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

61–70 of 266 posts

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#61

Post by kamray23 »

lifthrasiir wrote: post #4
bdjsiqoocwk wrote: post #3

If there's one thing I DON'T want a new version of, it's Wikipedia.

A federated version of Wikipedia wouldn't displace the centralized Wikipedia (for the same reason that Wikipedia didn't exactly replace traditional encyclopedias), but it has a potential to supplement everything else, and I believe it's worthwhile enough.

Wikipedia displaced traditional encyclopedias. The number of encyclopedias produced in Finnish fell from ~10 to 1 in the last two decades, that one being fiwiki. The same is true for many languages. What once was a normal thing middle-class families kept in a vitrine is now something old-fashioned and rare. There are no physical copies being printed nor online versions accessible and actively edited. There were online versions, but they were too costly to operate and shut down due to being outcompeted by Wikipedia. There is only fiwiki.

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#62

Post by lencastre »

bawolff wrote: post #56
lifthrasiir wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A federated version of Wikipedia wouldn't displace the centralized Wikipedia (for the same reason that Wikipedia didn't exactly replace traditional encyclopedias), but it has a potential to supplement everything else, and I believe it's worthwhile enough.

> but it has a potential to supplement everything else, and I believe it's worthwhile enough. What do you think it would supplement?

It needs to be on the blotchein! What, too soon?

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#63

Post by chris_wot »

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…

There are now hundreds, if not thousands, of decent editors who have stopped contributing due to toxic, non-productive people. This could be a way for them to continue contributing in a less toxic environment.

The problem with Wikipedia is not consumption of content, but the contribution of content.

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#66

Post by bdjsiqoocwk »

chris_wot wrote: post #60
bdjsiqoocwk wrote: post #3

If there's one thing I DON'T want a new version of, it's Wikipedia.

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.

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#67

Post by Erwin »

ChrisKnott wrote: post #15
lifthrasiir wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most traditional encyclopedias ceased to publish in the book form . Online encyclopedias are pretty much alive.

Their significance in public life was been almost completely replaced by Wikipedia, though

Here in Denmark we have an online lexicon which is managed by (barely paid) scientists and experts. For every article you can see which scientist was involved in making it, what expert is responsible for the area etc. https://denstoredanske.lex.dk/

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#68

Post by sebtron »

omeid2 wrote: post #41
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.

Moderation is not a feature; it is a limitation imposed by powers that be for you if you want to conduct business. Moderation is not a feature.

Yes I would very much like an online encyclopedia to be moderated, thank you.

Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative

#69

Post by oefrha »

chris_wot wrote: post #60
bdjsiqoocwk wrote: post #3

If there's one thing I DON'T want a new version of, it's Wikipedia.

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 have, and it’s not. (I steer clear of politics.) I have been involved in pointless edit wars, but that’s just human nature: give them a comment thread and they’ll argue to death (plenty of case studies on this site, the older wikis where people essentially talk to/past each other on the same page were like that as well), give them a text box they can all edit and they’ll fight to death. “Federated” wiki isn’t going to solve shit in that regard.

If you think “fediverse” isn’t “toxic” when it comes to controversial issues, you haven’t really checked it out.

Post reply on HN