3 ms·
It's legitimate to create alternatives to anything, and to re-think what has been done already. One thing that would be on my personal wish list for any Wikipe
by jll29 2y ago
It's legitimate to create alternatives to anything, and to re-think what has been done already.
One thing that would be on my personal wish list for any Wikipedia alternative is ease of machine processing: the MediaWiki format/mark-up and the templates are horribly inconsistent and a nightmare to parse. This should be done better by any serious successor. Wikipedia has got the excuse "historically grown", any successor doesn't.
- richardw 2y agoThat seems to be the same goal for https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page Do you mean something different, e.g. not just structured data?
- kemayo 2y agoFor the parser itself, there is work being done on something that's more structured. The new parser lets you round-trip from the wikitext to the generated HTML and back, which means that it's entirely possible to work with wiki content by just manipulating a DOM rather than having to work with the wikitext yourself. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Parsoid/Parser_Unification https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Parsoid/Parser_Unification
- aspenmayer 2y agoThere’s also this page: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Alternative_parsers https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Alternative_parsers
- kemayo 2y agoFor context, the parser I'm talking about in my first post is Parsoid on that list.
- kemayo 2y agoThe problem for any "Wikipedia alternative" is that there's one obvious way to bootstrap themselves: importing Wikipedia's content. But that leaves them either needing to work out how to impose structure on it themselves (difficult), or just importing it as-is and leaving it messy.