you take it all in and surface whats relevant more selectively although that is open for insane amounts of debate around it as…

Should we be thinking of Wikipedia alone, or Wikipedia plus all of the fan and other wikis that have sprung up around it? When you consider the collection of all of them there isn't much of a notability restriction and cardinality takes a jump forward too. Of course the collection of them doesn't get you an ontology carefully elaborated by a single mastermind, you just get whatever emerges from this decentralised web.

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#174

Post by qwerty456127 »

> neutrally-written

I'd like to see opinionated stuff too. In fact lack of what can be labelled as opinionated, non-credible and non-significant is what I dislike of Wikipedia. I acknowledge value of neutral and credible information but I believe too much of what still can be useful food for thought gets discarded with the rest.

Re: Golden: Mapping human knowledge

#175

Post by dzamo_norton »

dzamo_norton wrote: post #173
VectorLock wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like Wikipedia might have some inherent incompatibilities with what they're trying to do, such as its editorial rules and its definition of notability, which can't easily be "fixed" by whatever definition of fixing they need. I appreciate a more inclusive view of notability that lets you take it all in and surface whats relevant more selectively although that is open for insane amounts of debate around it as…

Should we be thinking of Wikipedia alone, or Wikipedia plus all of the fan and other wikis that have sprung up around it? When you consider the collection of all of them there isn't much of a notability restriction and cardinality takes a jump forward too. Of course the collection of them doesn't get you an ontology carefully elaborated by a single mastermind, you just get whatever emerges from this decentralised web…

And perhaps it's ontologies like these that you get if you do go with emergence

https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2019/04/27/rare-and-strange-i...

Post reply on HN