Not everyone’s opinion deserves a platform.
Comment on What is a federated alternative to Wikipedia?
obbeel@mander.xyz 3 weeks agoAll 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.
ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
hexagon527@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
if you want an opinion go to a blog
Rothe@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
We don't need more relativisation of facts, we need the exact opposite.
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?
Steve@communick.news 3 weeks ago
Opinions only obfuscate truth.
More opinions means less truth.
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.
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
blargh513@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
And adding a trashcan full of opinions takes everyone further from truth, not closer.
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.
Steve@communick.news 3 weeks ago
Finding more opinions, not truth.
Slower. They must search through the deluge of opinion that grows exponentially faster than any truth could ever hope to.
Neither are made for truth.
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.
obbeel@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
Let’s say you have two chemical processes. Process A and Process B.
If Process A has an efficiency of 95% and Process B an efficiency of 97%, does that invalidate process A? Something similar can be seen in Bamboo scaffolding in China. Is Bamboo scaffolding better or worse than metal scaffolding?
Now let’s say that Process A has an efficiency of 97% and Process B an efficiency of 97%. Which is the best method?
If centralization in technology and science were the optimal way to go, these questions would be invalid. But things that work only in one way are dumb.
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.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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.
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.”
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.