• Manucode@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    172
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’m rather sceptical that this can work as a good alternative to Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s content moderation system is in my opinion both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. To create a better Wikipedia, you would have to somehow innovate in that regard. I don’t think federation helps in any way with this problem. I do though see potential in Ibis for niche wikis which are currently mostly hosted on fandom.org. If you could create distinct wiki’s for different topics and allow them to interconnect when it makes sense, Ibis might have a chance there.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m going to use your comment to tell people to download Indie Wiki Buddy. It’s a plug-in for your browser that redirects Fandom to independent alternatives. I highly recommend it.

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        76
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        7 months ago

        If you think a centralized organization governed by legalism is opaque, just wait until you see a thousand islands of anarchy.

        • ikka@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          7 months ago

          No I think it would actually be great. You could peek at two opposing views on the same article, for example. I’m sure some “instances” would be ripe with disinformation but what’s it to you? Idiots are already lapping up disinformation like candy. It’s not like wikipedia isn’t filled with it already…

          • Kierunkowy74@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            43
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            You could peek at two opposing views on the same article, for example.

            Post-truth as a service.

              • Umbrias@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Not only is the noise ratio low, this seems like a good lesson in “encyclopedias are not primary sources nor arbiters nor authorities on information.” Yes, people use Wikipedia that way anyway. No, baking in an even lower trust system does not seem like it’s actually a fix to any of Wikipedia’s problems.

          • masterspace@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            28
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            I don’t need opposing views on subjects, I need the most accurate one that’s the best researched and sourced.

            • ikka@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Good thing Wikipedia articles are always the best researched and sourced!

              In 2023, Jan Grabowski and Shira Klein published an article in the Journal of Holocaust Research in which they said they had discovered a “systematic, intentional distortion of Holocaust history” on the English-language Wikipedia.[367] Analysing 25 Wikipedia articles and almost 300 back pages (including talk pages, noticeboards and arbitration cases), Grabowski and Klein stated they have shown how a small group of editors managed to impose a fringe narrative on Polish-Jewish relations, informed by Polish nationalist propaganda and far removed from evidence-driven historical research. In addition to the article on the Warsaw concentration camp, the authors conclude that the activities of the editors’ group had an effect on several articles, such as History of the Jews in Poland, Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust and Jew with a coin. Nationalist editing on these and other articles allegedly included content ranging “from minor errors to subtle manipulations and outright lies”, examples of which the authors offer.[367]

              • 367: Grabowski, Jan; Klein, Shira (February 9, 2023). “Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust”. The Journal of Holocaust Research. 37 (2): 133–190. doi:10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939. ISSN 2578-5648. S2CID 257188267.
              • ripcord@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                7 months ago

                I mean, much more often than not, and for the majority of the time, they are.

                What’s the alternative you’re suggesting that would be comparably comprehensive but regularly more reliable…?

                • Christian@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  I mean, much more often than not, and for the majority of the time, they are.

                  You don’t see this statement as dogmatic? How do you feel confident in this other than just a feeling?

                  The majority of the time the articles would require actual expertise to make that evaluation with confidence. An individual can take a few minutes to verify the sources, but for so many topics it’s not realistic to rule out omissions of sources that should be well-known, or even rule out that a source given provides an important broader context somewhere nearby that should be mentioned in the article but isn’t. Can you be sure that the author is trustworthy on this subject? It’s not enough to just check a single page mentioned in a book while ignoring the rest of the book and any context surrounding the author.

                  An expert on a very specialized topic could weigh with accuracy in on whether the wikipedia articles on their subject is well-researched and sourced, but that still won’t mean they can extrapolate their conclusion to other articles.

              • bermuda@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                I don’t think they’re suggesting wikipedia currently is “best researched and sourced,” just that a federated alternative wouldn’t automatically solve that issue.

          • Murdoc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            So you’re saying it would rely on each person to stay objective and use good critical thinking, instead of accepting the first thing they read and fall down an echo-chamber rabbit hole? Wikipedia definitely doesn’t always get it right, but it does try to use a form of institutionalized objectivity.

            • ikka@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              So you’re saying it would rely on each person to stay objective and use good critical thinking, instead of accepting the first thing they read and fall down an echo-chamber rabbit hole?

              This is such a rich statement to make from a social media site of all places. My guy have you even looked at what some of the instances on Lemmy believe in? How is a federated wiki site any different?

              but it does try to use a form of institutionalized objectivity.

              By all means use wikipedia if you wish. As I’ve already pointed out in another comment, Wikipedia is often edited by bad or nationalist actors that do go undetected for a while.

            • ikka@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              We’re talking about the fediverse here. It’s such a niche place and there are already wildly opposing views and information existing on Lemmy itself.

              And that’s not even mentioning the situation on bigger social media platforms and the broader web!

      • Rolder@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Considering some of the ungodly biased wikipedia alternatives I see tossed around on Lemmy, I’m not too confident Ibis will end up any better.

        Besides, first I’m hearing of Wikipedia losing trust.

        • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Imagine it’s post-2001 and George Bush is saying we need to take away Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). You hear there is a controversy around this topic, so you look it up on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article may not even mention the controversy because it came from “fringe sources” or unreliable media, instead its rules mean they only share the message from approved media sources, and that means the article says Iraq definitely has WMDs and something must be done.

          This is how it works now, and always had.

          When I was in college in the second half of the 2000s, we were banned from using Wikipedia as a source due to the way it is built. Many complained but given how many controversies Wikipedia has found itself involved in which includes paid editors, state actors, only being able to use biased journalistic coverage to construct articles, refusing to use other media sources such as established bloggers…

          Trusting Wikipedia at any point was the mistake. It’s not even the Wikimedia foundation that is the issue, it’s the structure of the site. If no approved journalists will speak the truth, your article will be nothing but lies and Wikipedia editors will dutifully write those lies down and lock down the article if you attempt to correct them using sources they personally dislike.

          • Rolder@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            I’ve never had issues with Wikipedia not at least mentioning a controversy on a topic if one exists. Got any current examples?

            • brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              I’ve never had issues with Wikipedia not at least mentioning a controversy on a topic if one exists.

              How would you know?

              • Rolder@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                Never heard of any examples and certainly no one has provided any in this thread. Just been the usual muh western website is evil by default kind of stuff.

  • joenforcer@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    7 months ago

    This feels like a hasty “solution” to an invented “problem”. Sure, Wikipedia isn’t squeaky clean, but it’s pretty damn good for something that people have been freely adding knowledge to for decades. The cherry-picked examples of what makes Wikipedia " bad" are really not outrageous enough to create something even more niche than Wikia, Fandom, or the late Encyclopedia Dramatica. I appreciate the thought, but federation is not a silver bullet for everything. Don’t glorify federation the way cryptobros glorify the block chain as the answer to all the problems of the world.

    • jeremyparker@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      So you’re saying you want a federated wiki that uses a blockchain??? Genius.

      Kidding aside, you’re absolutely right. Wikipedia is one of the very few if not ONLY examples of centralized tech that ISN’T absolute toxic garbage. Is it perfect? No. From what I understand, humans are involved in it, so, no, it’s not perfect.

      If you want to federate some big ol toxic shit hole, Amazon, Netflix, any of Google’s many spywares – there’s loads of way more shitty things we would benefit from ditching.


      Edit: the “federated Netflix” – I know it sounds weird, but I actually think it would be really cool. Think of it more like Nebula+YouTube: “anyone” (anyone federated with other instances) can “upload” videos, and subcription fees go mostly to the creator with a little going to The Federation. Idk the payment details, that would be hard, but no one said beating Netflix would be easy.

      And federated Amazon – that seems like fish in a barrel, or low hanging fruit, whichever you prefer. Complicated and probably a lot more overhead, but not conceptually challenging.