3 ms·

The fact that wikipedia, the world encyclopedia, is centrally hosted is itself a problem. Wikipedia should be censorship resistant, borderless, distributed and

The fact that wikipedia, the world encyclopedia, is centrally hosted is itself a problem. Wikipedia should be censorship resistant, borderless, distributed and resilient to disasters, similar to Bitcoin. So far it's none of those things, so it doesn't deserve my money. If I could contribute by hosting articles on my computer I would be more than happy to offer up a few gigs of harddrive space in exchange for access to the world knowledge bank

viraptor 7y ago
You can https://blog.ipfs.io/24-uncensorable-wikipedia/ https://blog.ipfs.io/24-uncensorable-wikipedia/
- deevolution 7y ago
  Oh wow, this is awesome! Also looks like there is an active proposal for decentralizing wikipedia[1]. But IPFS seems to more or less offer a decent solution. 1. https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Distributed_Wikipedia https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Distributed_Wik...
m463 7y ago
I agree with your sentiment, but I am curious what the real-life tradeoffs would be? For example, what would happen to a distributed wikipedia in relation to say maps and borders or other controversial subjects like trump, scientology or vaccinations? Maybe these are the same questions people had when wikipedia first started in relation to traditional encyclopedias, and we already have the answers?
- ossworkerrights 7y ago
  I suppose all nodes would have to be in sync with a parent node, but indeed that is a good question. What happens when one goes rogue and starts bending the truth. There is nothing stopping criminal governments around the world from doing it, in such a set-up.
clarry 7y ago
> Wikipedia should be censorship resistant And this should include resistance against deletionism. To me, the idea of an open wiki died as soon as a group of people started bullying other contributors and telling that the thing they wrote about shouldn't be written about.
- squiggleblaz 7y ago
  So in your view, it's okay if there's a Wikipedia article about my pet cat? My problem with Wikipedia is the campers, who prevent improvements and even corrections to certain articles because they have a specific view of "the truth". Any changes to their corner of Wikipedia is frowned upon, taken as an offensive and hostile implication that they were unable to maintain their space correctly, and, if not reverted, at least made as difficult as possible. Having come into conflict with them, I closed my own account and try to limit my current dealings to mere typo/formatting changes. Nothing substantial. Although from time to time I permit myself to do so - and then go away.
  - clarry 7y ago
    > So in your view, it's okay if there's a Wikipedia article about my pet cat? I wouldn't have a problem with it. I think we should build tools that empower people to involve themselves in the things they care about (and filter out the things they don't care about) instead of having moderators/deletionists/nanny state decide what's good for you. I agree about the "truth problem."

viraptor 7y ago

You can https://blog.ipfs.io/24-uncensorable-wikipedia/ https://blog.ipfs.io/24-uncensorable-wikipedia/

deevolution 7y ago
Oh wow, this is awesome! Also looks like there is an active proposal for decentralizing wikipedia[1]. But IPFS seems to more or less offer a decent solution. 1. https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Distributed_Wikipedia https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Distributed_Wik...

m463 7y ago

I agree with your sentiment, but I am curious what the real-life tradeoffs would be? For example, what would happen to a distributed wikipedia in relation to say maps and borders or other controversial subjects like trump, scientology or vaccinations? Maybe these are the same questions people had when wikipedia first started in relation to traditional encyclopedias, and we already have the answers?

ossworkerrights 7y ago
I suppose all nodes would have to be in sync with a parent node, but indeed that is a good question. What happens when one goes rogue and starts bending the truth. There is nothing stopping criminal governments around the world from doing it, in such a set-up.

clarry 7y ago

> Wikipedia should be censorship resistant And this should include resistance against deletionism. To me, the idea of an open wiki died as soon as a group of people started bullying other contributors and telling that the thing they wrote about shouldn't be written about.

squiggleblaz 7y ago
So in your view, it's okay if there's a Wikipedia article about my pet cat? My problem with Wikipedia is the campers, who prevent improvements and even corrections to certain articles because they have a specific view of "the truth". Any changes to their corner of Wikipedia is frowned upon, taken as an offensive and hostile implication that they were unable to maintain their space correctly, and, if not reverted, at least made as difficult as possible. Having come into conflict with them, I closed my own account and try to limit my current dealings to mere typo/formatting changes. Nothing substantial. Although from time to time I permit myself to do so - and then go away.
- clarry 7y ago
  > So in your view, it's okay if there's a Wikipedia article about my pet cat? I wouldn't have a problem with it. I think we should build tools that empower people to involve themselves in the things they care about (and filter out the things they don't care about) instead of having moderators/deletionists/nanny state decide what's good for you. I agree about the "truth problem."