4 ms·

I'd say that it's about as much wiki as it is blog, because the timeline feature that separates a blog from a pre-blog "homepage" is hidden to the point of bein

by usrusr 4y ago

I'd say that it's about as much wiki as it is blog, because the timeline feature that separates a blog from a pre-blog "homepage" is hidden to the point of being missing. Makes me wonder how an "alternate history wikipedia" would be like, where pages had explicit maintainers and the cotton fork model. The process for selecting the current leading fork would obviously be a huge source of endless drama, but I'd expect that this would end up a much better "reader experience" than the current model of edit wars where the uninitiated can't really tell an edit history with the occasional trolling/untrolling loop from an outright battleground.

shreyshnaccount 4y ago
would probably be a hellscape, filled with opposing "facts", conspiracy theories and vandalism.. imo wikipedia is still better as it atleast tries to be factual and neutral (ofc it isn't perfect, but do you really want anti vaxers to show you what they think is a credible source right next to an actual credible source? why don't we let the baseless conspiracy theories stay on facebook)
- brigandish 4y ago
  > atleast tries to be factual and neutral This isn't the Wikipedia I know, and hasn't been since long before the pandemic. If you want credibility, go to a real encyclopaedia like Britannica. Otherwise, let people fork and edit and use stars to signal their opinion instead of letting cliques control information based on their far too obvious biases.
- usrusr 4y ago
  The beauty in the fork/pr model would be that people who claim that they would be better stewards of a given topic could simply try to convince by example (in their fork), even in the hottest edit war. The current wikipedia model, as far as I understand it (which isn't far at all I admit), is that if a battle gets too hot it ends with a competition in pulling rank: escalating lockdown until only one group remains (a group that may or may not be considered neutral by others - certainly considers itself neutral, but who doesn't...). Fork/pr could never have a problem editors that are respected/neutral in one field but turn out to be zealous in some other niche.
  - shreyshnaccount 4y ago
    okay, you've changed my opinion
shreyshnaccount 4y ago
I don't buy this, cuz like you mentioned itd be a source of endless drama alright but it'll also be harder to keep track of everything on Wikipedia if it were all a giant repo.. tho having different repos about each page sounds more sensible
- usrusr 4y ago
  Fork/pr would have to be per page, obviously, not per wikipedia.

by usrusr 4y ago

shreyshnaccount 4y ago

would probably be a hellscape, filled with opposing "facts", conspiracy theories and vandalism.. imo wikipedia is still better as it atleast tries to be factual and neutral (ofc it isn't perfect, but do you really want anti vaxers to show you what they think is a credible source right next to an actual credible source? why don't we let the baseless conspiracy theories stay on facebook)

brigandish 4y ago
> atleast tries to be factual and neutral This isn't the Wikipedia I know, and hasn't been since long before the pandemic. If you want credibility, go to a real encyclopaedia like Britannica. Otherwise, let people fork and edit and use stars to signal their opinion instead of letting cliques control information based on their far too obvious biases.
usrusr 4y ago
The beauty in the fork/pr model would be that people who claim that they would be better stewards of a given topic could simply try to convince by example (in their fork), even in the hottest edit war. The current wikipedia model, as far as I understand it (which isn't far at all I admit), is that if a battle gets too hot it ends with a competition in pulling rank: escalating lockdown until only one group remains (a group that may or may not be considered neutral by others - certainly considers itself neutral, but who doesn't...). Fork/pr could never have a problem editors that are respected/neutral in one field but turn out to be zealous in some other niche.
- shreyshnaccount 4y ago
  okay, you've changed my opinion

shreyshnaccount 4y ago

I don't buy this, cuz like you mentioned itd be a source of endless drama alright but it'll also be harder to keep track of everything on Wikipedia if it were all a giant repo.. tho having different repos about each page sounds more sensible

usrusr 4y ago
Fork/pr would have to be per page, obviously, not per wikipedia.