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.

Yes that's the value of game theory. It's not really about the silly games. It's a way to understand real life, using silly games as examples. It helps us think of ways to understand our problems and to change the world, that we would not have thought of otherwise.

Yes that's it. If we all did it together, we could change the world. But as individuals there is no effective action we can take.

Things like effective democracy, or powerful protest groups, could someday change the rules of the game. They could provide a low effort path for each individual to improve the collective (and his own) outcome.

There is democracy in several member states of the USA. It could trickle up. There are mechanisms to make that happen. I think is even an ongoing campaign to replace the electoral college. I forget the details now.

actually i have no idea where i am! the community is called [ ]. the sidebar sounds like total gibberish. this is a place i don't understand.

what does this even mean?!

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal. No anti-natilasm posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

because the system selects for people like him. in a working democracy people like him would be licking stamps, or in a nursing home. you can't change anything by changing the man, only by changing the system.

It's not his fault though. If you could sack your president and elect a new one tomorrow, the new one would do the same. Your electoral system ensures it. You need electoral reform to have a chance of fixing anything.

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.