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

231–240 of 266 posts

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#231

Post by SllX »

archagon wrote: post #217
npteljes wrote: post #88

"There are many problems with Wikipedia. Here is an example from 12 years ago! Did we forget to mention that Wikipedia is now twice as old?" Ridiculous article. Organizing a wiki effort, just to spite the original won't work, because that's not enough, and not the right kind of fuel to last for such an undertaking. I feel like these people have no idea what kind of effort is to run an organization, instead seeing the…

I feel the second biggest innovation of Wikipedia, after the wiki format itself, is establishing the proper tooling, policies, and incentives to allow a stable hierarchy of editors and maintainers to develop. This is the aspect that gives Wikipedia its longevity.

Well, the wiki format isn’t really theirs: https://wiki.c2.com/?WikiWikiWeb

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#232

Post by tsukikage »

vintermann wrote: post #226
tsukikage wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distinction you are trying to make is impossible to make in practice. I don't want to see holocaust denial bullshit. Others might not have a problem with seeing it. Every sufficiently large space will contain at least one person who wants to post it and is therefore OK with seeing it. Is it moderation or censorship when a space I share with those people decides not to carry such content? The mods may not want to…

In many cases it's easy to make the distinction. Many will not hesitate to admit that they suppress things because of the effect they fear it will have on the audience. Not just the effect it will have on the appeal of the venue, or the image of the company, or whatever. And I'm not even saying all censorship is necessarily wrong. There's one very obvious case where you keep people from seeing things because you fear…

> Most of all, it's necessary to apply to yourself.

Sure, that sounds like it could be a great principle. It's not what actually happens, though. The terms are loaded weapons, sticks to beat people over the head with; and discourse online trends weaponised. Cries of "censorship" are used as a battering ram to prise open an online space for invasion. When the only difference between an action that is morally acceptable and one that is not is the internal state of mind of the actor, with the case being tried in the court of public opinion, defense is all but impossible.

You did it yourself: "Censorship is when someone hides something for you, because they don't want you to see it." Someone. /They/. That's not a sentence about personal introspection. That's a statement tying a judgement to someone else's actions. He/she/it censors.

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#234

Post by arp242 »

hagbard_c wrote: post #214
lolc wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow I haven't seen a link to Conservapedia in a looong time. Out of curiosity, I clicked. They claim physical reality of the biblical flood: https://www.conservapedia.com/Great_Flood And wow somebody has put a lot of work in this page https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_proven_right Great resource if you want to know what US bible people care about. They have institutionalised their confirmation bias.

> They claim physical reality of the biblical flood There is evidence of the Mediterranean Basin flooding after breach of a land bridge across what is now the Strait of Gibraltar [1,2] some 5 million years ago. In the same way there is some evidence of the Black Sea rapidly expanding some 8000 years ago [3]. Similar 'catastrophic flood' scenarios have played out elsewhere on the planet which has led to the rise of fl…

> In short, Conservapedia does what Wikipedia does but replaces the 'progressive' bias with a 'conservative' one.

Conservapedia calls e=mc2 "liberal claptrap".[1] The article on Oppenheimer has "Like other liberals, Oppenheimer was not as smart as he wanted to be" right in the lead and the article itself mostly seems to be about Oppenheimer's communist links more than anything else. Articles like Homosexual Agenda[3] contain so much retarded bullshit I don't even know what bit to quote.

What I'm trying to say is "it's the same as Wikipedia, with with Conservative bias" completely and utter bollocks. Conservapedia is a fringe website that's not conservative, but just crazy. Anyone claiming anything else is deeply misinformed.

[1]: https://www.conservapedia.com/E%3Dmc2

[2]: https://www.conservapedia.com/J._Robert_Oppenheimer

[3]: https://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Agenda

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#235

Post by lolc »

hagbard_c wrote: post #220
lolc wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea these flood events are interesting. But did you read the Conservapedia page? They are very specific about the flood having happened 5000 years ago and say it was a global phenomenon. That was just the first link I clicked on the homepage. I dare you to find something equally implausible on the English Wikipedia homepage. And if you don't find the biblical flood implausible, well, I'm somewhat intrigued why you be…

Looking at Conservapedia from a 'liberal' standpoint is like looking at Wikipedia from a 'conservative' standpoint. Where a Conservapedia article like the one you mentioned - the Biblical flood being based on a recent 'global' flood event - is hard to take seriously by 'liberals' the same goes for Wikipedia articles like 'Non-binary gender' [1] to 'conservatives'. Both Conservapedia as well as Wikipedia treat highly…

I asked for something that is equally implausible. So I take it you think people feeling non-binary is equally or more implausible than the biblical flood? Do people not identify as non-binary? Or are they lying about their feelings?

Don't give me the "contentious" spiel. I don't care what some reader of Conservapedia may think. I'm asking you.

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#236

Post by kmeisthax »

rglullis wrote: post #173
sharkjacobs wrote: post #142

> The fact is that we can’t rely on any single website to hold the whole world’s knowledge, because it can be corrupted sooner or later. The only solution is a distributed architecture, with many smaller websites connecting with each other and sharing information. This article doesn't even try to explain or convincingly make this argument, it just takes it as given.

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Find me one example of institution that managed to go for any significant amount of time (say, longer than a decade) without facing corruption. I double-dare you.

Even nominally decentralized systems tend to create unaccountable power structures. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessne...

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#237

Post by levlaz »

nick238 wrote: post #157
lenerdenator wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Blackjack and Hookers" reflex, from Futurama when Bender gets thrown out of the amusement park on the Moon and says "I'll start my own theme park... with blackjack!... and hookers!... in fact, forget the park!" EDIT: Basically that's how these projects turn out. Having a theme park was never the point; blackjack and hookers were the point. Having a federated Wikipedia alternative isn't the point; having an encyc…

Wikipedia + Blackjack + Hookers - Wikipedia = https://www.conservapedia.com/

Interestingly has a similar mobile experience as OP.

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#238

Post by geysersam »

nick238 wrote: post #157
lenerdenator wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Blackjack and Hookers" reflex, from Futurama when Bender gets thrown out of the amusement park on the Moon and says "I'll start my own theme park... with blackjack!... and hookers!... in fact, forget the park!" EDIT: Basically that's how these projects turn out. Having a theme park was never the point; blackjack and hookers were the point. Having a federated Wikipedia alternative isn't the point; having an encyc…

Wikipedia + Blackjack + Hookers - Wikipedia = https://www.conservapedia.com/

That was fascinating!

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#239

Post by hagbard_c »

lolc wrote: post #235
hagbard_c wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at Conservapedia from a 'liberal' standpoint is like looking at Wikipedia from a 'conservative' standpoint. Where a Conservapedia article like the one you mentioned - the Biblical flood being based on a recent 'global' flood event - is hard to take seriously by 'liberals' the same goes for Wikipedia articles like 'Non-binary gender' [1] to 'conservatives'. Both Conservapedia as well as Wikipedia treat highly…

I asked for something that is equally implausible. So I take it you think people feeling non-binary is equally or more implausible than the biblical flood? Do people not identify as non-binary? Or are they lying about their feelings? Don't give me the "contentious" spiel. I don't care what some reader of Conservapedia may think. I'm asking you.

> I'm asking you.

No ad-hominems, or rather you are looking at this as a 'liberal' would while I described a scenario in which a 'conservative' looks at the mentioned article and concept. In the "conservative's" opinion what is written there is just as implausible as what is written in the Conservapedia article on the 'truth' of the flood story. Both Wikipedia as well as Conservapedia are biased which is what this was about, not about whether the flood or someone feeling non-binary is true.

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#240

Post by boxed »

hnbad wrote: post #150
boxed wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's universal among humans to see the flaw of existing systems and wanting to replace them and then are surprised at the following disaster. Communism, the French Revolution, Franco, the fall of the Roman Empire, every big software rewrite that failed spectacularly...

> Communism Fun fact: prefiguration, a practice popular with anarchists, is essentially a form of refactoring rather than a rewrite. Arguably the problem with Soviet/Maoist communism and the French Revolution also was that it merely replaced who's in charge rather than dismantling the system of someone being in charge (i.e. it focused on individuals, not systems). It's worth noting though that the French Revolution d…

> Arguably the problem with Soviet/Maoist communism and the French Revolution also was that it merely replaced who's in charge rather than dismantling the system of someone being in charge

I strongly disagree. They threw out way too much, not just who was in charge. "Throwing out the baby with the bathwater". In the case of Mao they made sweeping changes to agriculture several times. Each with the potential of causing massive famines, and together caused the largest man made disaster in history.

That's not just replacing who is in charge (which would have been MUCH BETTER), it's dismantling a thousand years of knowledge and tradition in favor of something they thought was better. Absolute disaster.

The French revolution, and USSR did quite similar things with disastrous consequences.

Post reply on HN