roastpotatothief

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

roastpotatothief , (edited )

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. It should look like Wikipedia. For familiarity. This will help people transition.
roastpotatothief ,
  1. 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.
  2. 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.

roastpotatothief OP ,

How could that work, on a practical level? Would it work better than what I have proposed?

roastpotatothief OP ,

That's probably what will happen in the end. Using old familiar idea, because it is familiar.

But that's not what I'm doing here. I'm interested in new and more effective plans, even if they are not familiar and are unlikely to be used for that reason.

roastpotatothief ,

It is useful to have lots of stupid laws. It makes people feel powerless and frustrated. It means the police can always find excuses to persecute you.

The technicalities of the individual laws are not important. It's the psychological effect of the whole body of laws on a people.

Is the Hard Problem Really So Hard? ( nautil.us )

with artistic training or brain stimulation we could look beneath the intrinsic nature of qualia to see the raw associations that make them up, just as a musician hears the individual components in what, to most fans, is a wall of sound. “It should be possible to experience parts of those underlying structures directly, just ...

roastpotatothief ,

sounds important. sad the link doesn't work for me.

Vaccines and the trolley problem

I've previously said here that mass vaccination is a crucial tool in disease control, but that enforced vaccination has some problems. The first five I'm just listing, because I think everyone should be aware of them. I know some are controversial, but I'm not planning to discuss them here. The last one is IMO the most ...

roastpotatothief ,

Very interesting. It shows that Lemmy was always a political project. It was always meant to advocate certain politics and discourage others.

IMO this is not what new users expect. So we keep seeing these posts of people realising, and being shocked, and sometimes rage-quitting.

Only a certain portion of people will stay with Lemmy after that realisation, and the others will flee. Is that what you want? (again just IMO)

If not, is there a way to make this political vision more evident, to try to stop this effect?

TBH I'm against the politics of Lemmy. But (IMO again) despite that it's still a valuable project, and maybe a historically important one.

Statement on Politics of Lemmy.ml

Recently there have been some discussions about the political stances of the Lemmy developers and site admins. To clear up some misconceptions: Lemmy is run by a team of people with different ideologies, including anti-capitalist, communist, anarchist, and others. While @dessalines and I are communists, we take decisions ...

roastpotatothief ,

I'm always the first to start these threads.

But it's good to remember, we chose Lemmy over sites like notabug because it works better. Some good decisions by the devs created a good website, enabling good discussions, which you just don't see elsewhere.

Some things like the "slur filter" seem sketchy, but you have to give the devs the benefit of the doubt. They clearly know a couple of things about forum design.

At the same time, it's important to talk about this stuff. Better ideas usually come from debate.

roastpotatothief ,

That's the defence of the "slur filter" that everyone can agree on. It's harmless because it does almost nothing. It has no real benefit or cost.

The people who say it deters fascists - it just doesn't hold water.#