3 ms·

just like biodiversity is wealth and monoculture is risk, wikidiversity is a bonus, not a problem. mapping the human condition into abstract data can never be "

just like biodiversity is wealth and monoculture is risk, wikidiversity is a bonus, not a problem. mapping the human condition into abstract data can never be "neutral". that map is inherently and unavoidably biased. wikipedia is about the only major online site / project that retains a bit of good karma, it would be a pity if its meager resources get squandered chasing open ended projects with ill-defined criteria for success. it might be best (at least in the short term and while the world still sorts out whether and what kind of future we'll have) to leverage the good work in wikidata but only focus on information concerning the natural world - where those biased mappings (while still there) are of a less immediate concern...

zozbot234 5y ago
> it would be a pity if its meager resources get squandered chasing open ended projects with ill-defined criteria for success. How so? The closest equivalent to this project was Wikidata itself, and that has been wildly successful beyond anyone's expectations. Besides Wikipedia itself and other WM projects, every Big Tech software assistant is relying on it.
- streamofdigits 5y ago
  wikidata is an incredible powerful concept (the early success / adoption in technically savvy circles hints as much) but developing the fullness of its potential will require a lot of further work on both technical matters, content, usability and transparency / governance / acceptance by world-wide users. abstract wikipedia and related directions are (imho obviously) mission creep, raising the bar to possibly unrealistic heights and thus creating the conditions for criticism of what is (I repeat) one of the few unambiguously good online platforms out there... Afterthought: a premonition of the rise and fall of mozilla (and the string of its failed projects). surveillance capitalists can waste billions at "moonshoots" but non-profits must justify every penny. this is the world we live in, alas

zozbot234 5y ago

> it would be a pity if its meager resources get squandered chasing open ended projects with ill-defined criteria for success. How so? The closest equivalent to this project was Wikidata itself, and that has been wildly successful beyond anyone's expectations. Besides Wikipedia itself and other WM projects, every Big Tech software assistant is relying on it.

streamofdigits 5y ago
wikidata is an incredible powerful concept (the early success / adoption in technically savvy circles hints as much) but developing the fullness of its potential will require a lot of further work on both technical matters, content, usability and transparency / governance / acceptance by world-wide users. abstract wikipedia and related directions are (imho obviously) mission creep, raising the bar to possibly unrealistic heights and thus creating the conditions for criticism of what is (I repeat) one of the few unambiguously good online platforms out there... Afterthought: a premonition of the rise and fall of mozilla (and the string of its failed projects). surveillance capitalists can waste billions at "moonshoots" but non-profits must justify every penny. this is the world we live in, alas