68
What would be a good name for a federated Wikipedia? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
85 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] [S] -2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Wikipedia has very major problems, but almost nobody is aware of them. Give this article a read to get an idea.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Those seem to be the same criticism almost everyone levels at the org, and that are more or less intrinsic to an open platform. mainly that anyone can edit it. How does federation solve these issues, seems to me it would make them much much worse.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Dude admitted higher up that it's not the code, it's the people in charge who are the problem. So all they're really advocating for is starting their own Wikipedia. But of course, theirs will be "the real truth" when in actuality we will just end up with another version.

    Relevant XKCD

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Dude admitted higher up that it’s not the code, it’s the people in charge who are the problem. So all they’re really advocating for is starting their own Wikipedia.

    Replace wikipedia with reddit, and you just discovered the reason lemmy exists. The problem is not just the people, but the code too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years 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".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent