Comment on What is a federated alternative to Wikipedia?

howrar@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• obbeel@mander.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Also, it just occurred to me using the Lemmy “Search” function to look for it. It is there. The name is “Ibis”.

  source
• obbeel@mander.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  All people could contribute to the different instances and create a web of knowledge. If someone thinks a certain instance opinion of Robert F. Kennedy is wrong, they can contribute to another instance on the same topic giving references (even if different) as well.

  I really think this is a better way of contribution. In this way, everyone gets to have their opinions preserved and at the same time contributing together. And to Truth, no less.

  These instances would be connected by the ActivityPub or other.

  Anyway, I’m sure there is a project like that out there already, and I’m also sure someone posted it here. I just don’t remember the name.

  source

  • Steve@communick.news ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Opinions only obfuscate truth.
    More opinions means less truth.

    source

    • blargh513@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      The world does not need a fucking opinionpedia. We have enough morons filling the internet with bullshit; having an authoritative, factual source for a wide variety of data is a good thing.

      I have no desire to read some crackpot’s opinion on JFK. Objective facts are critical to a healthy society. We can see how bad things get when people tear apart the fabric of knowledge and replace it with misinformation.

      Fuck that right in the ear.

      source

      • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        You understand that you never actually had unmediated access to “the fabric of knowledge”, right? You just had sources that you agreed with

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • obbeel@mander.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      That’s not true. More opinions means more people searching for truth together and finding new things.

      If someone finds something new and share it, that could be reviewed and researched by people faster.

      Centralizing truth has a much more destructive aspect when dealing with truth. This can be seen practically on the difference of reach between the Fediverse and Facebook, for example. Facebook (centralized) is ground for fake and hateful news, while the Fediverse (decentralized) brings meaningful diversity and insightfulness.

      More information also means quicker double-checking for what is true, regardless of political spectrum, even though Ibis main instance took care to add a “No politics” rule. Regardless of this, I see potential for including political debate as well.

      Truth is a constructed entity. A heated debate in Brazil for more than a decade. I’m from Brazil, but Brazil is central on this in the sense that it is leaving the western spectrum to join the Global South, so this topic has been very heated for the last decade, generating real economical and political crisis (economy down 3% and impeachment in 2015/2016). It is felt around these parts in a very special way. So I’m sure that what people called “post-truth” on the original Ibis post is the way to go.

      source

      • Steve@communick.news ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        More opinions means more people searching for truth together and finding new things.

        Finding more opinions, not truth.

        If someone finds something new and share it, that could be reviewed and researched by people faster.

        More information also means quicker double-checking for what is true

        Slower. They must search through the deluge of opinion that grows exponentially faster than any truth could ever hope to.

        Centralizing truth has a much more destructive aspect when dealing with truth. This can be seen practically on the difference of reach between the Fediverse and Facebook, for example.

        Neither are made for truth.

        Truth is a constructed entity.

        Truth is discovered, not constructed. You may be thinking of consensus this whole time. Consensus is absolutely constructed. But consensus isn’t truth. Sometimes they align. More often by accident then by intent.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • magic_lobster_party@fedia.io ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        If you want different opinions you can go to Conservapedia and see how factual the content is there.

        source
      • ilinamorato@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Facebook (centralized) is ground for fake and hateful news, while the Fediverse (decentralized) brings meaningful diversity and insightfulness.

        That’s because Facebook has discovered that fake and hateful news gets lots of clicks and engagement, and boosts their bottom line. Wikipedia has no such profit motive, nor does federated social media. It’s the economics that make them different, not the server paradigm.

        More information also means quicker double-checking for what is true, regardless of political spectrum

        Is…this your first day on the Internet? That is almost never how it works. You get one side posting sourced, verifiable, provable information at best. At worst, both sides are posting cherry-picked half-stories that agree with their preconceived ideas. In the end, no one changes their minds, but the people who are willing to stay and post about it for longer are the ones who are seen later on as the “winners.”

        Truth is a constructed entity.

        I’m reminded of a line from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: “Archaeology is the search for fact, not truth. If it’s truth you’re interested in, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.”

        Similarly, encyclopedias are not where to go for truth. They’re where to go for fact, and fact isn’t decided by consensus.

        source
  • ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Not everyone’s opinion deserves a platform.

    source
  • hexagon527@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    if you want an opinion go to a blog

    source
  • Rothe@piefed.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    We don't need more relativisation of facts, we need the exact opposite.

    source
  • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    People tend to disagree about everything, even the shape of the earth and the effectiveness of vaccines, as mad as they may sound. As a result, a federated encyclopedia would probably diverge and fork numerous times, resulting in countless competing versions. How would you merge them back together?

    source
• it_depends_man@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  First of all, there is the problem of senior editors being in control and if you do anything, they just revert it, or delete it. There are reasons why there are already many different wikis and not just one.

  Then as the other commenter shared, they have the goal of a neutral point of view, but that’s an idealistic goal that can’t be reached. The neutrality with which something is presented is sometimes a problem. For example in political spheres it can make more sense to read two very biased articles from opposing sides, than one that tries to present both sides objectively.

  So it would be really helpful to see side by side comparisons or disambiguation pages that lead to different perspectives.

  And you can sort of do this already, but the point of federation is also that it’s more tightly integrated than “you can have your own forum” which was true before as well.

  source

  • dil@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Neutrality, and they just say massacres maybe happened 1984 sikh one says like 10 ppl died

    source
• TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  It wouldn’t be controlled by one foundation, so agewalls couldn’t be enforced

  source

  • litchralee@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    As a website or service, sure. But the Wikipedia has been available to download for offline use since basically its inception. This is how users in places with poor internet connections can still benefit from the Wikipedia. Certainly, the idea of distributing Wikipedia on disc is a bit odd.

    But whether it be smuggling books across the Iron Curtain, downloading swaths of paywalled scientific papers from an MIT computer, or accessing information about abortion, the pursuit of knowledge is a chiefly human trait and one not easily suppressed. But if all those, the Wikipedia has the best track record for being openly available and free (as in speech, and as in beer).

    source