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.

  • fishos@lemmy.worldEnglish
    33·
    11 months ago

    So, you STILL HAVENT ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

    What part of wikipedias code or implementation is the problem? And how will the fediverse solve this?

    IF dude is corrupt, what’s to stop the next fediwiki from being corrupt too? After all, since it’s federated, if I don’t like your “facts”, I can just defederate and spread my own “facts”.

    So maybe do some reading of your own and answer my question. What’s wrong with the Wikipedia CODE that federated CODE will solve and how? Otherwise all you’re really advocating for is starting your own Wikipedia, and no one is stopping you.

    This is just “old thing + new buzzword”.

    • Nix@merv.newsEnglish
      52·
      11 months ago

      Why are you so heated about this? Wikis are good, decentralized yet compatible services are good. This won’t destroy Wikipedia. you can just ignore it if you don’t want to use it?

      • fishos@lemmy.worldEnglish
        21·
        11 months ago

        I’m not heated. Just sick of people attaching whatever new buzzword is around to something with no thought beyond that. That’s all this is. Just a rehash of blockchain and NFT woo woo.

    • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
      42·
      11 months ago

      What’s wrong with the Wikipedia CODE that federated CODE will solve and how?

      Wikipedia is centralized, and doesn’t allow collaboration by self-hosted servers. Activitypub allows this. You seem to not understand the point of the site you’re using right now.

      • fishos@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        11 months ago

        I understand the point. I also know that we’re currently defederated from hexbear and a few others. So in effect, there is less openness currently in Lemmy than on Wikipedia. How exactly is being able to do that.going to give us objective truth and not just 500 echo chambers?

    • nutomic@lemmy.mlOP
      42·
      11 months ago

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

      • fishos@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        11 months ago

        I understand the difference between a centralized and decentralized service. I WANT Wikipedia to be centralized. I’ve said that since the beginning. Objective truth has no business being splintered up.