The real wikipedia renders (perfectly!) without javascript.
This does not render at all without javascript.
Not an alternative.
Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative
81–90 of 266 posts
Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 newcomers mostly see a big bureaucratic machine rejecting their first attempt, per compliance with some long established policy whose full printed details could threaten a rainforest.
The problem is the rules are often (not always) there for a reason, and everyone involved has good intentions (assume good faith! you can generally assume good faith!). But it's definitely not always a pleasant experience for new users, and that's not an easy problem.
Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative
#83Cannot take a project like this seriously in 2024 while looking like total garbage [1] on mobile. [1] https://i.ibb.co/3RWgMGy/IMG-4197.jpg
You believe the interesting, valuable part is the three lines of CSS it will take to improve rendering on baby internet browsers? Not the part where they federated a Wiki-style system?
When meeting somebody for the first time, it's generally a good idea to comb your hair and put on clean clothes. First impressions matter, and since the effort to make a good one would've been a mere "three lines of CSS," the fact that the project didn't bother with that is kind of off-putting.
Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The only thing worse than moderation is the lack of moderation
Not moderating the moderators for their moderation is a lack of moderation.
Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative
#85I 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?
Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative
#86Ibis is a large hotel chain. I am not sure using this name is a good idea.
It's also a bird; in ancient Egyptian mythology, Thoth had head of an ibis and was the god of writing, wisdom, knowledge, art, science, etc.
Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative
#87https://github.com/Nutomic/ibis#federation > applying all associated edits in order. Instances can synchronize their articles with each other, and follow each other to receive updates about articles. Edits are done with diffs which are generated on the backend, and allow for conflict resolution similar to git. I somehow got the impression that CRDT was stand of the art in multiple edits to a common document, and sinc…
Git conflict resolution isn't great, but it's also not much worse than MediaWiki's existing conflict resolution today.
It doesn't matter all that much whether your servers are federated or served from a single domain, the time users spend with the page editor open is much longer than the latency of a federation request. A server somewhere might be horribly out of sync and cause a lot of conflicts, but presumably those are also the scuffy servers with low traffic that don't see a lot of edits per minute anyways.
CRDT is cool, but it's deploying a very shiny new tech for a small problem that doesn't really need anything fancy.
Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative
#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 issues as part of the technical, or ideological underpinnings. It doesn't work that way, and I invite every hopeful to look up the list of alternative Wikis that have sprung up over the years.
Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative
#89Hey if the devs are in here, check out your mobile styling/css, it’s a bit weird
[deleted]
Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative
#90The real wikipedia renders (perfectly!) without javascript. This does not render at all without javascript. Not an alternative.
Not an alternative for you maybe, but a fine alternative for over 99% of the rest of the world running javascript in their browser.