Asklemmy

43874 readers

1689 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

What would be a good name for a federated Wikipedia? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by nutomic@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

87 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] lud@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 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.