this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
68 points (82.1% liked)

Asklemmy

43940 readers
479 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Let's say someone created a Wikipedia clone with Activitypub support, so you can freely read and edit articles on other servers. Basically the same way that Lemmy works. What would be a good name for such a project? Bonus points if the name goes with a cute animal mascot.

Edit: Here you can see the names of existing Fediverse projects.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fishos@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Let's pretend I agree with the article. You'd still be in the same boat with a federalized wiki. It'd still be hundreds of thousands of volunteer contributors, and that's where all the corruption supposedly lies. Except now it's broken up amongst many many many places, and moderation is that much harder now. So, for the upteenth time, what exactly is Wikipedia THE PLATFORM failing at, and why is the fediverse a solution to that specific problem? What part of wikipedias code or implementation is broken and what will the equivalent federated code/setup look like to combat this? Because if you're just going to point to corrupt people, I have a whole world for you to take a look at. Corruption isn't a uniquely Wikipedia problem and isn't caused by their code.

[–] nutomic@lemmy.ml 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It sounds like you didn't read the article at all, because it clearly explains how Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales himself is involved in many such cases of corruption and manipulation. The code is not the problem, but the fact that a single organization has full control over the site and can decide which contributions get accepted or rejected.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

So, you STILL HAVENT ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

What part of wikipedias code or implementation is the problem? And how will the fediverse solve this?

IF dude is corrupt, what's to stop the next fediwiki from being corrupt too? After all, since it's federated, if I don't like your "facts", I can just defederate and spread my own "facts".

So maybe do some reading of your own and answer my question. What's wrong with the Wikipedia CODE that federated CODE will solve and how? Otherwise all you're really advocating for is starting your own Wikipedia, and no one is stopping you.

This is just "old thing + new buzzword".

[–] nutomic@lemmy.ml 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I bet a year ago you would have said the exact same things about Lemmy, and yet here you are.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I understand the difference between a centralized and decentralized service. I WANT Wikipedia to be centralized. I've said that since the beginning. Objective truth has no business being splintered up.

[–] nix@merv.news 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why are you so heated about this? Wikis are good, decentralized yet compatible services are good. This won’t destroy Wikipedia. you can just ignore it if you don’t want to use it?

[–] fishos@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago

I'm not heated. Just sick of people attaching whatever new buzzword is around to something with no thought beyond that. That's all this is. Just a rehash of blockchain and NFT woo woo.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

What’s wrong with the Wikipedia CODE that federated CODE will solve and how?

Wikipedia is centralized, and doesn't allow collaboration by self-hosted servers. Activitypub allows this. You seem to not understand the point of the site you're using right now.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

I understand the point. I also know that we're currently defederated from hexbear and a few others. So in effect, there is less openness currently in Lemmy than on Wikipedia. How exactly is being able to do that.going to give us objective truth and not just 500 echo chambers?

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

You completely ignored the article, because it answers your question directly.