So there's the idea of control being decentralised. But there's also the idea of truth being decentralised - like different instances could disagree with each other. I would love to see how it would work in practice.
this post was submitted on 13 May 2021
18 points (100.0% liked)
Fediverse
18153 readers
6 users here now
A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.
Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".
Getting started on Fediverse;
- What is the fediverse?
- Fediverse Platforms
- How to run your own community
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Try "edit wars" :-)
Yes, that would be quite a challenge. A member of Humane Tech Community has created a solution to determine credibility of content. It has many interesting concepts, but also many pitfalls and points for improvement. Another one of our members is involved with the highly interesting Underlay project, part of the Knowledge Futures Group spin-off from MIT Media Lab.
It's a good idea. But it looks like it's more likely to create a groupthink than a diversity of ideas. A single way of thinking becomes dominant and all others are labelled low-credibility by the algorithm.
I was thinking of the opposite. All ideas have equal status. You can read the left-wing encyclopedia or the right-wing one, or any other one. A lot of the content will be the same but some will be different. You won't get filter-bubbled so easily, because you can always link to the other one.
You could even have an agregator, where you can see which parts of a certain article are disputed by different instances, and click between different versions.
Another good thing would be a comment section - like a reddit-style discussion under each article - not like the discussion pages wiki has today. Something that's not hard to find, and where the "best" comments/criticisms of the article are at the top.
That credibility solution will probably work best for types of content where objective truth can be determined based on fact. Fields of knowledge, expertise, hard science. Opinion pieces.. not so much.
Yes. I think today's wikipedia is fine for those areas already. The tricky part is dealing with all the rest of human knowledge, outside the tiny bit that is "hard science".
XWiki has an extension plugin for AP. From the AP developer watchlist:
- XWiki Extension for ActivityPub (site, Fedi account): An implementation of the ActivityPub protocol for XWiki (see forum discussion).
LGPL-2.1, Java
And I believe @naturzukunft is working on a wiki app. Think you will find it interesting to exchange ideas with him anyway.
I would gladly give my server to share the network load of a global, free as in freedom, federated-wikipedia.
I wish somebody would create the infrastructure to easily contribute to sharing knowledge without centralization.
At SocialHub we have a topic dedicated to thinking about this subject. I invite anyone to contribute to the discussion. See Exploring semantic knowledgebase solutions.
Not a wiki per-se, but a neatly arranged wall, https://socialhome.network may serve you quite well, if you're looking to organize knowledge.
Not ActivityPub based (not sure how that would work anyways), but Hubzilla has a build in Wiki (Markdown or BBcode) that you can give people from other Hubzilla servers editing access to via the Zot6 federation & magicauth.
Zotlabs Hubzilla does support ActivityPub since it has been forked by Mike Macgirvin of Zotlabs.
Sure, but the Wiki part is not done through AP.
I am more and more interested in getting into hubzilla. It surely has a potential to become community hub. I just need someone to help me with configuration and integration.
Let me know if you have specific questions. Not a developer, but I run a small Hubzilla instance for some time already.