Announcing Ibis, the federated Wikipedia Alternative
Announcing Ibis, the federated Wikipedia Alternative
55 comments
-
I'm not sure I see the benefit of this. The point that Wikipedia might eventually become corrupted is made moot by the permissive licensing of the information there. The main challenge of the Wiki format is with fact checking and ensuring quality, which is only made more complicated by having a federated platform.
ActivityPub is great for creating the social web. The added benefit of ActivityPub for non-social services is not obvious to me at all.
That said, it's a cool proof of concept, and I'm sure it can be useful for certain types of federated content management - I just don't see how it could ever make sense as a Wikipedia alternative.
-
I can definitely see it being a better alternative to that Fandom wiki site
-
Throwing shit at a wall would be a better alternative to the Fandom wiki site.
-
The main reason people use Fandom in the first place is the free hosting. Whether you use MediaWiki or any other wiki software, paying for the server resources to host your own instance and taking the time to manage it is still a tall hurdle for many communities. There already are plenty of MediaWiki instances for specific interests that aren't affected by Fandom's problems.
Even so, federation tends to foster a culture of more self-hosting and less centralization, encouraging more people who have the means to host to do so, though I'm not sure how applicable that effect would be to wikis.
-
Fanlore already exists as an alternative
-
-
-
Rather than starting from scratch, would it make more sense to make an ActivityPub plugin for the open-source MediaWiki software Wikipedia runs on? MediaWiki already has some “interwiki” functionality that such a plugin could expand on, and you’d have the advantage of being able to fork content from WP and other MW projects without having to re-format it. Plus you’d be able to leverage other MW plugins—Semantic MediaWiki in particular could add a lot of useful functionality to federated wikis, like articles that could query and aggregate information from other federated articles rather than just linking to the text.
-
Mediawiki is an extremely complicated project with 1.2 million lines of PHP. For me it was much easier to implement this project with technology Im already familiar with. But of someone wants to create a Mediawiki plugin I would be happy to see that.
-
Both projects could run and integrate with each other. I like it.
-
-
For the love of god fix ur mobile css
-
You can make a pull request here: https://github.com/Nutomic/ibis/blob/master/assets/ibis.css
-
For the love of god, be more polite
-
-
The link is virtually unreadable, it formats really strangely on mobile. The text is in a 1cm wide column on the right side, allowing only ~3 letters per row.
-
Im bad at CSS, contributions welcome: https://github.com/Nutomic/ibis/blob/master/assets/ibis.css
-
For those on desktop, this is what mobile users see:
-
the entire internet may as well look like this for me i hate knowledge
-
-
-
Looks like a federated wiki, which is great. And not a Wikipedia alternative. What makes wikipedia wikipedia is not the tech. Social and knowledge problems can't be solved with tech ;)
As much as Wikipedia has issues, as the ibis announcement states, it also works in many places. And federating it won't help with the issues of bad moderation, quite the contrary. And as much as I like nutomic (thanks for syncthing-android ;) ), I don't hear many good things about the lemmy moderation story. So I have my doubts. Lets hope I am wrong. Plus anyway, federated wikis is a great thing to have, ignoring the whole Wikipedia aspect.-
What's wrong with lemmy moderation? I haven't had issues.
-
Honest question out of interest: Are you doing moderation on lemmy? I just remember reading about admins/mods complaining about the lack of tooling, sometimes plain functionality (removal of certain things) for effective moderation. I am not doing any myself so that's very 3rd-party-ish knowledge (if you even want to call it that).
-
-
wikipedia is already a great non profit source of public knowledge though i don't see the benefit of fracturing it
i can see a benefit to using this to replace things like fandom wikia though
-
The moderators of Wikipedia are largely a small, insular community that don't always care about accuracy when it comes from anyone outside their clique.
-
-
This is a cool idea, but I highly encourage you to target mobile first. Reference works will get a LOT of mobile traffic. More than 80% of Wikipedia’s traffic is mobile.
-
I'm not good at frontend development or webdesign so I definitely need help in those areas.
-
-
What are the articles written in? Wiki lang (or whatever it's called) is horrendous, IMO. Hopefully this is markdown? I couldn't find after a quick browse through codebase and I don't think it's mentioned in the blog post.
-
Yes it uses markdown.
-
-
Very interesting concept. Since the original wikipedia is in most parts published under licenses that permit copying & adaptations, are you planning to integrate their articles as a snapshot for the sake of having a solid foundation?
-
I dont have time for that, but other people could setup instances which mirror parts of Wikipedia.
-
-
This is super exciting. I think one of the things a lot of people are missing here is the potential for wikis to augment existing fediverse communities. Reddit's killer feature has always been the massive treasure trove of information for hobbyists and niche interests. There is huge potential in the fediverse to take advantage of that sort of natural collaborative knowledge building process.
-
i was going to screenshot the mobile browser view but it looks like half the comments are ripping on it already
-
Interesting idea,
But search sites currently can't find anything in lemmy.
So how will they link to this?
55 comments