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.

Great song that I’d nearly forgotten about.

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.

For private business the tickets are to fund the business. But for public transport they are never expected to cover the costs of the business.

It is run as a public service, not to make money. The function of tickets is to prevent overcrowding.

That’s why in well designed systems, the price is different at rush hour, and for high traffic routes and times.

I don’t know anything about montpellier specifically though.

It’s an interesting the gradual technical changes, from bullets to gas to bombs to depravation of water. They must measure big improvements in efficiency, measured in number of deaths per dollar and per day. Imagine of a report from a recent study on this got leaked!

polar bears. it’s the only animal that likes to eat people. daily life is just too safe and dull.

die hard

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.

Yes you couldn’t change something so widely used. Look what happened with python 3.

Fortunately there’s already a tradition among Git users of building a UI on top of the git UI. My project is just a slightly better version of those. It lays a simple sensible interface on top of the chaotic Git interface.

Git is a great invention but it has a few design flaws. There are too many ways to confuse it or break it, using commands that look correct, or just forgetting something. I ended up writing simple wrapper script codebase to fix it. Since then no problems.

Do you know how to start a wiki? Is there a very easy way just to start writing? I saw that github has a wiki section, so I could do it from a github account. But I don’t that that’s a real wiki at all, because random internet people couldn’t contribute to it.

There are good reasons to want to collaborate with ideological enemies.

Conservatives are generally good people, and are right about many things. They are just misguided on a few economic points. I know many people like this. They just haven’t read widely enough, or can’t think creatively about economics, or have never heard any other theory convincingly expressed.

People will generally stay in their boxes and read only their own wikis. Conservapedia people will remain conservative and misguided forever. But maybe you want to influence people outside your box. That’s where you want to share a space with other groups. If it’s equally easy to read any perspective, people people might read a few and change their minds about what the truth is. This is a good thing for a very niche but very true perspective like marxism.

For this to work, the new shared wiki has to be widely read. That means it has to become bigger than wikipedia, to supplant wikipedia.

The most important thing is to make it obvious to close-minded people that there are always different valid perspectives on every issue. If the go-to encyclopedia has this concept built-in, many people will start to understand it.

LOL

Yes of course. Just because this other project is possible doesn’t make your project less valuable.

I would like to make this. It would replace wikipedia with something more better. I have a much simpler encyclopedia project I’d like to do first, for practice. And I don’t even have the skills to do the simple project yet.

Yes that’s all true. Wikipedia deals with this as every encyclopaedia does, by feigning being neutral, feigning that it is possible to be neutral, and posting some version of events as the truth. That was fine for 20th century naïve readers, but not tenable today.

Prolewiki can give the Marxist version of events and that’s a valuable addition, another credible perspective. But it will always cover only niche topics for niche readers.

Better than this would be a project bigger then Wikipedia. It would be more useful and credible to readers, because it shows diverse views. It could replace Wikipedia.

On day one it would show exactly the same content as Wikipedia, but would quickly grow to be broader.

Imagine Wikipedia, prolewiki, anarchistwiki, neoconwiki, keynsianwiki, all on the same website on different tabs. People can flick from one to the other.

People who start off looking only at the neocon version will one day flick to the prole one. They might find it more convincing.

i can’t believe that nobody has made a fork of Wikipedia to give a broader and more neutral perspective.

It would be a very simple project, because you would simply add to the existing database. You would have tabs. “mainstream” would be a usual Wikipedia content. You could switch to the “Marxist” tab to see modified content.

She makes it sound so multi faceted that I don’t think she really understands. Just think of it as the ryanair effect, but on a larger scale. Once a low cost low quality seller enters the market, it will steal all the sales, because buyers can’t judge the difference in quality but they can in price. This forces all settlers to reduce quality.

The solution is forcing sellers to either provide guarantees or publish info on quality.

Just use schwalbe marathon. They are puncture proof and last forever. I once got home and picked a shard of glass as king as my fingernail out of one.

Most people haven’t. We all have a filter bubble.

Here is a first draft, my attempt to provide the missing context. Please leave comments on anything bad or missing you notice. https://lemmy.ml/post/4848742

Background? Link?

That all sounds like brigading emotional nonsense. In fact, there were strong reasons for Russia to invade. It is probably true that Russia was manipulated into invading, it had no choice because of strategic decisions made by Ukraine. It’s a shame none of the people you talked to were able to argue the issues sensibly.