4 ms·
ok, so they forked wikipedia with the intent to make the content more unbiased. well, that is good idea(even as to avoid monopolization of information) but i fa
by hknmtt 3y ago
ok, so they forked wikipedia with the intent to make the content more unbiased. well, that is good idea(even as to avoid monopolization of information) but i fail to see how they plan to achieve that. not only they have miniscule amount of editors compared to wikipedia by default, but they also show no plans for safeguards against the manipulation. i would say this looks like a waste of time and people behind it should rather invest time in "fixing" wikipedia articles and potentially work with wiki foundation on some rules and techniques to prevent manipulation rather than start their own project, which will ultimately fail because running wikipedia is not as simple as it might look like. let alone cheap.
- dgb23 3y agoWhenever someone tells me they provide unbiased information I know that they don’t understand the words “bias” and “information”.
- tivert 3y ago> but i fail to see how they plan to achieve that. not only they have miniscule amount of editors compared to wikipedia by default That's an unfair criticism. Wikipedia itself started with a "miniscule amount of editors compared to" its competitors at the time. > i would say this looks like a waste of time and people behind it should rather invest time in "fixing" wikipedia articles and potentially work with wiki foundation on some rules and techniques to prevent manipulation rather than start their own project That idea obviously fails if the problem is a personal/social one (e.g. you fork because the maintainer keeps closing your bugs as WONTFIX). Wikipedia's culture is dysfunctional in many respects, and there are arguably many problems with it that it's maintainers are fine with and will not fix.