4 ms·

A federated version of Wikipedia wouldn't displace the centralized Wikipedia (for the same reason that Wikipedia didn't exactly replace traditional encyclopedia

A federated version of Wikipedia wouldn't displace the centralized Wikipedia (for the same reason that Wikipedia didn't exactly replace traditional encyclopedias), but it has a potential to supplement everything else, and I believe it's worthwhile enough.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
> for the same reason that Wikipedia didn't exactly replace traditional encyclopedias It didn't? Compare https://www.worldbook.com/world-book-encyclopedia-2024.aspx https://www.worldbook.com/world-book-encyclopedia-2024.aspx : > As the only general reference encyclopedia still published today, The World Book Encyclopedia 2024 provides authoritative content on almost every topic to learners of all ages
- lifthrasiir 3y ago
  Most traditional encyclopedias ceased to publish in the book form. Online encyclopedias are pretty much alive.
  - ChrisKnott 3y ago
    Their significance in public life was been almost completely replaced by Wikipedia, though
    - lifthrasiir 3y ago
      Wikipedia articles are not consumed like traditional encyclopedias anyway. I would say that encyclopedias became much less relevant in general, but being one of the first influencial online encyclopedias, Wikipedia came to be used as a volatile source of information even though it didn't strive to be one.
      - emj 3y ago
        We used them for further research or quick look up of facts you should know. That seems to be how people use Wikipedia.
        lifthrasiir 3y ago
        That's how people should use Wikipedia, but people generally don't do so in my understanding.
        blowski 3y ago
        How do they use it then?
        chgs 3y ago
        We used to copy articles out of them for homework. The more things change…
      - szundi 3y ago
        As a meager pedestrian, I consume Wikipedia instead of Encyclopedias - that I sometimes did when I was a kid
      - bawolff 3y ago
        Idk if it was the first. Microsoft encarta was a pretty big player in that space back in the day.
        dagw 3y ago
        Was Encarta ever released online? I only remember the CD-ROM version.
        bawolff 3y ago
        Yes, i think starting around 1999 so quite a bit after the cdrom releases. Admittedly that is only 2 years before wikipedia.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      But not among the paying clientele.
    - Erwin 3y ago
      Here in Denmark we have an online lexicon which is managed by (barely paid) scientists and experts. For every article you can see which scientist was involved in making it, what expert is responsible for the area etc. https://denstoredanske.lex.dk/ https://denstoredanske.lex.dk/
- medstrom 3y ago
  I suspect they're growing again, much like Usenet, RSS and the blogosphere. Because, you know. I try to check https://www.britannica.com https://www.britannica.com / https://www.encyclopedia.com https://www.encyclopedia.com for political hot topics.
bawolff 3y ago
> but it has a potential to supplement everything else, and I believe it's worthwhile enough. What do you think it would supplement?
- lencastre 3y ago
  It needs to be on the blotchein! What, too soon?
  - bawolff 3y ago
    You know, technically i feel like wikipedia already is. Each revision of a pageis hashed, and they form a sequence in time. Isn't that the definition of block chain?
kamray23 3y ago
Wikipedia displaced traditional encyclopedias. The number of encyclopedias produced in Finnish fell from ~10 to 1 in the last two decades, that one being fiwiki. The same is true for many languages. What once was a normal thing middle-class families kept in a vitrine is now something old-fashioned and rare. There are no physical copies being printed nor online versions accessible and actively edited. There were online versions, but they were too costly to operate and shut down due to being outcompeted by Wikipedia. There is only fiwiki.
- lifthrasiir 3y ago
  As I've mentioned in other comments, that's not directly related to the rise of Wikipedia because most people no longer read encyclopedias in the way they used to decades ago. I have a counterexample as well; major encyclopedias and dictionaries in Korea are kept alive by portal websites nowadays, but these portals never tried to adopt kowiki instead. (I was one of earlier administrators in kowiki during that transition period, if you wonder.) A better hypothesis for Finnish would therefore be a lack of such sponsors to keep them alive, and that would be completely orthogonal to the existence or absence of fiwiki.
  - kamray23 3y ago
    It's not orthogonal, though. We had online encyclopedias for around a decade, they functioned extremely well, and it was the way people got their information. During the latter part of that decade fiwiki started to really pick up steam (although it was years old by that point) and very quickly every other encyclopedia ran out of users and therefore revenue. The concept worked well, it's the movement of users to a competing product that caused their downfall, and therefore it is definitely fiwiki that is the issue.

thaumasiotes 3y ago

> for the same reason that Wikipedia didn't exactly replace traditional encyclopedias It didn't? Compare https://www.worldbook.com/world-book-encyclopedia-2024.aspx https://www.worldbook.com/world-book-encyclopedia-2024.aspx : > As the only general reference encyclopedia still published today, The World Book Encyclopedia 2024 provides authoritative content on almost every topic to learners of all ages

lifthrasiir 3y ago
Most traditional encyclopedias ceased to publish in the book form. Online encyclopedias are pretty much alive.
- ChrisKnott 3y ago
  Their significance in public life was been almost completely replaced by Wikipedia, though
  - lifthrasiir 3y ago
    Wikipedia articles are not consumed like traditional encyclopedias anyway. I would say that encyclopedias became much less relevant in general, but being one of the first influencial online encyclopedias, Wikipedia came to be used as a volatile source of information even though it didn't strive to be one.
    - emj 3y ago
      We used them for further research or quick look up of facts you should know. That seems to be how people use Wikipedia.
      - lifthrasiir 3y ago
        That's how people should use Wikipedia, but people generally don't do so in my understanding.
        blowski 3y ago
        How do they use it then?
      - chgs 3y ago
        We used to copy articles out of them for homework. The more things change…
    - szundi 3y ago
      As a meager pedestrian, I consume Wikipedia instead of Encyclopedias - that I sometimes did when I was a kid
    - bawolff 3y ago
      Idk if it was the first. Microsoft encarta was a pretty big player in that space back in the day.
      - dagw 3y ago
        Was Encarta ever released online? I only remember the CD-ROM version.
        bawolff 3y ago
        Yes, i think starting around 1999 so quite a bit after the cdrom releases. Admittedly that is only 2 years before wikipedia.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    But not among the paying clientele.
  - Erwin 3y ago
    Here in Denmark we have an online lexicon which is managed by (barely paid) scientists and experts. For every article you can see which scientist was involved in making it, what expert is responsible for the area etc. https://denstoredanske.lex.dk/ https://denstoredanske.lex.dk/
medstrom 3y ago
I suspect they're growing again, much like Usenet, RSS and the blogosphere. Because, you know. I try to check https://www.britannica.com https://www.britannica.com / https://www.encyclopedia.com https://www.encyclopedia.com for political hot topics.

bawolff 3y ago

> but it has a potential to supplement everything else, and I believe it's worthwhile enough. What do you think it would supplement?

lencastre 3y ago
It needs to be on the blotchein! What, too soon?
- bawolff 3y ago
  You know, technically i feel like wikipedia already is. Each revision of a pageis hashed, and they form a sequence in time. Isn't that the definition of block chain?

kamray23 3y ago

Wikipedia displaced traditional encyclopedias. The number of encyclopedias produced in Finnish fell from ~10 to 1 in the last two decades, that one being fiwiki. The same is true for many languages. What once was a normal thing middle-class families kept in a vitrine is now something old-fashioned and rare. There are no physical copies being printed nor online versions accessible and actively edited. There were online versions, but they were too costly to operate and shut down due to being outcompeted by Wikipedia. There is only fiwiki.

lifthrasiir 3y ago
As I've mentioned in other comments, that's not directly related to the rise of Wikipedia because most people no longer read encyclopedias in the way they used to decades ago. I have a counterexample as well; major encyclopedias and dictionaries in Korea are kept alive by portal websites nowadays, but these portals never tried to adopt kowiki instead. (I was one of earlier administrators in kowiki during that transition period, if you wonder.) A better hypothesis for Finnish would therefore be a lack of such sponsors to keep them alive, and that would be completely orthogonal to the existence or absence of fiwiki.
- kamray23 3y ago
  It's not orthogonal, though. We had online encyclopedias for around a decade, they functioned extremely well, and it was the way people got their information. During the latter part of that decade fiwiki started to really pick up steam (although it was years old by that point) and very quickly every other encyclopedia ran out of users and therefore revenue. The concept worked well, it's the movement of users to a competing product that caused their downfall, and therefore it is definitely fiwiki that is the issue.