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.

  • Nix
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2011 months ago

    It doesnt have to be a federated “wikipedia” it can be a federated wiki. Look at the fandom controversy right now where a bunch of games are now moving to their own wikis. A federated wiki software would let all those game wiki host their own wikis but still contribute to eachother without making an account on each wiki.

    I want to subscribe to the minecraft and the terraria wikis from my garrys mod wiki account to get notifications on new pages and i want to contribute to them without making an account on each. Federated wikis would be cool

    Also i DEFINITELY want a full fledged wiki page available on lemmy so each community can have a wiki with multiple pages and nice linking and a WYSISWYG editor like wikipedia

    • @fishos
      link
      English
      2411 months ago

      This isn’t talking about “wikis”. This is talking about an online encyclopedia of knowledge. I don’t want 15 versions of the “physics wiki”. I want one centralized source. So again, what does Wikipedia currently fail at that decentralizing it would solve? No one is stopping you from making an account right now and making edits.

      What you’re describing about seeing updates is just an RSS feed.

      This is just slapping “federization” on something that doesn’t need it because cool new thing.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Agreed, a decentralised wiki wouldn’t make much sense.

        How would it even work?

        Do you join one wiki and that wiki federated with other wikis to make one bigger wiki?

        Would you then have to choose which version of duplicate articles you want to read.

        I imagine vandalism would be much easier if moderation is spread over many independent servers.

        No, it just seems like a pain.

        Someone mentioned a wiki which uses something like pull requests instead of edits and that seems much better.

        Because Wikipedia is also so incredibly big, I feel like it would be very hard to get people to use the wiki if you actually want it to have only objective and provable facts. You could probably attract a crowd that likes alternative facts. Like: alternative medicine, flat earth, pseudoscience. Basically, I think it would be hard to attract people unless you make it ConspiracyWiki, which would obviously be a bad idea.