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.
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.
@manucode@nutomic The thing is Wikipedia is losing user' trust because their decisions aren't always clear and some members are clearly tyrannic.
Maybe it won't replace Wikipedia, but maybe it will send a message to improve.
If you think a centralized organization governed by legalism is opaque, just wait until you see a thousand islands of anarchy.
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...
You could peek at two opposing views on the same article, for example.
Post-truth as a service.
Post-truth as a service.
If you read through this page you might even conclude that Wikipedia itself is "post-truth"
At any point in time you could be reading a defaced or propagandized version of an article.
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.
Wikipedia information is often made up of media reports and paid studies so we're already there.
I don't need opposing views on subjects, I need the most accurate one that's the best researched and sourced.
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.
So? Is your alternative free of mistakes and bias?
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...?
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.
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.
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.
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.
...isn't the good idea here to not enhance visibility of disinformation?
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!
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.
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.
I’ve never had issues with Wikipedia not at least mentioning a controversy on a topic if one exists. Got any current examples?
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.
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.
There's a wiki program that natively uses a version control repository, Fossil. You can fork a Fossil wiki and contribute updates back to the original.
It wouldn't be too hard to for example create a few Fossil repositories for different topics where the admins on each are subject matter experts (to ensure quality of contributions), and then have a client which connects to them all and with a scheme for cross linking between them
Peertube already exists for video, it's more like a different take on bittorrent.
Federated Netflix? We already have federated YouTube, it's called PeerTube
Yeah I was thinking more of a paid service, I guess more like Nebula then Netflix, since Netflix just shows TV shows and movies made by big companies. I don't mind paying for things if they're good things, and I know the right people are getting the money for it.
I've just realised that I independently came up with the idea for federated services while imagining how to make yt better over 5 years ago.
Cool!
It only gets corrupted by state department interests if it gets popular, so we must work to make it less popular! (edit: I hope its obvious this is a joke)
I don't think the fact that a small group of people who are easy to manipulate by the US government and millions of edits originating from Langley are a small or invented problem. I'm extremely scared of having resources being centralized and controlled by the US propaganda apparatus and think this is a major problem.
I mean we have seen how the Lemmy devs approach certain topics, and it is definitely not with a preference for openness or free exchange of ideas. There are certain topics here which have a hair trigger for content removal and bans, for extremely petty and minor "transgressions," so the motivation here seems pretty transparent.
The fact is that we can’t rely on any single website to hold the whole world’s knowledge, because it can be corrupted sooner or later. The only solution is a distributed architecture, with many smaller websites connecting with each other and sharing information. This is where ActivityPub comes in, the protocol used by Mastodon, Lemmy, Peertube and many other federated social media projects.
Thank god Lemmy has no malicious users/bad actors/spam issues...
Interesting idea anyway. I would be a bit more worried that when important information is siloed onto instances, each instance becomes a point of failure, and thus can be corrupted or lost.
Good luck :)
Right? Right now with Wikimedia, everything is hosted in one place and moderated in one place. Having everything spread about in various instances with varying degrees of moderation and rules, and the option to block other instances is not great for information quality and sharing.
Wikipedia has strict notability requirements, which is what spawned the popularity wikia/fandom which is a pretty terrible user experience.
Wikipedia also has an infamously pro-neoliberal bias.
The neoliberal bias also fucks with the notability requirements. The amount of citation loops on anything even remotely political is absurd.
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert
“The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative.”
- Malcolm X
Damn i need to read more x quotes
As much as I appreciate Malcolm X, this quote is very much a product of its time.
Not at all. We've seen this our whole lives, and are currently seeing it with the liberal response to the ongoing genocide in Palestine too. They only support emancipatory movements in theory, but in practice are the same as conservatives: they stop when those people are taking direct action for emancipation, specially when it threatens their own positions.
"...who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." - MLK
Liberals didn't like Mandela's use of force to overthrow apartheid in South Africa, and they wouldn't approve of it if it happened now either. The same way they aren't approving of Palestinian resistance groups like Hamas in their war against the apartheid colony "israel".
I've seen fairly universal support from liberal voters both irl and online for Palestine, but not from our politicians.
That was the same with black liberation and apartheid South Africa in MLK and Mandela's time: they support it only in theory. How many of them supported direct action and use of violent force to actually materially change those? How many of them support Hamas, PFLP, etc in our current time now?
The answer is "not many", because MLK, Malcolm X and Mandela were all right about liberals being the same as conservatives in practice.
Hamas is more complicated, because they have also called for the extinction of Israel. That being said I'm pretty sure 90%+ of protests against Israel in the US have been lead by liberals.
Anyways, yeah, they're exactly the same, except for taxes, education, infrastructure, student loan debt, environmental protections, general demeanor, morals, actual family values, LGBTQ+ rights, not committing insurrection, avoiding gerrymandering, not delaying supreme court nominations, following the Constitution, mental health policies, healthcare, generally caring about their fellow human beings... you get the idea.
Hamas is more complicated
See what Malcolm X, MLK, and Mandela meant? You would've said shit like this about MLK's and Mandela's violent riots and sabotages of the government too, and liberals did.
No, the difference is that black people didn't generally call for the extinction of the rest of the united states. They wanted equality, not supremacy. Sometimes situations really are different.
Also I find it interesting that you only responded to that part of my comment.
Take a visit to /r/worldnews, then
Yeah people seem to forget liberalism is a right-wing ideology. One look at Reddit's takes on Palestine says everything.
"In every political community there are varying shades of political opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects. Ten degrees to the left of center in good times. Ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally." - Phil Ochs
Is this implying being right of center is bad? You know what that would mean, right?
You would have to start a long conversation about the overton window, and what left vs right even means to both you and i before tackling this question, friend.
Neoliberalism is stuff like putting children to work in the coal mines and also includes modern day conservatives (especially the nazi ones, a lot of people don't realize how the nazi regime was more or less liberalism taken to its conclusion, which is why it took a war for them to face any opposition from the liberal world order, and even then it was only because they bit the hand that fed them)
Neoliberalism =/= liberalism and especially not leftism (or just "the opposite of conservatism"), which I assume is what Colbert means
Everyone should see how incredibly important this project is, and its potential. Wikipedia is yet another US-controlled and domiciled site, with a history of bribery, scandals, and links to the US state department. It has a near-monopoly on information in many languages, and its reach extends far outside US borders. Federation allows the possibility of connecting to other servers, collaborating on articles, forking articles, and maintaining your own versions, in a way that wikipedia or even a self-hosted mediawiki doesn't.
Also ibis allows limited / niche wikis, devoted to specific fields, which is probably the biggest use-case I can see for Ibis early on.
Congrats on a first release!
If this kills Fandom/Wikia, that would be amazing and somewhat realistic.
Wikipedia also releases all content for free download under a permissive license, so I don't think it's fair to say that the US government is a meaningful threat to its quality of information, especially over non-English languages that are managed by an independent set of volunteers who could pack up their bags and move everything over wherever they want at any point.
Still a cool project and technological diversity is good though.
Wikipedia also releases all content for free download under a permissive license, so I don’t think it’s fair to say that the US government is a meaningful threat to its quality of information
What? How are these two points related at all?
Anyone can fork at any time. The US gov could theoretically hold Wikipedia's brand and servers hostage, but the actually valuable stuff is already mirrored in a decentralized fashion that is completely unrestricted under US and international law.
EDIT: Maybe you meant that the US could covertly vandalize Wikipedia? Maybe, if they keep it very low-key. Editors are used to this kind of stuff though, it happens all the time from all governments since they can just, y'know, edit it. Anything actually impactful will be noticed by the editors which will just cause a fork.
Many of the editors are themselves neoliberal American cultural imperialists and proud of it. The issue isn't direct control so much as an army of useful idiots.
That statement ITSELF is American cultural Imperialism. There are a bunch of languages other than English on Wikipedia...
Also [citation needed].
US-controlled and domiciled site - yes, but I do not see it having a monopoly on information at all. Sure is big, has lots of info, pages, it is a rather good resource in linking stuff to the various concepts that you want to explain others e.g. in an argument.
But the very fact that anyone can edit information makes it not recommendable in academia, for example (really, when I was a student, all my professors were generally not recommending it for information because, as one of them said, even grandma could edit it). So I don't think I would trust ibis on scientific articles either, at least not in the fields I'm directly interested in - maybe for some random trivia/did you know stuff, idk.
limited / niche wikis
But this is where I think it would really shine, indeed, as one could make a wiki about a game or software more easily, probably link pages from different instances, etc. (as others said already).
Don't know what else to say, it just seems like an interesting project. Congrats to anyone involved on this first release and looking forward to see what this project will bring.
I don't think a federated wiki is solving any of the problems of wikipedia. You've just made a wiki that is more easily spammed and will have very few contributors. Yes, Wikipedia is centralized, but it's a good thing. No one has to chase down the just perfect wikipedia site to find general information, just the one. The negative of wikipedia is more its sometimes questionable moderation and how its english-centric. This has more to do with fundamentally unequal internet infrastructure in most countries than anything though. Imperialism holds back tech.
I agree that it might be fine for niche wikis but again, why in the world would you ever want your niche wiki federated? Sounds like a tech solution looking for the wrong problem.
I think it solves the problems of Fandom, but yeah Wikipedia is good
Wikipedia is good
until you want to learn about a group or country opposed to the west and then it's about as educational as stormfront
Wikipedia doesn't replace books. In my comment at least that's why I was specific about "general information". I think everyone must be aware that when it comes to Wikipedia on history or current events, it will largely be from a liberal and pro-west perspective. Not all the time, and usually the references and further reading sections point in more interesting directions. But this is far more valuable than the most boring so-called Marxist wikis. If you want critical history, go read historians like Gerald Horne, read first-hand accounts from journalists like Edgar Snow and so on.
Besides the purely political, wikipedia is also good for overviews on technical and scientific interests. Even with the negatives of wikipedia, I'd take it any day over some decentralized spam fest where its a gamble if you found the best version of some article. Not to mention core issues of the fediverse, such as whether the hypothetical wiki instance you found yourself on will sustain itself long-term.
Some days I wonder if the core Lemmy developers have drifted further towards anarchist politics and philosophy..
what is stormfront
Nazi forum
Self-hosting any wiki software solves the problems of Fandom, surely? I fail to see how federation solves any of Fandom's issues.
No, for the same reason forums can't replace reddit. Self hosted wikis have been around before and after fandom. The reason it became popular was giving you all the fandom wikis together, one account, discoverable, user friendly so regulars can contribute. If I have to sign up to every fandom wiki I can contribute to, learn a new interface (likely something old and not mobile friendly) and rebuilt up any reputation to gain extra editing rights... I just won't.
Ibis then in theory allows you to use one account, federate your reputation, use one interface, with lots of third party options if you don't like the official one (if lemmy is any indication) and have discoverability of new wikis.
There is actually at least one other: Conservapedia. It's for people who live in a weird right-wing fantasy land.
Conservapedia views Albert Einstein's theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism, ...
ithinkihadastroke
sometimes questionable moderation
That's one way of putting it. Another way is "ramrodding the narratives of anglo chauvinists that are to the right of even the neoliberal historical consensus".
Arguably even Fandom / Wikia is ruined by plain old greed more than centralization. What's wrong with it isn't content, it's the fact every page loads seven ads, a roll of clickbait, and a goddamn Discord server. A weird blog site for editable text and tiny images would work fine if it wasn't twisted to feed Engagemagog.
This is almost entirely misdirected. The success of Wikipedia is from its human structures, the technical structure is close to meaningless. To propose a serious alternative you'd have to approach it from a social direction, how are you going to build a moderation incentive structures that forces your ideal outcomes?
Federation isn't a magic bullet for moderation, alone it creates fractal moderation problems.
When you're a hammer, all problems look like nails. That's most engineers' perspective to social problems.
Source: am engineer
Get gamers involved, they've been starving for a replacement to the max-enshitified fandom wikia
Sounds good, please share the announcement in relevant places.
Y'know, I was just going to mention Fandom. I have no idea how well this will work for Wikipedia, but I know something like this can work great for games.
Fandom is straight up harmful to game communities, and I think federation makes a lot of sense with per-game / series / etc. instances.
I'll look at this a bit more later, quite interesting idea.
Yeah I think that's where the potential is, not Wikipedia
What a fantastic idea!
Guess I'm out of the loop. What happened with/to fandom wikia?
They sold out and now is an advertising mess.
Mr. Wikipedia wanted to make money off wikipedia but couldn't because it was a nonprofit, so made Wikia to profit off of.
Worst they could do on Wikipedia is e-beg and then spam the email of anyone who actually sends them money (fucking assholes) but the limits are off for Wikia they can absolutely cake that as shit full of ads and spyware as they can fit.
Death to fextra!
But... wikimedia is already self hostable.
Wikimedia isn't written in Rust, so it's useless /s
Instead of individual, centralized websites there will be an interconnected network of encyclopedias. This means the same topic can be treated in completely different ways. For example geology.wiki/article/Mountain may be completely different different from poetry.wiki/article/Mountain. There can be Ibis instances strictly focused on a particular topic with a high quality standard, and others covering many areas in layman’s terms.
I don't think something like this exists yet(?), so it'll be cool to see how this will be like.
Which also means that marxist.wiki/article/communism will be completely different from libertarian.wiki/article/communism. I think I will take Wikipedia's attempt at impartiability over a "wikipedia" destined to just devolve into islands of "alternative facts"
But then again, you could say this about Lemmy and Reddit too.
Lemmy took 5 years to get to this point. Let's give this a few years and see how it turns out.
I am okay with bias in my social media.
Far less so in my encyclopedia.
You won't find any encyclopedia (or anything really) you can use then since everything is biased towards something. Wikipedia has a massive neoliberal bias for example. And a heavily biased leadership as linked in this post.
I would love to read both a marxist.wiki/article/communism and a libertarian.wiki/article/communism - opinions are great, fine & dandy, but at the end of the day, I don't want a marxist/grasshopper vs. a libertarian/grasshopper, and I DEFINITELY do not want a conservative/vaccine vs. a liberal/vaccine each feeding misinformation from a slightly different and both-sides-incorrect approach. The enormous EFFORTS that go into finding neutral and balanced information are worthwhile, imho, as is having a central repository that would not need to be individually updated hundreds or thousands of times.
A mirroring/backup process would just as easily perform the same stated goal of preserving human knowledge - and these are already done. Arguably the federation model works best for social media, a bit less so I am told for Mastodon, but I think would not work well at all for an encyclopedia style.
But don't mind me, I am simply grieving the death of facts and reason over here... - the fact that we would even want to contemplate different "alternative (sets of) facts" at all means that we already have lost something that was once good. :-(
Everyone has implicit biases. It takes a huge amount of effort to work past them and write content that is considered unbiased. The latter is a group effort to achieve consensus, which even in the hard sciences is often difficult, but Wikipedia has had fantastic successes there - e.g. look at any controversial subject (someone mentioned BP, and how half the page was about their "controversies", which does not say that they are true, nor false, but acknowledges that they exist all the same - most people, with the exclusion of the BP execs I am sure - would consider that to be a state that is unbiased).
In fact, the OP brings up a major source of bias to begin with: if someone wants to federate a blogging website, why would we even talk about it - just DO IT!:-) However, the name "Wikipedia" was mentioned b/c it is popular. This introduces a bias whereby the rest of the discussion will be predicated upon the lines of what Wikipedia is vs. what it is not. Even though the OP made it clear that "Wikipedia" is not the goal of that project at all. Even dragging its name into it has thus introduced a source of bias, rather than allowing everyone here to discuss the merits of this proposal on its own, as if made from scratch rather than a Wikipedia-clone ("good" connotations?) or Wikipedia-wanna-be ("bad" ones?) or Wikipedia-whatever.
Are you of the opinion that people don't already use internet resources, libraries, interviews and other
educational avenues to inform themselves? Many here seem to be needing an education on how to use Wikipedia responsively, they seem to think that one is unable to engage with a wikipedia article critically.
I just checked the article for BP, as one of the blogs linked here claimed that over 44% of BP's wikipedia page was corporate speak. The 'controversies' section is one third to half the wikipedia page in length. As a jumping-off point for further study, it is perfectly adequate.
Are you sure that you meant that to respond to me - and not e.g. the xkcd comic one below?
Fwiw I totally agree with you, and I think that's a fantastic example that you brought forth - kudos b/c I think a specific example really does add something to this conversation. Just as it does so on many wikipedia pages. There are ways to phrase most things that can be agreed upon by most people, by wrapping it in the proper context.
At a guess then, they do not think that the language describing communism is extreme enough, and so want to bypass working together to achieve consensus and instead strike off and make their own internet. But I could be wrong. Then again, the burden of clearly explaining what they want to do is on them, so if so, I don't take all of that blame.:)
@Quacksalber@Alsephina Wikipedia is already filled with a LOT of fake information and biased
Wikipedia’s attempt at impartiability
Reading the links in this post alone shows wikipedia is already one of those biased islands lol
And with this system you will definitely see other attempts at impartial wikis too.
Ik I'm late to the party, but I think this would be soooo much better than Wikipedia for finding useful information on niche or controversial topics.
Instead of being limited to Wikipedia's contributors and having to accommodate or guess their biases, and have a terrible, incomplete "controversies" section on every page, you could browse the same page across instances whose biases are much more explicit and see what each group determines is most important about the topic.
Instead of having to find a single mutually agreed upon article where each "faction" has their own set of issues with the content, you can now browse pages that each of those factions feel best represent their POV, and use the sum of them to form an opinion where no information is omitted.
Obviously lots of instances will have complete bullshit, but it's likely enough that you will find instances that have well-sourced material from a diverse breadth of viewpoints, and can pick an instance that federates to your preferred criteria for quality. Misinfo will exist regardless, and if they get it from a federated wiki, it will probably be at least marginally better quality or better cited than the Facebook or Reddit posts they were getting it from before.
It would be useful for the "what does X group think about Y" aspect alone.
There's also nothing stopping diverse, consensus-based instances from popping up. Or lots of niche academic instances with greater depth on their areas of expertise.
So like Fandom without the ads or miraheze, but fediverse-adapted
Promising...
That's exactly what i was thinking. It replace fandom.
Cheers to this new alternative together, fellow crab brother...
As an academic I love this. On Wikipedia there's actually fights among different expert disciplines going on. It is better to allow different instances operated by different discipline summarize knowledge from their own perspective.
To be fair, those are good faith arguments with the goal being to determine the real, objective truth. Hopefully.
That is not how this tool would be used, in the hands of people not trained in the art of socratic discourse. Just imagine how the situation in Gaza would end up being described.
Avoiding conflict is not always a useful aim.
I can respect your comment. The problem with Wikipedia's scholarly articlesI wanted to raise was that some group of researchers (or businesses) wash away others' views. In other times, mathematicians try to satisfy everyone from different disciplines, and write a very abstract article that covers everyone's view yet is too academic and hardly readable to most readers who actually need Wikipedia.
The goal of academic research is to inform the best and brightest of the real information. For e.g. academic extensions to how nuclear power works, or for engineers to have a working basis to build a viable power plant, and so on.
The goal of an encyclopedia though is arguably different: to make people "feel" informed, without necessarily being so? Or at least to serve as a starting point for further studies, maybe?
Science marches ever onwards, and eventually that gets collected into textbooks, and even later into encyclopedias. Or maybe now we're working from a new model where it could skip that middle step? But science still seems leagues ahead of explanations to the masses, and whereas in science the infighting is purposeful and helpful (to a degree), the infighting of making something explainable in a clearer manner to more people is also purposeful and helpful, though federating seems to me to be giving up on making a centralized repository of knowledge, i.e. the very purpose of an "encyclopedia"?
Science reporting must be decentralized, but encyclopedias have a different purpose and so should not be, maybe? At least not at the level of Wikipedia.
If you're correct, to me the usefulness of Wikipedia is actually different from that of encyclopedia, and the pattern I'm arguing goes against that.
Fair. Though that capability - e.g. the identical wikia software, implementing the MediaWiki protocol - already exists. Maybe federating it would somehow improve it, though it would also open it up to have greater vulnerabilities especially when non-scientists get involved, e.g. a w/article/conservative/vaccine vs. a w/article/real/vaccine. Scientists can handle these controversies, but people who do not have the base knowledge with which to properly understand, e.g. ivermectin, are not going to be able to distinguish between the truth vs. the lies.
So the people that would put it to the best use don't absolutely need it - sure it would be nice but peer-reviewed articles already exist - while the ones for whom it would be most damaging are almost certainly going to be the primary target audience.
This is super exciting. I think one of the things a lot of people are missing here is the potential for small wikis to augment existing fediverse communities. Reddit’s killer feature has always been the massive treasure trove of information for hobbyists and niche interests. There is huge potential in the fediverse to take advantage of that sort of natural collaborative knowledge building process.
Our SLRPNK Dokuwiki integration is finally working now. Let me know if you want to test-drive it in the coming days.
lemmy.dbzer0.com also has a DjangoWiki attached, with lemmy integration. How did you do your integration?
Nothing fancy, just account linking via the Lemmy database.
Can you share the deets on how you did it? Currently I'm doing it via API which requires people to add a specific string to their username
It is not well known but there have been numerous scandals which put this trust into question. For example in 2012, a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation UK used his position to place his PR client on Wikipedia’s front page 17 times within a month. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales made extensive edits to the article about himself, removing mentions of co-founder Larry Sanger. In 2007, a prolific editor who claimed to be a graduate professor and was recruited by Wikipedia staff to the Arbitration Committee was revealed to be a 24-year-old college dropout. These are only a few examples, journalist Helen Buyniski has collected much more information about the the rot in Wikipedia.
I don't really understand how decentralization would address the trust and legitimacy problems of Wikipedia. I do see value in adding community wikis to Lemmy, however.
Wikipedia got as bad as it did because neoliberals had gotten into positions of power and kicked everyone else out. They weren't the people who made the site (it was one guy who did like 90% of the articles) but they are the ones who made it the shithole that it is today.
Besides still needing to establish that a) wikipedia is bad today (as opposed to just flawed), you also need to establish b) what about this would entice people over from wikipedia and c) if it did succeed, then why wouldn't whoever got into positions of power with wikipedia get into the same positions of power on the biggest instances?
The problem I see with federated wikis is potential creation of echo chambers. Current Wikipedia is often a political tug-of-war between different ideological crowds. For instance, on Russian Wikipedia, Russian Civil War article is an infamous point of struggle between communist and monarchist sympathizers, who often have to settle at something resembling a compromise.
If both sides had their own wikis, each would have very biased interpretation of events. A person who identifies as either communist or monarchist would visit only the corresponding wiki, only seeing narrative that fits into their current world view, never being exposed to opposing opinions.
Could this not also be seen as advantageous? If one wants to get nuanced understandings, they could read from multiple wikis written with multiple perspectives, without the tug of war. Presently, as a centralized platform, there's the back and forth you mentioned with neither side being satisfied.
Assuming people cite their sources and more reputable instances are more developed, this allows for sharing lesser heard perspectives. A flat-earth wiki isn't going to dominate, because you can't get valid sources for that.
Overall, cautiously optimistic. I like the idea, and think that as a framework, this is a great thing! It remains to be seen what will come of this, though.
It's only mostly broken. And mostly broken means slightly working!
Im not good at frontend development, my goal was to create a very basic frontend which works to show off the project. Going forward I will definitely need help to improve the design or create an entirely new frontend in a different language.
Anyway the main thing about this project is the working federation, but without a basic frontend it would be very difficult to showcase.
Maybe making it work as an headless API and develop a linker to an existing Wiki like Dokuwiki would work better? Something like this plugin that syncs a Dokuwiki with a git backend: https://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:gitbacked
I'm learning Leptos too, I'll watch your progress when lost, good luck !
Maybe you can make some contributions to Ibis ;)
A distributed knowledge base is indeed an excellent concept since it enhances resilience against potential disruptions or manipulations compared to a centralized database like Wikipedia. By distributing servers across numerous countries and legal jurisdictions, it becomes more challenging for any single entity to censor the content. Furthermore, the replication of data through federation ensures higher durability and reliability in preserving valuable information. Kudos on making it happen!
The idea of a federated, decentralized Wikipedia alternative is intriguing, but implementing it successfully faces major hurdles. Federating moderation policies and privileges across different instances seems incredibly complex. I believe it would also require some kind of web of trust system. Quality control is also a huge challenge without centralized oversight and clear guidelines enforced universally.
While it could potentially replace commercial wiki farms like Wikia/Fandom for niche topics, realistically replacing Wikipedia's dominance as a general reference work seems highly ambitious and unlikely, at least in the short term. But as they say - shoot for the stars, and you may just land on the moon.
That said, ambitious goals can spur innovation. Even if Ibis falls short of usurping Wikipedia, it could blaze new trails and pioneer federated wiki concepts that feed back into Wikipedia and other platforms. The federated model allowing more perspectives and focused communities is worth exploring, despite the technical obstacles around distributed moderation and content integration. The proof-of-concept shows the core pieces are in place as a starting point.
as they say - shoot for the stars, and you may just land on the moon.
I've only ever heard, "shoot for the moon, [and] even if you miss you'll land among the stars", which is the phrase as it was first said by Norman Vincent Peale. But maybe swapping "moon" and "stars" is a common enough variant of the phrase that I just haven't heard before.
Yeah, you are right. I've always remembered it this way because it makes more sense to me.
I can see why. Although the stars occupy a larger portion of the sky, they are also further away than the moon. So either version of the phrase makes sense in its own way.
More critically, the proof-of-concept so far appears to lack any real work on moderation tools or implementing a web of trust system. These would be absolutely vital components for a federated encyclopedia to have any chance of controlling quality and avoiding descending into a sea of misinformation and edit wars between conflicting "truths." Centralized oversight and clear enforced guidelines are key reasons why Wikipedia has been relatively successful, despite its flaws.
Without a robust distributed moderation system in place, a federated encyclopedia runs the risk of either devolving into siloed echo chambers pushing various agendas, or becoming an uncoordinated mess making it impractical as a general reference work. The technical obstacles around federating content policies, privileges and integrated quality control across instances are immense challenges that aren't obviously addressed by this early proof-of-concept.
While novel approaches like federation are worth exploring, straying too far from Wikipedia's principles of neutral point-of-view and community-driven policies could easily undermine the entire premise. Lofty goals of disrupting Wikipedia are admirable, but successfully replacing its dominance as a general reference work seems extremely unlikely without solving these fundamental issues around distributed content governance first.
Not sure what the use case is for a federated wiki. It lets you... edit a different wiki with your account from your initial one? View pages from other wikis using your preferred website's UI? Know which wikis are considered to have good info by the admins of the wiki you're browsing from?
This is presented as a solution to Wikipedia's content moderation problems, but it doesn't do much against that that wouldn't also be done by just having a bunch of separate, non-federated wikis that link to each others' pages. The difference between linking to a wiki in the federation network, and linking to one outside the federation network, is that the ui will be different and you'd have to make a new account to edit things.
I suppose it makes sense for a search feature? You can search for a concept and select the wiki which approaches the concept from your desired angle (e.g. broad overview, scientific detail, hobbyist), and you'd know that all the options were wikis that haven't been defederated and likely have some trustworthiness. With the decline of google and search engines in general, I can see this being helpful. But it relies on the trustworthiness of your home wiki's admin, and any large wiki would likely begin to have many of the same problems that the announcement post criticizes Wikipedia for. And all this would likely go over the head of any average visitor, or average editor.
I don't know. I'm happy this exists. I think it's interesting to think about what structures would lead to something better than Wikipedia. I might find it helpful once someone creates a good frontend for it, and then maybe the community can donate to create a free hosting service for Ibis wikis. Thank you for making it.
I think this would be immensely helpful for niche topics, but I don't really see it as much of a direct competitor to Wikipedia. Interwiki links have been a thing for a long time, but they're not really used that much. They also are used by specialized shortcut syntax instead of using a more intuitive domain name syntax. So let's say you have a wiki for the Flash TV show and you want to link to an article in the Flash comic wiki. This would be great for that. Maybe have "search related wikis" as an option to search some hand picked wikis?
But for going head-to-head with Wikipedia, I don't really see it so much. Part of the success of Wikipedia is that it forces editors to work in a single namespace, debate the contents, use a common set of policies, and so on. There is also a lot of policy, process, human knowledge, and institution built up over the years geared solely towards writing an encyclopedia. If you go to Wikipedia, it may not be perfect, but it will have gone through that process. Trying to wade through hundreds of wikis to find a decent article does not sound like a treat, especially if effort gets spread across multiple wikis.
Like with Lemmy, I am excited to see where this goes. And nutomic, congratulations with your daughter!
I think this would be immensely helpful for niche topics
This.
I dont know how many people here are aware of Fandom, formerly known as Wikia. Basically what they are trying to do is collecting niche topic wikis in order to profit as much as possible. Very much criticized over the years by contributors for their practices.
Ibis could be the answer for niche wikis who dont want to be associated with Fandom/Wikia.
Fandom was exactly what I was thinking of. Just maybe without having more ads than content. That I'm not a fan of, especially for volunteer supplied content.
Extra thought on search: add a weighting option so individual servers can be searched, but don't come up as high in the rankings. So keeping with the superhero theme, have the Flash comic wiki with a 1 weighting and the more general DC comic and Arrowverse wikis with 0.8 weightings.
Based on how ...certain... Lemmy instances have handled themselves, the intention to deal with "Wikipedia content moderation" here is almost certainly not to make a freer version of Wikipedia, but to make heavily censored content enclaves with the same obvious editorial restrictions concerning certain topics you find on certain large instances.
Wikipedia is not a Big Tech nor a commercial enterprise prone to enshittification nor it profits from surveillance capitalism. We don't need another, competing, universal source of enclopedical information. Wikipedia, on contrary to X, Reddit, Facebook, etc. is not going anywhere. Any self-styled Wikipedia alternative ended up dead, thematic, or biased by design.
However there are many thematical and fan wikis hosted on Fandom, which itself is a commercial company and there were already some contoversies concerning it. Wikis on Fandom are very resource-intensive compared to Wikipedia or independent thematical wikis.
Ability to edit at several wikis from the same account without being tied to Fandom could be one of things that Ibis offers and could benefit independent wiki sites.
And of course, MediaWiki is free software and federation could be added as a functionality.
Wikipedia is biased by design though...
Everything is biased. Even saying something as simple as "grass is green" is biased, it has the bias of normal colour perception. I'm colour blind and don't see grass as green.
No shit! So it's not exactly a counter-point to the concept of a "Wikipedia alternative"
Any self-styled Wikipedia alternative ended up dead, thematic, or biased by design
With biased by design I have meant something like Conservapedia, RationalWiki, etc.. They do not try to make neutral point of view, as is (or at least should be) applied on Wikipedia.
Each instance would ideally have their own standards for neutrality or bias that they see fit. It's no different from self-hosted wikis except with the federation concept appllied on top of it. I'm sure someone will create an instance that is a straight up clone of wikipedia, another person will create an instance for everything pro-communism / pro-china, someone will create a strictly anti-theism wikipedia, etc.
I don't see anything wrong or weird about this, the skepticism this project is receiving is stupid. It's nothing new under the sun.
First of all, congratulations for bringing a baby girl into this world!! You must be really excited! I am very happy for you!
This looks very cool. I set up a wiki (https://ibis.mander.xyz/) and I will make an effort to populate it with some Lemmy lore and interesting science/tech 😄 Hopefully I can set some time aside and help with a tiny bit of code too.
Thank you :)
I think it may have a problem on some screens.
Ran straight here to say don't try on mobile!
When working on lemmy is too relaxing so you need another project to keep you busy :D
I was waiting for someone else to create a project like this. But it didnt happen so I had to write it myself when things became a bit calmer with Lemmy.
You call this calm? :D
But I know the feeling. I didn't really want to run a lemmy but reddit made it intolerable not to and here we are. I should be working on my main project >_<
Nowadays I can easily handle all Github notifications within less than an hour. After the Reddit blackout there were so many notifications that I couldnt even read all the issues, let alone respond. So I had to unsubscribe from issue notifications for some months.
Well, I was more referring to all the drama around lemmy lately due to lacking mod tools etc
Right but that's already over. And anyway Ibis was mostly finished since some weeks, just needed some minor work to push it over the finishing line.
With all due respect, but that's not over. There's still a significant lack of mod tooling on lemmy.
I mean the drama about it is over. We are constantly working to improve mod tools but it takes time.
*eats popcorn*
I feel like mom and dad are talking and I am sitting nodding along
There's Jerboa as well, lol
I'm not sure this really has potential to kick off outside of niche wikis. But maybe that's still good enough.
Though I hope this isn't taking too much of your time from Lemmy development! :)
It can get a bit boring working on the same project for so many years. Having a different project gives me more motivation.
There are many opinions about practically everything - even within STEM. I'm sure some will want an alternative wiki if Wikipedia doesn't state the opinion that they agree with.
I do notice one unfortunate difference from Wikipedia immediately: Wikipedia is functional with scripts blocked, Ibis Wiki is not. I'm sure that even Wikipedia nowadays has some functions that don't work without scripts, but a wiki that won't even display its landing page without scripts enabled, is dead while still in the gate.
The frontend is very primitive right now, but it could definitely be made to work without JS.
@nutomic I'd recommend that, albeit not everybody browses with scripts disabled, so not it's not necessarily the automatic death knell I suggested.
But I'm curious to see how it goes.
Right, and what would also be nice is to be able to export articles in different formats, for example markdown, to conveniently read them in your favourite reader application.
I'm going to just say that I'm exteremely sceptical on how this will turn out, just because there has been quite a few Wikipedia forks that have not exactly worked out despite the best interests and the stated objectives they had.
Now - Wikipedia isn't exactly an entity that doesn't have glaring problems of its own, of course - but I'm just saying that the wiki model has been tried out a lot of times and screwed up many times in various weird ways.
There's exactly two ways I can see Wikipedia forks to evolve: Crappily managed fork that is handled by an ideological dumbass that attracts a crowd that makes everything much worse (e.g. Conservapedia, Citizendium), or a fork that gets overrun by junk and forgotten by history, because, well, clearly it's much more beneficial to contribute to Wikipedia anyway.
I was about to respond with a copy of the standard Usenet spam response form with the "sorry dude I don't think this is going to work" ticked, but Google is shit and I can't find a copy of that nonsense anymore, so there.
Its definitely an experiment and I dont know how it will work in practice. But we have this technology, so I wanted to take advantage of it and let people give it a try. At worst Ibis wont be adopted, then I just wasted a few months of time. At best it could turn into a much better Wikipedia, so the upside potential is huge.
I've been scared to use that ever since they actually solved "Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money".
Scholars usually portray institutions as stable, inviting a status quo bias in their theories. Change, when it is theorized, is frequently attributed to exogenous factors. This paper, by contrast, proposes that institutional change can occur endogenously through population loss, as institutional losers become demotivated and leave, whereas institutional winners remain. This paper provides a detailed demonstration of how this form of endogenous change occurred on the English Wikipedia. A qualitative content analysis shows that Wikipedia transformed from a dubious source of information in its early years to an increasingly reliable one over time. Process tracing shows that early outcomes of disputes over rule interpretations in different corners of the encyclopedia demobilized certain types of editors (while mobilizing others) and strengthened certain understandings of Wikipedia’s ambiguous rules (while weakening others). Over time, Wikipedians who supported fringe content departed or were ousted. Thus, population loss led to highly consequential institutional change.
@manucode@feddit.de I am also in agreement that I don't know how a federated wikipedia solves what made Wikipedia so great. Per the paper above, fringe editors saying "the flatness of the world is a debated topic" gradually got frustrated about having to "present evidence" and having their work reverted all the time, and so voluntarily left over time. And so an issue page goes from being "both sides" to "one side is a fringe idea".
From reading the Ibis page, this seems a lot closer to fandom than the wikipedia. Different encyclopedias where the same page name can be completely different.
I saw a bird today that I wasn't able to recognize - and I've probably seen it for the first time in my life. Most probably, it escaped from the nearby wildlife sanctuary. It was trying to fight a large mongoose, and the screams were frighteningly loud. It looked weird, but beautiful. Kind of like a stork. I was convinced that this bird was a migratory bird.
It was completely black or brown, I could not figure it out. Had a patch of white on it's wings. And the head had a little bit of red color, but my eyes are bad, so I couldn't tell it. Guess the name of the bird?
Red-naped ibis, also known as the Indian black ibis. Coincidence?
Interesting, maybe it wanted to tell you about this project :D
Synchronicity!
Gesundheit!
¡Muchas gracias!
Additionally my daughter will be born within a few weeks, so there won’t be any time for programming.
Congratulations! I hope nothing but the best comrade!
Where are you reading this?
Follow the link in the post
I did. It loads an empty page
Update: it just says "Loading..." And it never loads
This serves well as a statement.
It is, however, delusional to think that at this point anything can become a viable alternative to Wikipedia, unless Wikimedia collapses because of reasons from within.
All the more reason to push this project forward, as a redundancy.
You can already download the entirity of Wikipedia. If it ever fell, the content could easily be restored elsewhere.
Also, I don't think I understand why this should be federated.
The infrastructure is already there in that case, to restore it, and it would be less likely to fall.
Having no sole source of information hosting in an encyclopedic format is safer.
But having an open data project full of information that's actively contributed to and fact checked, with copies over many servers, is much better than having the same thing but fragmented. I still don't see a reason. If it was something else or corporate driven, I wouldn't bat an eye. But Wikipedia?
You can have all of that good if you want to, but being federated allows people to break off if they want. It also allows for niche servers.
So contribute to the statement.
When Wikipedia collapses, it will be too late to create an alternative from scratch.
Interesting project! Can you explain the vision a bit more - I understand that every instance can have their own version of an article, but how would a user know which version of an article is most relevant to them to read (and maybe even contribute to)?
Thats a good question. Obviously the first place to look for articles would be those hosted by your local instance. Then the instance admin could also maintain an article with links to relevant articles. And I suppose later there could be some software features for discovery, but I havent thought about that yet.
Yay Holocaust denialism /s
Oh man I can't wait to see what hexbear will do with this, I'm sure people will love to use a platform that actively denies genocides and supports dictators
You're thinking of alot of the .world users lol denying the current genocide in Palestine
You've picked a nice name :) I'm glad you didn't choose fedipedia.
I just created an account on open.ibis.wiki and created "Lemmy" article but it's not shown on ibis.wiki 🤔 I guess it still has a long way to go, but I think it's a nice project 👍
Right ibis.wiki wasnt following open.ibis.wiki. I did that now, made an edit and it got federated as expected.
Nice. I guess "Summary" is something like git commit message. I thought it more as the summary of the article :)
Yes true.
…why?
You are underestimating, by a mile, the editorial effort that goes into fighting scam and spam, vandalism and lies. Wikipedia does have a support structure to do that, I doubt instance admins have the same kind of resources.
Also, any such wiki has to be allow-list only by default. Any open wiki is vandalized with spam and hate speech almost immediately. Open federation would make this trivial.
That structure is extremely corrupted though. And Lemmy shows that volunteers can handle this kind of stuff. Though Ibis will definitely need a lot of mod tools.
That page starts by complaining that alternative medicine is represented negatively. Going to skip the rest of the blog lol
How could the bias be so widespread they wonder!
Of course no single site is perfect. Editors may always have ulterior motives. That is what the editing history is for. But with a federated wiki, the only thing you'll get is multiple different versions that all present their oen little "truths" and at that point you can just go back and search the entire internet for blogs, just like the website you sent me is a blog.
I think thats better than having our single "truth" controlled by a corrupt organization from a different country, different language and different culture. With federation there can be independent wikis for my local country or city.
You can already do that. How does federation help?
By allowing users to interact between different wiki instances. Just like you can interact with Lemmy instances from KBin.
Thank you for working on this in addition to Lemmy!
The abuse potential this has feels quite concerning. You've just given kiwifarms a decentralized tool to host its stalking profiles on people.
I'm honestly curious about what abuse potential this has compared to other federated platforms, because "it could be used to host dox" is a complaint that I've heard about Lemmy as well.
Gabe, KiwiFarm started from the forum section of CWC Wiki (in fact, the name KiwiFarms itself is a corruption of "CWC Wiki Forums"), which was hosted on MediaWiki, so "not letting KiwiFarms host their own wiki" is a ship that has long since sailed.
I really fail to see how this has more abuse potential than hosting an independent wiki on MediaWiki, even if the content they host there is... not very nice, to say the least. If anything, there is more control against abuse since they would just be defederated.
Every tool a can be abused... If we were not making tools based on their harm potential wed still be in the cave. People said the same thing about Gab and mastodon.
Cool I hope it works out, more alternatives aren't a bad thing.
Thank you for that. It will probably work well in pair with Lemmy. The ability to compile a community or instance knowlegde out of the comment section and to an organised wiki will be very nice.
But if someone here reading as the time and skill, the sofware the fediverse is lacking is tv tracker.
I think a centralized view of knowledge that Wikipedia provides is great, plus the record of changes and discussions help capture some of the nuances people are aiming for.
That said where this really accelerates is when bias is wanted. For example the Arch wiki vs Debian wiki vs Wikipedia all SHOULD have biases that cater to their specific audience, even if there is obvious overlap.
Interestingly use of wikidata could help create aknowlledge graph associating parts of the fediwikiverse and we might be able to see a dream of mine ; dynamic knowledge content. Where I might be an expert in databases so I can get the condensed version of how postgres but get the beginners version of kubernetes on an article about deploying them together
Interesting project and good luck on this.
Did you not consider something like Codeberg to host this? Many open source devs do not trust MS or their stewardship of Github, and considering the aim of this project is against American control of information, surely this really needs serious consideration.
Many open source devs do not want to use Github at all now.
That is true but most developers are still on Github, which hasn't been affected by enshittification yet. I also have to keep using Github because of Lemmy, so I don't want to switch back and forth between two separate platforms.
However once Gitea starts federation we definitely want to migrate Lemmy to a selfhosted instance, and probably Ibis too.
They sunset Atom to push VS code despite assurances they wouldn't.
Co-pilot slurping open source code and spitting out code without license attribution. One example of this was when it spat out Quake 2 code and comment verbatim.
Enshittification started, you just ain't ready to see it yet. MS has a track record and will continue.
2 git hosts is just 2 tabs and by the time federation happens, you've already got vendor lock in because of all the issues. I doubt migration of those will be straightforward.
First of all I welcome this idea, and think it's ok if there's many different types of encyclopaedia on different perspectives.
Now, how will a decentralised wiki deal with something like a rando claiming to be uni professor and inserting thyself in admin position over time? How is activitypub helpful in writing wiki?(Edit credits?)
This is a great project. I had the same idea myself, and posted about it, but never did anything about it! It's great that people like you are here, with the creativity, and the motivation and skills to do this work.
I think this project is as necessary as Wikipedia itself.
The criticisms in these comments are mostly identical to the opinion most people had about Wikipedia when it started - the it would become a cesspool of nonsense and misinformation. That it was useless and worthless when encyclopaedias already exist.
Wikipedia was the first step in broadening what a source if authoritative information can be. It in fact created richer and more truthful information than was possible before, and enlightened the world. Ibis is a necessary second step on the same path.
It will be most valuable for articles like Tieneman square, or the Gilets Jaunes, where there are sharply different perspectives on the same matter, and there will never be agreement. A single monolithic Wikipedia cannot speak about them. Today, wiki gives one perspective and calls it the truth. This was fine in the 20th century when most people believed in simple truths. They were told what to think by single sources. They never left their filter bubbles. This is not sustainable anymore.
To succeed and change the world, this project must do a few things right.
The default instance should just be a mirror of Wikipedia. This is the default source of information on everything, so it would be crazy to omit it. Omitting it means putting yourself in competition with it, and you will lose. By encompassing it, the information in Ibis is from day 1 greater then wiki. Then Ibis will just supersede wiki.
There should be a sidebar with links to the sane article on other instances. So someone reading about trickle down economics on right wing instance, he can instantly switch to the same article on a left wing wiki and read the other side of it. That's the feature that will make it worthwhile for people.
It should look like Wikipedia. For familiarity. This will help people transition.
Thanks for the support. I think the era of single, centralized sources of information will soon be in the past.
This would be a project on its own, with writing import scripts, hosting an instance etc. Certainly not something I have time for, just like I'm not running a Reddit mirror for Lemmy. If you or someone else wants to set it up, go ahead!
How would you detect that it's the same article, only from having the identical title? That could fail in lots of ways.
I agree about this.
I just assumed that would be easy, that you would have one instance with no actual content. It just fetches the wikipedia article with the same name, directly from the wikipedia website. I guess I didn't really think about it.
I guess that's a design choice. Looking at different ways similar issues have been solved already...
How does wikipedia decide that the same article is available in different languages? I guess there is a database of links which has to be maintained.
Alternatively, it could assume that articles are the same if they have the same name, like in your example where "Mountain" can have an article on a poetry instance and on a geography instance, but the software treats them as the same article.
Wikipedia can understand that "Rep of Ireland" = "Republic of Ireland". So I guess there is a look-up-table saying that these two names refer to the same thing.
Then, wikipedia can also understand cases where articles can have the same name but be unrelated. Like RIC (paramilitary group) is not the same as RIC (feature of a democracy).
I do think, if each Ibis instance is isolated, it won't be much different from having many separate wiki websites. When the software automatically links you to the same information on different instances, that's when the idea becomes really interesting and valuable.
Will there be a mobile-friendly version of the front end?
And will you be able to follow Ibis pages (or perhaps edit them?) from Mastodon? Or potentially even Lemmy?
Sure if someone implements those things. I personally already invested a lot of time in the project and wont be able to do everything on my own.
@nutomic That last question was me trying to get my head around how this works.
Will each page have a username, in the same way each Lemmy group has a username, which can be followed from Mastodon?
If you follow that username from Mastodon, will you see a series of posts? If so, will they contain page edits or something else?
What happens if you tag that account in a post from Mastodon? Or reply to one of those posts?
The readme has some basic description how the federation works. Viewing articles from other platforms should be easy to get working. Edits from other platforms would also be possible, but would require changes so that they can generate diffs and resolve conflicts. So not exactly easy.
Yeah, well. Why was I not surprised when I read its made by a lemmy dev. You guys rock.
Tankiepedia
Written on tankie reddit.
I'm on kbin, not lemmy.
You‘re writing in lemmy.ml, the original lemmy instance.
I think this could be useful for a project I have where school that are not connected to the internet could create their own wikis, however, I need to see how it develops.
Oh very Thoth coded.
One of the main devs of Lemmy (@nutomic) just announced a federated wiki project called Ibis
"Instead of individual, centralized websites there will be an interconnected network of encyclopedias. This means the same topic can be treated in completely different ways."
Yay, now we'll have a new wikipedia which will also present russian take on Ukraine invasion, Chinese take on Tianmen massacre and a flat-earthers corner for their "truth". I think internet already covers that..
Would have preferred a federated wiki in Lemmy, but still cool.
Adding such functionality in Lemmy would be very complicated because Lemmy itself is already quite a complicated project. So it would require test coverage, pass code review, have a stable API and so on. Its better to experiment with this in a new project so I can write some quick and dirty code to get the basic functionality working. If it proves successful it can be integrated with Lemmy later.
btw is this compatible with Markdown or WikiText?
It uses Markdown because it has the best library support.
YAY! Amazing!
for a prospective dev (for contributing & who is learning...) what should one look into if they wanted to add support for another markup language? like typst! or uhh pandoc so whatever markup language one writes in it can be put in the appropriate format!
Why not just build a wikipedia mirror?
All the data is available for free via download, torrent, etc.
Idk I have no complaints about wikipedia to lead me to look for a federated alternative.
Another day another Nutomic W
read the name as libs which is just normal wikipedia
Adding reference to HN submission of this article. Discussion thus far has 233 comments.
@nutomic This is a cool idea! But I have a lot of questions about how the heck you make a think like Wikipedia work in a federated way. Are articles duplicated on each instance, or do we lose some of them when an instance goes down? How does moderation work? How do I search it?
Also, I see someone else posting screenshots, but the link you posted takes me out of my Mastodon app to a Lemmy page where I don't see any links to Ibis itself.
(Saw some criticism of the name there. Ibis is an awesome & appropriate name, IMO.)
Yes articles are duplicated in the same way posts are duplicated on Mastodon or Lemmy, so they wont go away. Moderation doesnt exist so far. There is a search field in the sidebar.
The link goes directly to Ibis where I posted the announcement.
@nutomic Looks like you already addressed the federation questions elsewhere in the conversation.
That looks like big news. Exciting! 🎉
The majestic bin chicken reaching new heights.
All the best with the project!
Is it linked to the ongoing Drama on the french wikipedia ?
How does federation works with with "SEO" ? Wikipedia is always among the top result on search engine, how would peopel find about Ibis ?
I dont speak French and havent heard about that drama. But its about the problems pointed out in this article among others.
If Ibis gets popular it will get listed higher in search results. Same as Lemmy which is also slowly going up in results. Before that it will most likely spread through word of mouth.
Same as Lemmy which is also slowly going up in results
Huh. Searching for "Lemmy" on Google actually brings it up on the side now instead of Lemmy Kilmister like it did during the Reddit exodus. Neat.
What could possibly go wrong!
Why is it named after those bin juice drinking cunt birds?
I love the idea, but I hate the name.
Probably because in Egyptian mythology, Thoth, who was an Ibis headed deity, was the god of knowledge and wisdom, and thus Ibis became a symbol of knowledge and reason.
It's somewhat amusing that the Egyptian Ibis is so closely related to the Australian Bin Chicken that they may actually be the same species
TIL, nice.
Could be a reference to Thoth, the ancient Egyptian god of knowledge, or alternatively could refer to Israeli special forces
Why the heck would it be referring to the Israeli special forces? It's obviously in reference to Thoth.
No it's special forces
The link says they use the Ibis as their emblem
Yeah, no, wouldn't touch that from a longstick, specially from the political slant it's coming from. Wikipedia itself already has enough problems, Ibis is just asking to be a misinformation hub.
@AMillionNames@nutomic In which case the ibis, a species of bird that's also known as the bin chicken, might be a fitting name for the platform?
@nutomic another useless inactive wiki-like project
Finally. Hope this takes off and breaks wikipedia's biased monopoly on knowledge.
Idk man I'd say wikipedia is probably 95% great. The political stuff will always have it's issues, sure, but most of it is quite good info.
I'm all for competition though. I hope this one takes off as well.
95% of stuff relevant to you ≠ 95% of all stuff.
'biased monopoly' what are you talking about, everything is sourced and open
You can get specific about certain articles needing improvement, but to call all of Wikipedia generally biased without any proof seems like a pretty red lil flag
‘biased monopoly’ what are you talking about, everything is sourced and open
The heart of narrative control on Wikipedia is controlling what standards of evidence need to be met and what sources are acceptable. An easy example of this would be the argument over adding an entry for Thomas James Ball to the List of Political Self-Immolations. Before they finally gave in and accepted it, there was a push to establish a standard for entries on the list that almost no existing entry on the list met and apply that standard to determine if Thomas James Ball should be included, while painting it as though the process were neutral.
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.
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.
@manucode @nutomic The thing is Wikipedia is losing user' trust because their decisions aren't always clear and some members are clearly tyrannic.
Maybe it won't replace Wikipedia, but maybe it will send a message to improve.
If you think a centralized organization governed by legalism is opaque, just wait until you see a thousand islands of anarchy.
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...
Post-truth as a service.
If you read through this page you might even conclude that Wikipedia itself is "post-truth"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies
At any point in time you could be reading a defaced or propagandized version of an article.
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.
Wikipedia information is often made up of media reports and paid studies so we're already there.
I don't need opposing views on subjects, I need the most accurate one that's the best researched and sourced.
Good thing Wikipedia articles are always the best researched and sourced!
So? Is your alternative free of mistakes and bias?
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...?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
...isn't the good idea here to not enhance visibility of disinformation?
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!
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.
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.
I’ve never had issues with Wikipedia not at least mentioning a controversy on a topic if one exists. Got any current examples?
"Losing."
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.
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.
There's a wiki program that natively uses a version control repository, Fossil. You can fork a Fossil wiki and contribute updates back to the original.
It wouldn't be too hard to for example create a few Fossil repositories for different topics where the admins on each are subject matter experts (to ensure quality of contributions), and then have a client which connects to them all and with a scheme for cross linking between them
Peertube already exists for video, it's more like a different take on bittorrent.
Federated Netflix? We already have federated YouTube, it's called PeerTube
Yeah I was thinking more of a paid service, I guess more like Nebula then Netflix, since Netflix just shows TV shows and movies made by big companies. I don't mind paying for things if they're good things, and I know the right people are getting the money for it.
I've just realised that I independently came up with the idea for federated services while imagining how to make yt better over 5 years ago.
Cool!
It only gets corrupted by state department interests if it gets popular, so we must work to make it less popular! (edit: I hope its obvious this is a joke)
I don't think the fact that a small group of people who are easy to manipulate by the US government and millions of edits originating from Langley are a small or invented problem. I'm extremely scared of having resources being centralized and controlled by the US propaganda apparatus and think this is a major problem.
I mean we have seen how the Lemmy devs approach certain topics, and it is definitely not with a preference for openness or free exchange of ideas. There are certain topics here which have a hair trigger for content removal and bans, for extremely petty and minor "transgressions," so the motivation here seems pretty transparent.
Thank god Lemmy has no malicious users/bad actors/spam issues...
Interesting idea anyway. I would be a bit more worried that when important information is siloed onto instances, each instance becomes a point of failure, and thus can be corrupted or lost.
Good luck :)
Right? Right now with Wikimedia, everything is hosted in one place and moderated in one place. Having everything spread about in various instances with varying degrees of moderation and rules, and the option to block other instances is not great for information quality and sharing.
Wikipedia has strict notability requirements, which is what spawned the popularity wikia/fandom which is a pretty terrible user experience.
Wikipedia also has an infamously pro-neoliberal bias.
The neoliberal bias also fucks with the notability requirements. The amount of citation loops on anything even remotely political is absurd.
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert
“The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative.”
- Malcolm X
Damn i need to read more x quotes
As much as I appreciate Malcolm X, this quote is very much a product of its time.
Not at all. We've seen this our whole lives, and are currently seeing it with the liberal response to the ongoing genocide in Palestine too. They only support emancipatory movements in theory, but in practice are the same as conservatives: they stop when those people are taking direct action for emancipation, specially when it threatens their own positions.
"...who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." - MLK
Liberals didn't like Mandela's use of force to overthrow apartheid in South Africa, and they wouldn't approve of it if it happened now either. The same way they aren't approving of Palestinian resistance groups like Hamas in their war against the apartheid colony "israel".
I've seen fairly universal support from liberal voters both irl and online for Palestine, but not from our politicians.
That was the same with black liberation and apartheid South Africa in MLK and Mandela's time: they support it only in theory. How many of them supported direct action and use of violent force to actually materially change those? How many of them support Hamas, PFLP, etc in our current time now?
The answer is "not many", because MLK, Malcolm X and Mandela were all right about liberals being the same as conservatives in practice.
Hamas is more complicated, because they have also called for the extinction of Israel. That being said I'm pretty sure 90%+ of protests against Israel in the US have been lead by liberals.
Anyways, yeah, they're exactly the same, except for taxes, education, infrastructure, student loan debt, environmental protections, general demeanor, morals, actual family values, LGBTQ+ rights, not committing insurrection, avoiding gerrymandering, not delaying supreme court nominations, following the Constitution, mental health policies, healthcare, generally caring about their fellow human beings... you get the idea.
See what Malcolm X, MLK, and Mandela meant? You would've said shit like this about MLK's and Mandela's violent riots and sabotages of the government too, and liberals did.
No, the difference is that black people didn't generally call for the extinction of the rest of the united states. They wanted equality, not supremacy. Sometimes situations really are different.
Also I find it interesting that you only responded to that part of my comment.
Take a visit to /r/worldnews, then
Yeah people seem to forget liberalism is a right-wing ideology. One look at Reddit's takes on Palestine says everything.
"In every political community there are varying shades of political opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects. Ten degrees to the left of center in good times. Ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally." - Phil Ochs
Is this implying being right of center is bad? You know what that would mean, right?
You would have to start a long conversation about the overton window, and what left vs right even means to both you and i before tackling this question, friend.
Fair enough
Neoliberalism is stuff like putting children to work in the coal mines and also includes modern day conservatives (especially the nazi ones, a lot of people don't realize how the nazi regime was more or less liberalism taken to its conclusion, which is why it took a war for them to face any opposition from the liberal world order, and even then it was only because they bit the hand that fed them)
Neoliberalism =/= liberalism and especially not leftism (or just "the opposite of conservatism"), which I assume is what Colbert means
If an instance goes down, the articles are still stored on other federated instances.
A mirror would accomplish the main stated aim of backing up information just as well if not better.
Whereas as you implied, allowing multiple sources of information seems vulnerable to disinformation campaigns, and even more simply bias.
It reminds me of that conservative wiki that went to create a version without wokeness or something.
I suspect you mean Conservapedia. It is exactly what it sounds like: a shitty right-wing rag.
On the flipside is RationalWiki, which is basically neoliberal Americentric "reality has a liberal bias" made manifest. It's also pretty shit.
Everyone should see how incredibly important this project is, and its potential. Wikipedia is yet another US-controlled and domiciled site, with a history of bribery, scandals, and links to the US state department. It has a near-monopoly on information in many languages, and its reach extends far outside US borders. Federation allows the possibility of connecting to other servers, collaborating on articles, forking articles, and maintaining your own versions, in a way that wikipedia or even a self-hosted mediawiki doesn't.
Also ibis allows limited / niche wikis, devoted to specific fields, which is probably the biggest use-case I can see for Ibis early on.
Congrats on a first release!
If this kills Fandom/Wikia, that would be amazing and somewhat realistic.
Thank you!
Thank you!
Wikipedia also releases all content for free download under a permissive license, so I don't think it's fair to say that the US government is a meaningful threat to its quality of information, especially over non-English languages that are managed by an independent set of volunteers who could pack up their bags and move everything over wherever they want at any point.
Still a cool project and technological diversity is good though.
What? How are these two points related at all?
Anyone can fork at any time. The US gov could theoretically hold Wikipedia's brand and servers hostage, but the actually valuable stuff is already mirrored in a decentralized fashion that is completely unrestricted under US and international law.
EDIT: Maybe you meant that the US could covertly vandalize Wikipedia? Maybe, if they keep it very low-key. Editors are used to this kind of stuff though, it happens all the time from all governments since they can just, y'know, edit it. Anything actually impactful will be noticed by the editors which will just cause a fork.
Many of the editors are themselves neoliberal American cultural imperialists and proud of it. The issue isn't direct control so much as an army of useful idiots.
That statement ITSELF is American cultural Imperialism. There are a bunch of languages other than English on Wikipedia...
Also [citation needed].
US-controlled and domiciled site - yes, but I do not see it having a monopoly on information at all. Sure is big, has lots of info, pages, it is a rather good resource in linking stuff to the various concepts that you want to explain others e.g. in an argument.
But the very fact that anyone can edit information makes it not recommendable in academia, for example (really, when I was a student, all my professors were generally not recommending it for information because, as one of them said, even grandma could edit it). So I don't think I would trust ibis on scientific articles either, at least not in the fields I'm directly interested in - maybe for some random trivia/did you know stuff, idk.
But this is where I think it would really shine, indeed, as one could make a wiki about a game or software more easily, probably link pages from different instances, etc. (as others said already).
Don't know what else to say, it just seems like an interesting project. Congrats to anyone involved on this first release and looking forward to see what this project will bring.
I don't think a federated wiki is solving any of the problems of wikipedia. You've just made a wiki that is more easily spammed and will have very few contributors. Yes, Wikipedia is centralized, but it's a good thing. No one has to chase down the just perfect wikipedia site to find general information, just the one. The negative of wikipedia is more its sometimes questionable moderation and how its english-centric. This has more to do with fundamentally unequal internet infrastructure in most countries than anything though. Imperialism holds back tech.
I agree that it might be fine for niche wikis but again, why in the world would you ever want your niche wiki federated? Sounds like a tech solution looking for the wrong problem.
I think it solves the problems of Fandom, but yeah Wikipedia is good
until you want to learn about a group or country opposed to the west and then it's about as educational as stormfront
Wikipedia doesn't replace books. In my comment at least that's why I was specific about "general information". I think everyone must be aware that when it comes to Wikipedia on history or current events, it will largely be from a liberal and pro-west perspective. Not all the time, and usually the references and further reading sections point in more interesting directions. But this is far more valuable than the most boring so-called Marxist wikis. If you want critical history, go read historians like Gerald Horne, read first-hand accounts from journalists like Edgar Snow and so on.
Besides the purely political, wikipedia is also good for overviews on technical and scientific interests. Even with the negatives of wikipedia, I'd take it any day over some decentralized spam fest where its a gamble if you found the best version of some article. Not to mention core issues of the fediverse, such as whether the hypothetical wiki instance you found yourself on will sustain itself long-term.
Some days I wonder if the core Lemmy developers have drifted further towards anarchist politics and philosophy..
what is stormfront
Nazi forum
Self-hosting any wiki software solves the problems of Fandom, surely? I fail to see how federation solves any of Fandom's issues.
No, for the same reason forums can't replace reddit. Self hosted wikis have been around before and after fandom. The reason it became popular was giving you all the fandom wikis together, one account, discoverable, user friendly so regulars can contribute. If I have to sign up to every fandom wiki I can contribute to, learn a new interface (likely something old and not mobile friendly) and rebuilt up any reputation to gain extra editing rights... I just won't.
Ibis then in theory allows you to use one account, federate your reputation, use one interface, with lots of third party options if you don't like the official one (if lemmy is any indication) and have discoverability of new wikis.
There is actually at least one other: Conservapedia. It's for people who live in a weird right-wing fantasy land.
ithinkihadastroke
That's one way of putting it. Another way is "ramrodding the narratives of anglo chauvinists that are to the right of even the neoliberal historical consensus".
Arguably even Fandom / Wikia is ruined by plain old greed more than centralization. What's wrong with it isn't content, it's the fact every page loads seven ads, a roll of clickbait, and a goddamn Discord server. A weird blog site for editable text and tiny images would work fine if it wasn't twisted to feed Engagemagog.
This is almost entirely misdirected. The success of Wikipedia is from its human structures, the technical structure is close to meaningless. To propose a serious alternative you'd have to approach it from a social direction, how are you going to build a moderation incentive structures that forces your ideal outcomes?
Federation isn't a magic bullet for moderation, alone it creates fractal moderation problems.
When you're a hammer, all problems look like nails. That's most engineers' perspective to social problems.
Source: am engineer
Get gamers involved, they've been starving for a replacement to the max-enshitified fandom wikia
Sounds good, please share the announcement in relevant places.
Y'know, I was just going to mention Fandom. I have no idea how well this will work for Wikipedia, but I know something like this can work great for games.
Fandom is straight up harmful to game communities, and I think federation makes a lot of sense with per-game / series / etc. instances.
I'll look at this a bit more later, quite interesting idea.
Yeah I think that's where the potential is, not Wikipedia
What a fantastic idea!
Guess I'm out of the loop. What happened with/to fandom wikia?
They sold out and now is an advertising mess.
Mr. Wikipedia wanted to make money off wikipedia but couldn't because it was a nonprofit, so made Wikia to profit off of.
Worst they could do on Wikipedia is e-beg and then spam the email of anyone who actually sends them money (fucking assholes) but the limits are off for Wikia they can absolutely cake that as shit full of ads and spyware as they can fit.
Death to fextra!
But... wikimedia is already self hostable.
Wikimedia isn't written in Rust, so it's useless /s
@13 @nutomic @vis4valentine how helpful is sarcasm huh
I don't think something like this exists yet(?), so it'll be cool to see how this will be like.
Which also means that marxist.wiki/article/communism will be completely different from libertarian.wiki/article/communism. I think I will take Wikipedia's attempt at impartiability over a "wikipedia" destined to just devolve into islands of "alternative facts"
But then again, you could say this about Lemmy and Reddit too.
Lemmy took 5 years to get to this point. Let's give this a few years and see how it turns out.
I am okay with bias in my social media.
Far less so in my encyclopedia.
You won't find any encyclopedia (or anything really) you can use then since everything is biased towards something. Wikipedia has a massive neoliberal bias for example. And a heavily biased leadership as linked in this post.
I would love to read both a marxist.wiki/article/communism and a libertarian.wiki/article/communism - opinions are great, fine & dandy, but at the end of the day, I don't want a marxist/grasshopper vs. a libertarian/grasshopper, and I DEFINITELY do not want a conservative/vaccine vs. a liberal/vaccine each feeding misinformation from a slightly different and both-sides-incorrect approach. The enormous EFFORTS that go into finding neutral and balanced information are worthwhile, imho, as is having a central repository that would not need to be individually updated hundreds or thousands of times.
A mirroring/backup process would just as easily perform the same stated goal of preserving human knowledge - and these are already done. Arguably the federation model works best for social media, a bit less so I am told for Mastodon, but I think would not work well at all for an encyclopedia style.
But don't mind me, I am simply grieving the death of facts and reason over here... - the fact that we would even want to contemplate different "alternative (sets of) facts" at all means that we already have lost something that was once good. :-(
@OpenStars @Alsephina are you assuming that there is any writing free of bias?
Everyone has implicit biases. It takes a huge amount of effort to work past them and write content that is considered unbiased. The latter is a group effort to achieve consensus, which even in the hard sciences is often difficult, but Wikipedia has had fantastic successes there - e.g. look at any controversial subject (someone mentioned BP, and how half the page was about their "controversies", which does not say that they are true, nor false, but acknowledges that they exist all the same - most people, with the exclusion of the BP execs I am sure - would consider that to be a state that is unbiased).
In fact, the OP brings up a major source of bias to begin with: if someone wants to federate a blogging website, why would we even talk about it - just DO IT!:-) However, the name "Wikipedia" was mentioned b/c it is popular. This introduces a bias whereby the rest of the discussion will be predicated upon the lines of what Wikipedia is vs. what it is not. Even though the OP made it clear that "Wikipedia" is not the goal of that project at all. Even dragging its name into it has thus introduced a source of bias, rather than allowing everyone here to discuss the merits of this proposal on its own, as if made from scratch rather than a Wikipedia-clone ("good" connotations?) or Wikipedia-wanna-be ("bad" ones?) or Wikipedia-whatever.
Are you of the opinion that people don't already use internet resources, libraries, interviews and other educational avenues to inform themselves? Many here seem to be needing an education on how to use Wikipedia responsively, they seem to think that one is unable to engage with a wikipedia article critically. I just checked the article for BP, as one of the blogs linked here claimed that over 44% of BP's wikipedia page was corporate speak. The 'controversies' section is one third to half the wikipedia page in length. As a jumping-off point for further study, it is perfectly adequate.
Are you sure that you meant that to respond to me - and not e.g. the xkcd comic one below?
Fwiw I totally agree with you, and I think that's a fantastic example that you brought forth - kudos b/c I think a specific example really does add something to this conversation. Just as it does so on many wikipedia pages. There are ways to phrase most things that can be agreed upon by most people, by wrapping it in the proper context.
At a guess then, they do not think that the language describing communism is extreme enough, and so want to bypass working together to achieve consensus and instead strike off and make their own internet. But I could be wrong. Then again, the burden of clearly explaining what they want to do is on them, so if so, I don't take all of that blame.:)
@Quacksalber @Alsephina Wikipedia is already filled with a LOT of fake information and biased
Reading the links in this post alone shows wikipedia is already one of those biased islands lol
And with this system you will definitely see other attempts at impartial wikis too.
Ik I'm late to the party, but I think this would be soooo much better than Wikipedia for finding useful information on niche or controversial topics.
Instead of being limited to Wikipedia's contributors and having to accommodate or guess their biases, and have a terrible, incomplete "controversies" section on every page, you could browse the same page across instances whose biases are much more explicit and see what each group determines is most important about the topic.
Instead of having to find a single mutually agreed upon article where each "faction" has their own set of issues with the content, you can now browse pages that each of those factions feel best represent their POV, and use the sum of them to form an opinion where no information is omitted.
Obviously lots of instances will have complete bullshit, but it's likely enough that you will find instances that have well-sourced material from a diverse breadth of viewpoints, and can pick an instance that federates to your preferred criteria for quality. Misinfo will exist regardless, and if they get it from a federated wiki, it will probably be at least marginally better quality or better cited than the Facebook or Reddit posts they were getting it from before.
It would be useful for the "what does X group think about Y" aspect alone.
There's also nothing stopping diverse, consensus-based instances from popping up. Or lots of niche academic instances with greater depth on their areas of expertise.
So like Fandom without the ads or miraheze, but fediverse-adapted
Promising...
That's exactly what i was thinking. It replace fandom.
Cheers to this new alternative together, fellow crab brother...
As an academic I love this. On Wikipedia there's actually fights among different expert disciplines going on. It is better to allow different instances operated by different discipline summarize knowledge from their own perspective.
To be fair, those are good faith arguments with the goal being to determine the real, objective truth. Hopefully.
That is not how this tool would be used, in the hands of people not trained in the art of socratic discourse. Just imagine how the situation in Gaza would end up being described.
Avoiding conflict is not always a useful aim.
I can respect your comment. The problem with Wikipedia's scholarly articlesI wanted to raise was that some group of researchers (or businesses) wash away others' views. In other times, mathematicians try to satisfy everyone from different disciplines, and write a very abstract article that covers everyone's view yet is too academic and hardly readable to most readers who actually need Wikipedia.
The goal of academic research is to inform the best and brightest of the real information. For e.g. academic extensions to how nuclear power works, or for engineers to have a working basis to build a viable power plant, and so on.
The goal of an encyclopedia though is arguably different: to make people "feel" informed, without necessarily being so? Or at least to serve as a starting point for further studies, maybe?
Science marches ever onwards, and eventually that gets collected into textbooks, and even later into encyclopedias. Or maybe now we're working from a new model where it could skip that middle step? But science still seems leagues ahead of explanations to the masses, and whereas in science the infighting is purposeful and helpful (to a degree), the infighting of making something explainable in a clearer manner to more people is also purposeful and helpful, though federating seems to me to be giving up on making a centralized repository of knowledge, i.e. the very purpose of an "encyclopedia"?
Science reporting must be decentralized, but encyclopedias have a different purpose and so should not be, maybe? At least not at the level of Wikipedia.
If you're correct, to me the usefulness of Wikipedia is actually different from that of encyclopedia, and the pattern I'm arguing goes against that.
Fair. Though that capability - e.g. the identical wikia software, implementing the MediaWiki protocol - already exists. Maybe federating it would somehow improve it, though it would also open it up to have greater vulnerabilities especially when non-scientists get involved, e.g. a w/article/conservative/vaccine vs. a w/article/real/vaccine. Scientists can handle these controversies, but people who do not have the base knowledge with which to properly understand, e.g. ivermectin, are not going to be able to distinguish between the truth vs. the lies.
So the people that would put it to the best use don't absolutely need it - sure it would be nice but peer-reviewed articles already exist - while the ones for whom it would be most damaging are almost certainly going to be the primary target audience.
This is super exciting. I think one of the things a lot of people are missing here is the potential for small wikis to augment existing fediverse communities. Reddit’s killer feature has always been the massive treasure trove of information for hobbyists and niche interests. There is huge potential in the fediverse to take advantage of that sort of natural collaborative knowledge building process.
Our SLRPNK Dokuwiki integration is finally working now. Let me know if you want to test-drive it in the coming days.
lemmy.dbzer0.com also has a DjangoWiki attached, with lemmy integration. How did you do your integration?
Nothing fancy, just account linking via the Lemmy database.
Can you share the deets on how you did it? Currently I'm doing it via API which requires people to add a specific string to their username
https://f-hub.org/Solarpunk/dokuwiki-auth-lemmy
Ah I see you're using a specific dw plugin
I started a post along these lines on !ibis@lemmy.ml. I, personally, think this will be the killer application for Ibis.
I don't really understand how decentralization would address the trust and legitimacy problems of Wikipedia. I do see value in adding community wikis to Lemmy, however.
Wikipedia got as bad as it did because neoliberals had gotten into positions of power and kicked everyone else out. They weren't the people who made the site (it was one guy who did like 90% of the articles) but they are the ones who made it the shithole that it is today.
Besides still needing to establish that a) wikipedia is bad today (as opposed to just flawed), you also need to establish b) what about this would entice people over from wikipedia and c) if it did succeed, then why wouldn't whoever got into positions of power with wikipedia get into the same positions of power on the biggest instances?
The problem I see with federated wikis is potential creation of echo chambers. Current Wikipedia is often a political tug-of-war between different ideological crowds. For instance, on Russian Wikipedia, Russian Civil War article is an infamous point of struggle between communist and monarchist sympathizers, who often have to settle at something resembling a compromise.
If both sides had their own wikis, each would have very biased interpretation of events. A person who identifies as either communist or monarchist would visit only the corresponding wiki, only seeing narrative that fits into their current world view, never being exposed to opposing opinions.
Could this not also be seen as advantageous? If one wants to get nuanced understandings, they could read from multiple wikis written with multiple perspectives, without the tug of war. Presently, as a centralized platform, there's the back and forth you mentioned with neither side being satisfied.
Assuming people cite their sources and more reputable instances are more developed, this allows for sharing lesser heard perspectives. A flat-earth wiki isn't going to dominate, because you can't get valid sources for that.
Overall, cautiously optimistic. I like the idea, and think that as a framework, this is a great thing! It remains to be seen what will come of this, though.
The UI on mobile is completely broken.
It's only mostly broken. And mostly broken means slightly working!
Im not good at frontend development, my goal was to create a very basic frontend which works to show off the project. Going forward I will definitely need help to improve the design or create an entirely new frontend in a different language.
Anyway the main thing about this project is the working federation, but without a basic frontend it would be very difficult to showcase.
Maybe making it work as an headless API and develop a linker to an existing Wiki like Dokuwiki would work better? Something like this plugin that syncs a Dokuwiki with a git backend: https://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:gitbacked
I'm learning Leptos too, I'll watch your progress when lost, good luck !
Maybe you can make some contributions to Ibis ;)
A distributed knowledge base is indeed an excellent concept since it enhances resilience against potential disruptions or manipulations compared to a centralized database like Wikipedia. By distributing servers across numerous countries and legal jurisdictions, it becomes more challenging for any single entity to censor the content. Furthermore, the replication of data through federation ensures higher durability and reliability in preserving valuable information. Kudos on making it happen!
The idea of a federated, decentralized Wikipedia alternative is intriguing, but implementing it successfully faces major hurdles. Federating moderation policies and privileges across different instances seems incredibly complex. I believe it would also require some kind of web of trust system. Quality control is also a huge challenge without centralized oversight and clear guidelines enforced universally.
While it could potentially replace commercial wiki farms like Wikia/Fandom for niche topics, realistically replacing Wikipedia's dominance as a general reference work seems highly ambitious and unlikely, at least in the short term. But as they say - shoot for the stars, and you may just land on the moon.
That said, ambitious goals can spur innovation. Even if Ibis falls short of usurping Wikipedia, it could blaze new trails and pioneer federated wiki concepts that feed back into Wikipedia and other platforms. The federated model allowing more perspectives and focused communities is worth exploring, despite the technical obstacles around distributed moderation and content integration. The proof-of-concept shows the core pieces are in place as a starting point.
I've only ever heard, "shoot for the moon, [and] even if you miss you'll land among the stars", which is the phrase as it was first said by Norman Vincent Peale. But maybe swapping "moon" and "stars" is a common enough variant of the phrase that I just haven't heard before.
Yeah, you are right. I've always remembered it this way because it makes more sense to me.
I can see why. Although the stars occupy a larger portion of the sky, they are also further away than the moon. So either version of the phrase makes sense in its own way.
More critically, the proof-of-concept so far appears to lack any real work on moderation tools or implementing a web of trust system. These would be absolutely vital components for a federated encyclopedia to have any chance of controlling quality and avoiding descending into a sea of misinformation and edit wars between conflicting "truths." Centralized oversight and clear enforced guidelines are key reasons why Wikipedia has been relatively successful, despite its flaws.
Without a robust distributed moderation system in place, a federated encyclopedia runs the risk of either devolving into siloed echo chambers pushing various agendas, or becoming an uncoordinated mess making it impractical as a general reference work. The technical obstacles around federating content policies, privileges and integrated quality control across instances are immense challenges that aren't obviously addressed by this early proof-of-concept.
While novel approaches like federation are worth exploring, straying too far from Wikipedia's principles of neutral point-of-view and community-driven policies could easily undermine the entire premise. Lofty goals of disrupting Wikipedia are admirable, but successfully replacing its dominance as a general reference work seems extremely unlikely without solving these fundamental issues around distributed content governance first.
Not sure what the use case is for a federated wiki. It lets you... edit a different wiki with your account from your initial one? View pages from other wikis using your preferred website's UI? Know which wikis are considered to have good info by the admins of the wiki you're browsing from?
This is presented as a solution to Wikipedia's content moderation problems, but it doesn't do much against that that wouldn't also be done by just having a bunch of separate, non-federated wikis that link to each others' pages. The difference between linking to a wiki in the federation network, and linking to one outside the federation network, is that the ui will be different and you'd have to make a new account to edit things.
I suppose it makes sense for a search feature? You can search for a concept and select the wiki which approaches the concept from your desired angle (e.g. broad overview, scientific detail, hobbyist), and you'd know that all the options were wikis that haven't been defederated and likely have some trustworthiness. With the decline of google and search engines in general, I can see this being helpful. But it relies on the trustworthiness of your home wiki's admin, and any large wiki would likely begin to have many of the same problems that the announcement post criticizes Wikipedia for. And all this would likely go over the head of any average visitor, or average editor.
I don't know. I'm happy this exists. I think it's interesting to think about what structures would lead to something better than Wikipedia. I might find it helpful once someone creates a good frontend for it, and then maybe the community can donate to create a free hosting service for Ibis wikis. Thank you for making it.
I think this would be immensely helpful for niche topics, but I don't really see it as much of a direct competitor to Wikipedia. Interwiki links have been a thing for a long time, but they're not really used that much. They also are used by specialized shortcut syntax instead of using a more intuitive domain name syntax. So let's say you have a wiki for the Flash TV show and you want to link to an article in the Flash comic wiki. This would be great for that. Maybe have "search related wikis" as an option to search some hand picked wikis?
But for going head-to-head with Wikipedia, I don't really see it so much. Part of the success of Wikipedia is that it forces editors to work in a single namespace, debate the contents, use a common set of policies, and so on. There is also a lot of policy, process, human knowledge, and institution built up over the years geared solely towards writing an encyclopedia. If you go to Wikipedia, it may not be perfect, but it will have gone through that process. Trying to wade through hundreds of wikis to find a decent article does not sound like a treat, especially if effort gets spread across multiple wikis.
Like with Lemmy, I am excited to see where this goes. And nutomic, congratulations with your daughter!
This.
I dont know how many people here are aware of Fandom, formerly known as Wikia. Basically what they are trying to do is collecting niche topic wikis in order to profit as much as possible. Very much criticized over the years by contributors for their practices.
Ibis could be the answer for niche wikis who dont want to be associated with Fandom/Wikia.
Fandom was exactly what I was thinking of. Just maybe without having more ads than content. That I'm not a fan of, especially for volunteer supplied content.
Extra thought on search: add a weighting option so individual servers can be searched, but don't come up as high in the rankings. So keeping with the superhero theme, have the Flash comic wiki with a 1 weighting and the more general DC comic and Arrowverse wikis with 0.8 weightings.
Based on how ...certain... Lemmy instances have handled themselves, the intention to deal with "Wikipedia content moderation" here is almost certainly not to make a freer version of Wikipedia, but to make heavily censored content enclaves with the same obvious editorial restrictions concerning certain topics you find on certain large instances.
Wikipedia is not a Big Tech nor a commercial enterprise prone to enshittification nor it profits from surveillance capitalism. We don't need another, competing, universal source of enclopedical information. Wikipedia, on contrary to X, Reddit, Facebook, etc. is not going anywhere. Any self-styled Wikipedia alternative ended up dead, thematic, or biased by design.
However there are many thematical and fan wikis hosted on Fandom, which itself is a commercial company and there were already some contoversies concerning it. Wikis on Fandom are very resource-intensive compared to Wikipedia or independent thematical wikis.
Ability to edit at several wikis from the same account without being tied to Fandom could be one of things that Ibis offers and could benefit independent wiki sites.
And of course, MediaWiki is free software and federation could be added as a functionality.
Wikipedia is biased by design though...
Everything is biased. Even saying something as simple as "grass is green" is biased, it has the bias of normal colour perception. I'm colour blind and don't see grass as green.
No shit! So it's not exactly a counter-point to the concept of a "Wikipedia alternative"
With biased by design I have meant something like Conservapedia, RationalWiki, etc.. They do not try to make neutral point of view, as is (or at least should be) applied on Wikipedia.
Each instance would ideally have their own standards for neutrality or bias that they see fit. It's no different from self-hosted wikis except with the federation concept appllied on top of it. I'm sure someone will create an instance that is a straight up clone of wikipedia, another person will create an instance for everything pro-communism / pro-china, someone will create a strictly anti-theism wikipedia, etc.
I don't see anything wrong or weird about this, the skepticism this project is receiving is stupid. It's nothing new under the sun.
First of all, congratulations for bringing a baby girl into this world!! You must be really excited! I am very happy for you!
This looks very cool. I set up a wiki (https://ibis.mander.xyz/) and I will make an effort to populate it with some Lemmy lore and interesting science/tech 😄 Hopefully I can set some time aside and help with a tiny bit of code too.
Thank you :)
I think it may have a problem on some screens.
Ran straight here to say don't try on mobile!
When working on lemmy is too relaxing so you need another project to keep you busy :D
I was waiting for someone else to create a project like this. But it didnt happen so I had to write it myself when things became a bit calmer with Lemmy.
You call this calm? :D
But I know the feeling. I didn't really want to run a lemmy but reddit made it intolerable not to and here we are. I should be working on my main project >_<
Nowadays I can easily handle all Github notifications within less than an hour. After the Reddit blackout there were so many notifications that I couldnt even read all the issues, let alone respond. So I had to unsubscribe from issue notifications for some months.
Well, I was more referring to all the drama around lemmy lately due to lacking mod tools etc
Right but that's already over. And anyway Ibis was mostly finished since some weeks, just needed some minor work to push it over the finishing line.
With all due respect, but that's not over. There's still a significant lack of mod tooling on lemmy.
I mean the drama about it is over. We are constantly working to improve mod tools but it takes time.
*eats popcorn*
I feel like mom and dad are talking and I am sitting nodding along
There's Jerboa as well, lol
I'm not sure this really has potential to kick off outside of niche wikis. But maybe that's still good enough.
Though I hope this isn't taking too much of your time from Lemmy development! :)
It can get a bit boring working on the same project for so many years. Having a different project gives me more motivation.
Fair enough - I can definitely understand that
There are many opinions about practically everything - even within STEM. I'm sure some will want an alternative wiki if Wikipedia doesn't state the opinion that they agree with.
@nutomic An interesting initiative. Good luck!
I do notice one unfortunate difference from Wikipedia immediately: Wikipedia is functional with scripts blocked, Ibis Wiki is not. I'm sure that even Wikipedia nowadays has some functions that don't work without scripts, but a wiki that won't even display its landing page without scripts enabled, is dead while still in the gate.
The frontend is very primitive right now, but it could definitely be made to work without JS.
@nutomic I'd recommend that, albeit not everybody browses with scripts disabled, so not it's not necessarily the automatic death knell I suggested.
But I'm curious to see how it goes.
Right, and what would also be nice is to be able to export articles in different formats, for example markdown, to conveniently read them in your favourite reader application.
I'm going to just say that I'm exteremely sceptical on how this will turn out, just because there has been quite a few Wikipedia forks that have not exactly worked out despite the best interests and the stated objectives they had.
Now - Wikipedia isn't exactly an entity that doesn't have glaring problems of its own, of course - but I'm just saying that the wiki model has been tried out a lot of times and screwed up many times in various weird ways.
There's exactly two ways I can see Wikipedia forks to evolve: Crappily managed fork that is handled by an ideological dumbass that attracts a crowd that makes everything much worse (e.g. Conservapedia, Citizendium), or a fork that gets overrun by junk and forgotten by history, because, well, clearly it's much more beneficial to contribute to Wikipedia anyway.
I was about to respond with a copy of the standard Usenet spam response form with the "sorry dude I don't think this is going to work" ticked, but Google is shit and I can't find a copy of that nonsense anymore, so there.
Its definitely an experiment and I dont know how it will work in practice. But we have this technology, so I wanted to take advantage of it and let people give it a try. At worst Ibis wont be adopted, then I just wasted a few months of time. At best it could turn into a much better Wikipedia, so the upside potential is huge.
I've been scared to use that ever since they actually solved "Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money".
Rule Ambiguity, Institutional Clashes, and Population Loss: How Wikipedia Became the Last Good Place on the Internet
@manucode@feddit.de I am also in agreement that I don't know how a federated wikipedia solves what made Wikipedia so great. Per the paper above, fringe editors saying "the flatness of the world is a debated topic" gradually got frustrated about having to "present evidence" and having their work reverted all the time, and so voluntarily left over time. And so an issue page goes from being "both sides" to "one side is a fringe idea".
From reading the Ibis page, this seems a lot closer to fandom than the wikipedia. Different encyclopedias where the same page name can be completely different.
Skepchick also had a great video about the topic: https://www.patreon.com/posts/92654496
Absolutely hilarious story I've got to share:
I saw a bird today that I wasn't able to recognize - and I've probably seen it for the first time in my life. Most probably, it escaped from the nearby wildlife sanctuary. It was trying to fight a large mongoose, and the screams were frighteningly loud. It looked weird, but beautiful. Kind of like a stork. I was convinced that this bird was a migratory bird.
It was completely black or brown, I could not figure it out. Had a patch of white on it's wings. And the head had a little bit of red color, but my eyes are bad, so I couldn't tell it. Guess the name of the bird?
Red-naped ibis, also known as the Indian black ibis. Coincidence?
Interesting, maybe it wanted to tell you about this project :D
Synchronicity!
Gesundheit!
¡Muchas gracias!
Congratulations! I hope nothing but the best comrade!
Where are you reading this?
Follow the link in the post
I did. It loads an empty page
Update: it just says "Loading..." And it never loads
This serves well as a statement.
It is, however, delusional to think that at this point anything can become a viable alternative to Wikipedia, unless Wikimedia collapses because of reasons from within.
All the more reason to push this project forward, as a redundancy.
You can already download the entirity of Wikipedia. If it ever fell, the content could easily be restored elsewhere.
Also, I don't think I understand why this should be federated.
The infrastructure is already there in that case, to restore it, and it would be less likely to fall.
Having no sole source of information hosting in an encyclopedic format is safer.
But having an open data project full of information that's actively contributed to and fact checked, with copies over many servers, is much better than having the same thing but fragmented. I still don't see a reason. If it was something else or corporate driven, I wouldn't bat an eye. But Wikipedia?
You can have all of that good if you want to, but being federated allows people to break off if they want. It also allows for niche servers.
So contribute to the statement.
When Wikipedia collapses, it will be too late to create an alternative from scratch.
Interesting project! Can you explain the vision a bit more - I understand that every instance can have their own version of an article, but how would a user know which version of an article is most relevant to them to read (and maybe even contribute to)?
Thats a good question. Obviously the first place to look for articles would be those hosted by your local instance. Then the instance admin could also maintain an article with links to relevant articles. And I suppose later there could be some software features for discovery, but I havent thought about that yet.
Yay Holocaust denialism /s
Oh man I can't wait to see what hexbear will do with this, I'm sure people will love to use a platform that actively denies genocides and supports dictators
You're thinking of alot of the .world users lol denying the current genocide in Palestine
You've picked a nice name :) I'm glad you didn't choose fedipedia.
I just created an account on open.ibis.wiki and created "Lemmy" article but it's not shown on ibis.wiki 🤔 I guess it still has a long way to go, but I think it's a nice project 👍
Right ibis.wiki wasnt following open.ibis.wiki. I did that now, made an edit and it got federated as expected.
https://ibis.wiki/article/Lemmy@open.ibis.wiki/history
Nice. I guess "Summary" is something like git commit message. I thought it more as the summary of the article :)
Yes true.
…why?
You are underestimating, by a mile, the editorial effort that goes into fighting scam and spam, vandalism and lies. Wikipedia does have a support structure to do that, I doubt instance admins have the same kind of resources.
Also, any such wiki has to be allow-list only by default. Any open wiki is vandalized with spam and hate speech almost immediately. Open federation would make this trivial.
That structure is extremely corrupted though. And Lemmy shows that volunteers can handle this kind of stuff. Though Ibis will definitely need a lot of mod tools.
That page starts by complaining that alternative medicine is represented negatively. Going to skip the rest of the blog lol
How could the bias be so widespread they wonder!
Of course no single site is perfect. Editors may always have ulterior motives. That is what the editing history is for. But with a federated wiki, the only thing you'll get is multiple different versions that all present their oen little "truths" and at that point you can just go back and search the entire internet for blogs, just like the website you sent me is a blog.
I think thats better than having our single "truth" controlled by a corrupt organization from a different country, different language and different culture. With federation there can be independent wikis for my local country or city.
You can already do that. How does federation help?
By allowing users to interact between different wiki instances. Just like you can interact with Lemmy instances from KBin.
Thank you for working on this in addition to Lemmy!
The abuse potential this has feels quite concerning. You've just given kiwifarms a decentralized tool to host its stalking profiles on people.
I'm honestly curious about what abuse potential this has compared to other federated platforms, because "it could be used to host dox" is a complaint that I've heard about Lemmy as well.
Gabe, KiwiFarm started from the forum section of CWC Wiki (in fact, the name KiwiFarms itself is a corruption of "CWC Wiki Forums"), which was hosted on MediaWiki, so "not letting KiwiFarms host their own wiki" is a ship that has long since sailed.
I really fail to see how this has more abuse potential than hosting an independent wiki on MediaWiki, even if the content they host there is... not very nice, to say the least. If anything, there is more control against abuse since they would just be defederated.
Every tool a can be abused... If we were not making tools based on their harm potential wed still be in the cave. People said the same thing about Gab and mastodon.
Cool I hope it works out, more alternatives aren't a bad thing.
Thank you for that. It will probably work well in pair with Lemmy. The ability to compile a community or instance knowlegde out of the comment section and to an organised wiki will be very nice.
But if someone here reading as the time and skill, the sofware the fediverse is lacking is tv tracker.
I think a centralized view of knowledge that Wikipedia provides is great, plus the record of changes and discussions help capture some of the nuances people are aiming for.
That said where this really accelerates is when bias is wanted. For example the Arch wiki vs Debian wiki vs Wikipedia all SHOULD have biases that cater to their specific audience, even if there is obvious overlap.
Interestingly use of wikidata could help create aknowlledge graph associating parts of the fediwikiverse and we might be able to see a dream of mine ; dynamic knowledge content. Where I might be an expert in databases so I can get the condensed version of how postgres but get the beginners version of kubernetes on an article about deploying them together
Interesting project and good luck on this.
Did you not consider something like Codeberg to host this? Many open source devs do not trust MS or their stewardship of Github, and considering the aim of this project is against American control of information, surely this really needs serious consideration.
Many open source devs do not want to use Github at all now.
That is true but most developers are still on Github, which hasn't been affected by enshittification yet. I also have to keep using Github because of Lemmy, so I don't want to switch back and forth between two separate platforms.
However once Gitea starts federation we definitely want to migrate Lemmy to a selfhosted instance, and probably Ibis too.
They sunset Atom to push VS code despite assurances they wouldn't.
Co-pilot slurping open source code and spitting out code without license attribution. One example of this was when it spat out Quake 2 code and comment verbatim.
Enshittification started, you just ain't ready to see it yet. MS has a track record and will continue.
2 git hosts is just 2 tabs and by the time federation happens, you've already got vendor lock in because of all the issues. I doubt migration of those will be straightforward.
First of all I welcome this idea, and think it's ok if there's many different types of encyclopaedia on different perspectives. Now, how will a decentralised wiki deal with something like a rando claiming to be uni professor and inserting thyself in admin position over time? How is activitypub helpful in writing wiki?(Edit credits?)
Finally a site you might find helpful: https://wikiindex.org/ (https://web.archive.org/wikiindex.org/ as it seems to be down)
This is a great project. I had the same idea myself, and posted about it, but never did anything about it! It's great that people like you are here, with the creativity, and the motivation and skills to do this work.
I think this project is as necessary as Wikipedia itself.
The criticisms in these comments are mostly identical to the opinion most people had about Wikipedia when it started - the it would become a cesspool of nonsense and misinformation. That it was useless and worthless when encyclopaedias already exist.
Wikipedia was the first step in broadening what a source if authoritative information can be. It in fact created richer and more truthful information than was possible before, and enlightened the world. Ibis is a necessary second step on the same path.
It will be most valuable for articles like Tieneman square, or the Gilets Jaunes, where there are sharply different perspectives on the same matter, and there will never be agreement. A single monolithic Wikipedia cannot speak about them. Today, wiki gives one perspective and calls it the truth. This was fine in the 20th century when most people believed in simple truths. They were told what to think by single sources. They never left their filter bubbles. This is not sustainable anymore.
To succeed and change the world, this project must do a few things right.
The default instance should just be a mirror of Wikipedia. This is the default source of information on everything, so it would be crazy to omit it. Omitting it means putting yourself in competition with it, and you will lose. By encompassing it, the information in Ibis is from day 1 greater then wiki. Then Ibis will just supersede wiki.
There should be a sidebar with links to the sane article on other instances. So someone reading about trickle down economics on right wing instance, he can instantly switch to the same article on a left wing wiki and read the other side of it. That's the feature that will make it worthwhile for people.
It should look like Wikipedia. For familiarity. This will help people transition.
Thanks for the support. I think the era of single, centralized sources of information will soon be in the past.
I just assumed that would be easy, that you would have one instance with no actual content. It just fetches the wikipedia article with the same name, directly from the wikipedia website. I guess I didn't really think about it.
I guess that's a design choice. Looking at different ways similar issues have been solved already...
How does wikipedia decide that the same article is available in different languages? I guess there is a database of links which has to be maintained.
Alternatively, it could assume that articles are the same if they have the same name, like in your example where "Mountain" can have an article on a poetry instance and on a geography instance, but the software treats them as the same article.
Wikipedia can understand that "Rep of Ireland" = "Republic of Ireland". So I guess there is a look-up-table saying that these two names refer to the same thing.
Then, wikipedia can also understand cases where articles can have the same name but be unrelated. Like RIC (paramilitary group) is not the same as RIC (feature of a democracy).
I do think, if each Ibis instance is isolated, it won't be much different from having many separate wiki websites. When the software automatically links you to the same information on different instances, that's when the idea becomes really interesting and valuable.
Oooh this is cool
@nutomic Looks like an interesting project!
Will there be a mobile-friendly version of the front end?
And will you be able to follow Ibis pages (or perhaps edit them?) from Mastodon? Or potentially even Lemmy?
Sure if someone implements those things. I personally already invested a lot of time in the project and wont be able to do everything on my own.
@nutomic That last question was me trying to get my head around how this works.
Will each page have a username, in the same way each Lemmy group has a username, which can be followed from Mastodon?
If you follow that username from Mastodon, will you see a series of posts? If so, will they contain page edits or something else?
What happens if you tag that account in a post from Mastodon? Or reply to one of those posts?
The readme has some basic description how the federation works. Viewing articles from other platforms should be easy to get working. Edits from other platforms would also be possible, but would require changes so that they can generate diffs and resolve conflicts. So not exactly easy.
Looks very broken on mobile.
Yeah, well. Why was I not surprised when I read its made by a lemmy dev. You guys rock.
Tankiepedia
Written on tankie reddit.
I'm on kbin, not lemmy.
You‘re writing in lemmy.ml, the original lemmy instance.
I think this could be useful for a project I have where school that are not connected to the internet could create their own wikis, however, I need to see how it develops.
Oh very Thoth coded.
One of the main devs of Lemmy (@nutomic) just announced a federated wiki project called Ibis
https://ibis.wiki
#fediverse
@liaizon @nutomic oh no, I didn't realize that was one of the Lemmy guys. I guess that means that Lemmy development will slow down.
@jeena @nutomic lemmy has many contributions I don't think this necessarily means that Lemmy dev should slow down at all
"Instead of individual, centralized websites there will be an interconnected network of encyclopedias. This means the same topic can be treated in completely different ways."
Yay, now we'll have a new wikipedia which will also present russian take on Ukraine invasion, Chinese take on Tianmen massacre and a flat-earthers corner for their "truth". I think internet already covers that..
@nutomic @liaizon
Would have preferred a federated wiki in Lemmy, but still cool.
Adding such functionality in Lemmy would be very complicated because Lemmy itself is already quite a complicated project. So it would require test coverage, pass code review, have a stable API and so on. Its better to experiment with this in a new project so I can write some quick and dirty code to get the basic functionality working. If it proves successful it can be integrated with Lemmy later.
btw is this compatible with Markdown or WikiText?
It uses Markdown because it has the best library support.
YAY! Amazing!
for a prospective dev (for contributing & who is learning...) what should one look into if they wanted to add support for another markup language? like typst! or uhh pandoc so whatever markup language one writes in it can be put in the appropriate format!
Why not just build a wikipedia mirror?
All the data is available for free via download, torrent, etc.
Idk I have no complaints about wikipedia to lead me to look for a federated alternative.
Another day another Nutomic W
read the name as libs which is just normal wikipedia
Adding reference to HN submission of this article. Discussion thus far has 233 comments.
@nutomic This is a cool idea! But I have a lot of questions about how the heck you make a think like Wikipedia work in a federated way. Are articles duplicated on each instance, or do we lose some of them when an instance goes down? How does moderation work? How do I search it?
Also, I see someone else posting screenshots, but the link you posted takes me out of my Mastodon app to a Lemmy page where I don't see any links to Ibis itself.
(Saw some criticism of the name there. Ibis is an awesome & appropriate name, IMO.)
Yes articles are duplicated in the same way posts are duplicated on Mastodon or Lemmy, so they wont go away. Moderation doesnt exist so far. There is a search field in the sidebar.
The link goes directly to Ibis where I posted the announcement.
@nutomic Looks like you already addressed the federation questions elsewhere in the conversation.
That looks like big news. Exciting! 🎉
The majestic bin chicken reaching new heights.
All the best with the project!
Is it linked to the ongoing Drama on the french wikipedia ?
How does federation works with with "SEO" ? Wikipedia is always among the top result on search engine, how would peopel find about Ibis ?
I dont speak French and havent heard about that drama. But its about the problems pointed out in this article among others.
If Ibis gets popular it will get listed higher in search results. Same as Lemmy which is also slowly going up in results. Before that it will most likely spread through word of mouth.
Huh. Searching for "Lemmy" on Google actually brings it up on the side now instead of Lemmy Kilmister like it did during the Reddit exodus. Neat.
What could possibly go wrong!
Why is it named after those bin juice drinking cunt birds?
I love the idea, but I hate the name.
Probably because in Egyptian mythology, Thoth, who was an Ibis headed deity, was the god of knowledge and wisdom, and thus Ibis became a symbol of knowledge and reason.
It's somewhat amusing that the Egyptian Ibis is so closely related to the Australian Bin Chicken that they may actually be the same species
TIL, nice.
Could be a reference to Thoth, the ancient Egyptian god of knowledge, or alternatively could refer to Israeli special forces
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibis#In_culture
Why the heck would it be referring to the Israeli special forces? It's obviously in reference to Thoth.
No it's special forces
The link says they use the Ibis as their emblem
Yeah, no, wouldn't touch that from a longstick, specially from the political slant it's coming from. Wikipedia itself already has enough problems, Ibis is just asking to be a misinformation hub.
@AMillionNames @nutomic In which case the ibis, a species of bird that's also known as the bin chicken, might be a fitting name for the platform?
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2018/apr/09/bin-chickens-grotesque-glory-urban-ibis-in-pictures
@nutomic another useless inactive wiki-like project
Finally. Hope this takes off and breaks wikipedia's biased monopoly on knowledge.
Idk man I'd say wikipedia is probably 95% great. The political stuff will always have it's issues, sure, but most of it is quite good info.
I'm all for competition though. I hope this one takes off as well.
95% of stuff relevant to you ≠ 95% of all stuff.
'biased monopoly' what are you talking about, everything is sourced and open
You can get specific about certain articles needing improvement, but to call all of Wikipedia generally biased without any proof seems like a pretty red lil flag
The heart of narrative control on Wikipedia is controlling what standards of evidence need to be met and what sources are acceptable. An easy example of this would be the argument over adding an entry for Thomas James Ball to the List of Political Self-Immolations. Before they finally gave in and accepted it, there was a push to establish a standard for entries on the list that almost no existing entry on the list met and apply that standard to determine if Thomas James Ball should be included, while painting it as though the process were neutral.