3 ms·

> I also strongly encourage him to look at state of wikipedia moderations. I think that the solution is similar to what he's proposing for the social networks:

> I also strongly encourage him to look at state of wikipedia moderations. I think that the solution is similar to what he's proposing for the social networks: decentralization. One example would be to take hint from github, and allow articles to be forked when they reach some threshold of editing warfare. Embrace and aggregate partisan takes rather pursuing the noble but chimeric goal of neutrality.

skribbj 7y ago
Forking Wikipedia articles based on partisanship is actually a super interesting idea.
- CharlesW 7y ago
  Like Conservapedia? https://www.conservapedia.com/ https://www.conservapedia.com/
  - brighter2morrow 7y ago
    Rationalwiki for those for whom Wikipedia isn't leftwing enough.
    - mftrhu 7y ago
      Conservapedia is trying to be a Wikipedia alternative - an Internet encyclopedia, from a fundamentalist point of view. RationalWiki is not, and I'm not sure why you mentioned it. It's not a Wikipedia fork or alternative. It's not even trying to be one, it has completely different goals. The only thing they have in common is the fact that they are both wikis, but there's thousands of those around.
      - brighter2morrow 7y ago
        Rationalwiki defers to Wikipedia on some things but writes articles on topics when they think the Wikipedia article doesn't go far enough in a direction they would like. Most rationalwiki articles would be redundant if their goal wasn't to overwrite Wikipedia
anon1m0us 7y ago
They say the winner writes the history. That must mean their is a loser's perspective too. Wikipedia could have both. I remember watching a BBC documentary about the history of the American Revolution -- it was very different than what I was taught in the USA. Read Ishmael as well. Similar take on, according to some, all of history.
duskwuff 7y ago
> Embrace and aggregate partisan takes rather pursuing the noble but chimeric goal of neutrality. The "noble but chimeric goal of neutrality" is core to Wikipedia's content policies [1]. Abandoning it would be an abdication of their mission. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose

skribbj 7y ago

Forking Wikipedia articles based on partisanship is actually a super interesting idea.

CharlesW 7y ago
Like Conservapedia? https://www.conservapedia.com/ https://www.conservapedia.com/
- brighter2morrow 7y ago
  Rationalwiki for those for whom Wikipedia isn't leftwing enough.
  - mftrhu 7y ago
    Conservapedia is trying to be a Wikipedia alternative - an Internet encyclopedia, from a fundamentalist point of view. RationalWiki is not, and I'm not sure why you mentioned it. It's not a Wikipedia fork or alternative. It's not even trying to be one, it has completely different goals. The only thing they have in common is the fact that they are both wikis, but there's thousands of those around.
    - brighter2morrow 7y ago
      Rationalwiki defers to Wikipedia on some things but writes articles on topics when they think the Wikipedia article doesn't go far enough in a direction they would like. Most rationalwiki articles would be redundant if their goal wasn't to overwrite Wikipedia

anon1m0us 7y ago

They say the winner writes the history. That must mean their is a loser's perspective too. Wikipedia could have both. I remember watching a BBC documentary about the history of the American Revolution -- it was very different than what I was taught in the USA. Read Ishmael as well. Similar take on, according to some, all of history.

duskwuff 7y ago

> Embrace and aggregate partisan takes rather pursuing the noble but chimeric goal of neutrality. The "noble but chimeric goal of neutrality" is core to Wikipedia's content policies [1]. Abandoning it would be an abdication of their mission. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose