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

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

  • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    What is Wikipedia failing at currently that decentralizing it would make better?

    Just like reddit (and many other services), its a centralized US-based service, has a history of scandals and conflicts of interest, has ties to the US state department, and is dominated by a small group of editors (despite its perception as being a universal unbiased knowledge store).

    There’s definitely a need to decentralize knowledge, move it away from US control, and allow the collaboration that activitypub provides.

    • fishos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Federation, by it’s very nature, is “if I don’t like you, I can just make my own instance and do whatever I want”. How will you find objective truth when people can’t even agree within their own country? You really think we won’t just end up with LeftyWiki and RightyWiki and CommieWiki and FacistWiki? Because federated code would encourage this. You’re literally adding problems when your problem is people based, not code based.

      • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Why is having alternative sources of information that can collaborate a bad thing?

        Why are you even on lemmy, rather than reddit, if you’d rather have a single isolated source of communication?

      • nutomic@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        There are plenty of Wikipedia articles which are not objective, particularly when it comes to politics or history. Of course federation means there would be many different wikis. That makes sense, for example different countries should have their own independent wikis, instead of using one controlled by a different nation.

        • fishos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yes, we can have a US wiki, a Russia Wiki, a China Wiki, a North Korea Wiki, and none of them will agree with each other and you will have reduced an encyclopedia into worthless anecdotes and opinions.

          • Ademir@lemmy.eco.br
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            you will have reduced an encyclopedia into worthless anecdotes and opinions.

            It is Wikipedia then.

        • Big P@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          What benefit would federation provide in that case, as people can currently make their own wikis if they want

    • jorgesumle@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      I agree, that’s a big issue. The US regime hires people to influence the Wikipedia organization, they choose the “reliable news sources”, mark some news outlets as fake news, and they edit articles about wars and so on to disseminate their propaganda. Also, the PATRIOT Act… As I wrote a couple months ago, we should end digital colonialism.

      Scientific articles about math and stuff like that are fine.