How long will it take before all of the content on wikipedia is kanged onto this site? I mean, the license explicitly allows that kind of thing.
Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative
91–100 of 266 posts
Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative
#92I 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.
Moderation is fine, but it must not be confused with censorship.
Moderation is when stuff is filtered out for you, because you don't want to see it. If you got to see it by mistake, you would agree that you didn't want to see that - maybe because it was factually wrong, maybe because it was disgusting, maybe because it was just irrelevant. Doesn't matter. All moderation is justified in terms of what the user wants to see.
Censorship is when someone hides something for you, because they don't want you to see it. Maybe because they're afraid it'll turn you into a racist, or into an idiot, or into a slave of consumerism, whatever. Doesn't matter. All censorship is justified in terms of what it will do to the minds of the recipients.
Now, maybe there are some people who are afraid for their own minds. Who are afraid that they will turn into a racist, if exposed to racist propaganda, for instance. But it can't be many. So there's little actual overlap between moderation and censorship.
Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative
#93The 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.
99% of the users you're talking about won't see any benefit in switching to this alternative from Wikipedia anyway, so what's your point?
Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Care to share details/sources for this claim? I haven't experienced any of this toxicity while editing there myself.
I think AARoads might be a good example. https://slate.com/technology/2023/12/wikipedia-road-highway-...
To me the main argument for decentralized wikis is when a community wants to capture deep subject focused knowledge. It's why I created https://wiki.osdev.org. Wikipedia is great but at it's core it will always be an Encyclopedia with a large breadth of knowledge. Specialization in a field is best handled elsewhere with links out from Wikipedia if possible. Especially when there will be original content.
Hyperlinking is all the decentralization you need in some cases. Activitypub for wikis is of interest for people contributing to a collection of specialized knowledge. No one is going to subscribe to all the specialized wikis of the world except maybe search/aggregation systems.
Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative
#95"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 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.
Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just search for anything remotely political and you will find a lot of bias.
I just picked a random political article to which I have no significant connection[0]; I don't notice "a lot of bias"...? For me Wikipedia is consistently amongst the least biased sources on the internet. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party
If you have no significant connection to it, how would you know if it's biased or not?
Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative
#97How long will it take before all of the content on wikipedia is kanged onto this site? I mean, the license explicitly allows that kind of thing.
If I were attempting to create a less "captured" Wikipedia alternative that's what I would do - start from there and try to keep it synchronized while hacking at it slowly, instead of taking a from-scratch approach.
Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative
#98Earlier 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?
I think they're referring to AN/I interactions, more than content in articles. ANI is the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents page, where people come to complain about more or less urgent problems they have with other users' behavior.
It's a lot of interpersonal conflict, so it has a bit of a reputation (redirects to WP:ANI include gems like "Wikipedia:CESSPOOL" and "Wikipedia:Dramaboard")
Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
this could be an alternative to fandom.com
Also, if you want your own free MediaWiki instance, you could try : https://www.wikibase.cloud/
Yes, technically you'll also get a MediaWiki instance there, but the point is really to offer Wikibase (which is a set of extensions upon MediaWiki), the software behind Wikidata.
Re: Ibis, a federated Wikipedia alternative
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> the fact that the project didn't bother with that is kind of off-putting.
Didn't bother with that _yet_. Given the date on the front page, Ibis is apparently fresh out of the gates.
Clothing and styling also provides social signalling and filtering, to stay with your analogy. If this were my early-stage project, I would welcome a little friction to select towards the helpful, the imaginative and the invested. To improve the signal/noise ratio.
Maybe that's the case here. If it is, it seems to be working.