I remember someone shared a federated alternative to Wikipedia here and I don’t remember the name of the project. Perplexity, Google and alternativeto.net are no good in finding it. Does anybody know its name?
To be fair, out of all non-federated platforms, Wikipedia is the one that needs federation the least.
Honestly, if wikipedia ever becomes federated, i would assume it would split into platforms like conservapedia, rationalpedia, etc.
No thanksWhich all, unfortunately, already exist
It’s always awesome when evil groups use the output from good folk torile against those good folk
Probably to stop ill-intentioned people from putting their unfactual propaganda on the articles or something.
I think we need to start with what Wikipedia is meant to be, before even considering whether it would be aided through federation. By their own words:
Wikipedia’s purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge.
Encyclopedias are designed to introduce readers to a topic, not to be the final point of reference. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, is a tertiary source and provides overviews of a topic.
Content is governed by three principal core content policies – neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research.
That describes the content intended to go into the Wikipedia, but we need to also mention the distinction between the Wikipedia itself, the MediaWiki software package which powers Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation.
With MediaWiki, which is FOSS (GPLv2), anyone can set up their own encyclopedia-style volume of articles to host on the web. And that’s exactly what many fandom websites or technical documentation websites do, because that level of detail would not be accepted into the general-knowledge Wikipedia. And you can hardly blame the Wikipedia for wanting to avoid scope-creep.
Likewise, if someone disagrees with how a topic is discussed in a Wikipedia article, they can go in and make the change, provided that they follow the same rules and procedures as everyone else. Yes there are moderators, but even moderators can be moderated. In a way, Wikipedia is a collective effort that somehow democratized editorship and it’s shocking that it hasn’t devolved into major terf wars.
And that’s where the Wikipedia Foundation comes in. They are both the charitable foundation that keeps the Wikipedia servers running, as well as administering the collection, much like how a museum protects cultural treasures. Dissatisfaction with the limited role that the Foundation plays can be solved by forking the Wikipedia; they don’t assert a monopoly on the collective knowledge, and indeed the entire thing can be downloaded for offline use or to host a mirror under separate administration.
With all that said, Wikipedia as a concept hews very closely to the print version of an encyclopedia. It is functionally a really big book, painstakingly edited by untold numbers of people. The fact that it’s not just a bunch of random blog posts is its strength. Wikipedia is not social media; it is distributed editorship.
But supposing you do want a distributed knowledge base, where there might exist multiple versions of an article, please explain why the World Wide Web doesn’t already accomplish that. People have been writing their own thoughts since the 1990s. If the WWW is too general-purpose for your liking for knowledge articles, then perhaps something like the DICT protocol is more palatable?
Despite ostensibly dealing with dictionaries, DICT has been used to offer the CIA World Factbook and the Jargon File, which are more like subject-matter specific encyclopedias. As a standardized protocol – even CURL can fetch DICT entries – the Fediverse doesn’t need another protocol to do the same thing.
I personally think there is value – a lot of value – in the Wikipedia, precisely because of what it’s not. Wikipedia is not a place to express opinions, it is not a popularity contest of ideas, and it is not a space untethered from facts and logic.
I understand people and entities having wikis for countless reasons, as we see lots of wikis all over the web. And it’s awesome that MediaWiki is open sourced to create these places. However, it doesn’t make sense. It’s like saying that Facebook had open sourced its code and now anyone can create a new Facebook. Let’s take a real example: Mastodon is open source and Truth Social is based on Mastodon. Does that make Truth Social any more linked to Mastodon core guidelines and philosophy? It doesn’t. Because Truth Social is more like Twitter than it is like Mastodon.
So, why would I want to start a wiki? No, I want a decentralized go-to place that I can check many points of view over a subject, just like the Fediverse works today. I use an instance that is already set up and help that community grow its direction and contribute. It isn’t that hard to understand. A place that is already built up where you can contribute in different ways and it is at the same time decentralized.
There is nothing to fear. It isn’t as if people could create a new wolfballs instance that would ruin the thing; the community can be better than that. Things don’t have to spiral out of control, in the end teamwork would make for it and it would be a nice place. It doesn’t have to be a Truth “Social” Wiki.
No, I want a decentralized go-to place that I can check many points of view over a subject, just like the Fediverse works today.
I disagree with the premise that multiple POVs on every topic will yield better understandings or discussion. It is the same flaw that Ground News or other services have, which purport to curate POVs from different news media outlets, with the implicit assumption that all the outlets have something useful to offer. This assumption is absolutely balderdash.
The Fediverse is no more – or less – immune from disinformation and other ails, but has better user- and instance-level protections: bans and defederation are effective, because if they weren’t, people here wouldn’t log back on. For Mastodon and Lemmy and other forms of social media, the decentralization has clear and obvious benefits.
A decentralized knowledge-store does not.
There is nothing to fear.
There is everything to fear when knowledge is spread out into small libraries across the land. The historical analog is book-burning incidents that dotted human history, whether to suppress paganism, Mayan culture, or the spread of communism. The modern-day analogy is when Vine went defunct and the content was almost wholly lost to the world. The Fediverse example is when an instance unexpectedly disappears, stranding all its users.
But focusing on a knowledge-store, technology has given us the ability to copy data at rates that outpace all of history’s ecclesiastical scribes put together. We can – and do – preserve the largest datasets (see !datahoarder@lemmy.ml) because it is a matter of resilience. Yet that endeavor has become more difficult precisely because of technology. The Internet Archive faces this issue, because they cannot save what they don’t even know exist or cannot see it.
The Fediverse inhabits a very special Goldilocks zone right now, not unlike Wikipedia, where the availability of interest, capabilities, and materiel allow for the existence of this internet experiment. But fragile it is, and instances are no further from risk than by a DMCA notice, a UK age restriction law, a frivolous but expensive SLAPP suit, or just plain ol running out of money.
If I had spare time and energy and were presented with the options to either: 1) set up a decentralized knowledge store of nebulous benefit, or 2) support the online compendium which I’ve personally used for over two decades now and has helped untold numbers of students and researchers with starting the research into a new-to-them topic, and could do so by using my servers to seed the all-Wikipedia torrents… well, I think the choice is clear.
I like what you said. But categorizing and labeling media websites is not at all as contributing with knowledge to a corpus of information. Contributing with more information brings more freedom, while restraining something to a label diminishes freedom.
Edit: For example, if I tell the person that a news website is left leaning, I’m telling her what she needs to know about that website. And it will also shape her opinion about the website, in ways that could be limiting.
When a person visits a website without a formed opinion about it, she can construct her own opinion and have a personal relationship with what the website has to say.
The problem with Wikipedia is who controls the narrative and it is controlled by a few who have incentives to sway public opinion.
https://update.lib.berkeley.edu/2025/01/09/the-bias-of-notability-in-wikipedia/
https://manhattan.institute/article/new-study-finds-political-bias-embedded-in-wikipedia-articles
You could have spared yourself the AI slop by saying you’re fine with the current bias. Where do you think most source on Wikipedia comes from? Articles from mainstream media which is mostly handled and curated by the western nations that until very recently denied anything bad happening in Gaza? The one that minimized the atrocities of Iraq and Afghanistan war and countless other interventions.
How do you think that works into a “neutral point of view” narrative?
Wikipedia was relatively early in labeling the Gaza genocide.
Also, as others have said, you can clone Wikipedia right now and set up your own structure to edit it. The problem is that most clones end up like Conversatopeda, which generally tends to add a lot of bias to the articles.
This opinion is a bit extreme, but take the “Science” subreddit for example. Reddit is full of rules, but “Science” in particular only lets you post links from trusted sources and is very uptight about the rules.
What benefit would there be to federation? You can already download all of Wikipedia, and you can host your own wiki.
Also, it just occurred to me using the Lemmy “Search” function to look for it. It is there. The name is “Ibis”.
First of all, there is the problem of senior editors being in control and if you do anything, they just revert it, or delete it. There are reasons why there are already many different wikis and not just one.
Then as the other commenter shared, they have the goal of a neutral point of view, but that’s an idealistic goal that can’t be reached. The neutrality with which something is presented is sometimes a problem. For example in political spheres it can make more sense to read two very biased articles from opposing sides, than one that tries to present both sides objectively.
So it would be really helpful to see side by side comparisons or disambiguation pages that lead to different perspectives.
And you can sort of do this already, but the point of federation is also that it’s more tightly integrated than “you can have your own forum” which was true before as well.
Neutrality, and they just say massacres maybe happened 1984 sikh one says like 10 ppl died
All people could contribute to the different instances and create a web of knowledge. If someone thinks a certain instance opinion of Robert F. Kennedy is wrong, they can contribute to another instance on the same topic giving references (even if different) as well.
I really think this is a better way of contribution. In this way, everyone gets to have their opinions preserved and at the same time contributing together. And to Truth, no less.
These instances would be connected by the ActivityPub or other.
Anyway, I’m sure there is a project like that out there already, and I’m also sure someone posted it here. I just don’t remember the name.
Opinions only obfuscate truth.
More opinions means less truth.The world does not need a fucking opinionpedia. We have enough morons filling the internet with bullshit; having an authoritative, factual source for a wide variety of data is a good thing.
I have no desire to read some crackpot’s opinion on RFK. Objective facts are critical to a healthy society. We can see how bad things get when people tear apart the fabric of knowledge and replace it with misinformation.
Fuck that right in the ear.
You understand that you never actually had unmediated access to “the fabric of knowledge”, right? You just had sources that you agreed with
And adding a trashcan full of opinions takes everyone further from truth, not closer.
That’s not true. More opinions means more people searching for truth together and finding new things.
If someone finds something new and share it, that could be reviewed and researched by people faster.
Centralizing truth has a much more destructive aspect when dealing with truth. This can be seen practically on the difference of reach between the Fediverse and Facebook, for example. Facebook (centralized) is ground for fake and hateful news, while the Fediverse (decentralized) brings meaningful diversity and insightfulness.
More information also means quicker double-checking for what is true, regardless of political spectrum, even though Ibis main instance took care to add a “No politics” rule. Regardless of this, I see potential for including political debate as well.
Truth is a constructed entity. A heated debate in Brazil for more than a decade. I’m from Brazil, but Brazil is central on this in the sense that it is leaving the western spectrum to join the Global South, so this topic has been very heated for the last decade, generating real economical and political crisis (economy down 3% and impeachment in 2015/2016). It is felt around these parts in a very special way. So I’m sure that what people called “post-truth” on the original Ibis post is the way to go.
More opinions means more people searching for truth together and finding new things.
Finding more opinions, not truth.
If someone finds something new and share it, that could be reviewed and researched by people faster.
More information also means quicker double-checking for what is true
Slower. They must search through the deluge of opinion that grows exponentially faster than any truth could ever hope to.
Centralizing truth has a much more destructive aspect when dealing with truth. This can be seen practically on the difference of reach between the Fediverse and Facebook, for example.
Neither are made for truth.
Truth is a constructed entity.
Truth is discovered, not constructed. You may be thinking of consensus this whole time. Consensus is absolutely constructed. But consensus isn’t truth. Sometimes they align. More often by accident then by intent.
Let’s say you have two chemical processes. Process A and Process B.
If Process A has an efficiency of 95% and Process B an efficiency of 97%, does that invalidate process A? Something similar can be seen in Bamboo scaffolding in China. Is Bamboo scaffolding better or worse than metal scaffolding?
Now let’s say that Process A has an efficiency of 97% and Process B an efficiency of 97%. Which is the best method?
If centralization in technology and science were the optimal way to go, these questions would be invalid. But things that work only in one way are dumb.
“Best” isn’t a question of truth.
Truly there is no “best”.
Truth only describes what is, without any judgement.That’s not two different opinions, though. You just posted two accurate facts. An accurate Wikipedia will post both of them, and it has nothing to do with any individual’s opinion on Process A being a ploy by Big Pharma or Process B being a liberal psyop. An accurate Wikipedia will also not post about either being the “best.” That’s not its job.
Your bamboo scaffolding example is actually a good one, but not in your favor. Bamboo scaffolding is a great option in places where bamboo grows naturally. In other parts of the world where bamboo is less common, metal scaffolding is usually a more economic choice. Neither is “better,” and encyclopedias should not suggest that one or the other is.
This whole thing is why the Wikipedia “opinion” editor tag exists. Its whole point is to mark places where an article needs editing because the content is subjective or not supported by verifiable fact.
The scientific method is not an evaluation of truth, it is morseso a separate concept
If you want different opinions you can go to Conservapedia and see how factual the content is there.
Facebook (centralized) is ground for fake and hateful news, while the Fediverse (decentralized) brings meaningful diversity and insightfulness.
That’s because Facebook has discovered that fake and hateful news gets lots of clicks and engagement, and boosts their bottom line. Wikipedia has no such profit motive, nor does federated social media. It’s the economics that make them different, not the server paradigm.
More information also means quicker double-checking for what is true, regardless of political spectrum
Is…this your first day on the Internet? That is almost never how it works. You get one side posting sourced, verifiable, provable information at best. At worst, both sides are posting cherry-picked half-stories that agree with their preconceived ideas. In the end, no one changes their minds, but the people who are willing to stay and post about it for longer are the ones who are seen later on as the “winners.”
Truth is a constructed entity.
I’m reminded of a line from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: “Archaeology is the search for fact, not truth. If it’s truth you’re interested in, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.”
Similarly, encyclopedias are not where to go for truth. They’re where to go for fact, and fact isn’t decided by consensus.
Not everyone’s opinion deserves a platform.
We don’t need more relativisation of facts, we need the exact opposite. Contrary to a way too widespread belief, opinions are not automatically something to respect and are not all equal, there can be shitty opinions based on shitty facts.
if you want an opinion go to a blog
People tend to disagree about everything, even the shape of the earth and the effectiveness of vaccines, as mad as that may sound. As a result, a federated encyclopedia would probably diverge and fork numerous times, resulting in countless competing versions. How would you merge them back together?
It wouldn’t be controlled by one foundation, so agewalls couldn’t be enforced
As a website or service, sure. But the Wikipedia has been available to download for offline use since basically its inception. This is how users in places with poor internet connections can still benefit from the Wikipedia. Certainly, the idea of distributing Wikipedia on disc is a bit odd.
But whether it be smuggling books across the Iron Curtain, downloading swaths of paywalled scientific papers from an MIT computer, or accessing information about abortion, the pursuit of knowledge is a chiefly human trait and one not easily suppressed. But if all those, the Wikipedia has the best track record for being openly available and free (as in speech, and as in beer).
Anyone – not just the Wikimedia Foundation – can protest a proposed age restriction against Wikipedia by sending out enough Wikipedia CDs that would rival AOL’s 1990s campaigns. So too could one print a physical volume, just to prove the point that anti-proliferation of information is a lost-cause.
One of the main Lemmy devs is working on a federated wiki project called ibis:
https://ibis.wiki/article/Main_Page
I only know that it exists. I have not used it so I can’t give any opinion of its maturity or usefulness.
I don’t know if it’s what you had in mind, but MediaWiki (the software WP runs on) has “interwiki” features that let MW instances easily reference each other’s articles; and other MW plugins (like Wikibase and Sematic MediaWiki) have features that let MW instances share their underlying data.
I will preface this by saying I think it would be interesting to attempt but I think the end result would be disagreements of all kinds would lead to a lot of degeneration and splitting as we see with Lemmy and with how gab and parlor are in relation to mastodon and such.
There already are “forks” of wikipedia for conspiracy nuts and other sorts.
I think what could work though is similar to how some things are adding AP support that allows for following and sharing, and maybe commenting on articles, having those aspects be federated might not be so bad.
Nostr has a app for wikipidia type shit
