I remember someone shared a federated alternative to Wikipedia here and I don’t remember the name of the project. Perplexity, Google and alternativeto.net are no good in finding it. Does anybody know its name?
I remember someone shared a federated alternative to Wikipedia here and I don’t remember the name of the project. Perplexity, Google and alternativeto.net are no good in finding it. Does anybody know its name?
That’s not true. More opinions means more people searching for truth together and finding new things.
If someone finds something new and share it, that could be reviewed and researched by people faster.
Centralizing truth has a much more destructive aspect when dealing with truth. This can be seen practically on the difference of reach between the Fediverse and Facebook, for example. Facebook (centralized) is ground for fake and hateful news, while the Fediverse (decentralized) brings meaningful diversity and insightfulness.
More information also means quicker double-checking for what is true, regardless of political spectrum, even though Ibis main instance took care to add a “No politics” rule. Regardless of this, I see potential for including political debate as well.
Truth is a constructed entity. A heated debate in Brazil for more than a decade. I’m from Brazil, but Brazil is central on this in the sense that it is leaving the western spectrum to join the Global South, so this topic has been very heated for the last decade, generating real economical and political crisis (economy down 3% and impeachment in 2015/2016). It is felt around these parts in a very special way. So I’m sure that what people called “post-truth” on the original Ibis post is the way to go.
Finding more opinions, not truth.
Slower. They must search through the deluge of opinion that grows exponentially faster than any truth could ever hope to.
Neither are made for truth.
Truth is discovered, not constructed. You may be thinking of consensus this whole time. Consensus is absolutely constructed. But consensus isn’t truth. Sometimes they align. More often by accident then by intent.
Let’s say you have two chemical processes. Process A and Process B.
If Process A has an efficiency of 95% and Process B an efficiency of 97%, does that invalidate process A? Something similar can be seen in Bamboo scaffolding in China. Is Bamboo scaffolding better or worse than metal scaffolding?
Now let’s say that Process A has an efficiency of 97% and Process B an efficiency of 97%. Which is the best method?
If centralization in technology and science were the optimal way to go, these questions would be invalid. But things that work only in one way are dumb.
“Best” isn’t a question of truth.
Truly there is no “best”.
Truth only describes what is, without any judgement.
That’s not two different opinions, though. You just posted two accurate facts. An accurate Wikipedia will post both of them, and it has nothing to do with any individual’s opinion on Process A being a ploy by Big Pharma or Process B being a liberal psyop. An accurate Wikipedia will also not post about either being the “best.” That’s not its job.
Your bamboo scaffolding example is actually a good one, but not in your favor. Bamboo scaffolding is a great option in places where bamboo grows naturally. In other parts of the world where bamboo is less common, metal scaffolding is usually a more economic choice. Neither is “better,” and encyclopedias should not suggest that one or the other is.
This whole thing is why the Wikipedia “opinion” editor tag exists. Its whole point is to mark places where an article needs editing because the content is subjective or not supported by verifiable fact.
The scientific method is not an evaluation of truth, it is morseso a separate concept
If you want different opinions you can go to Conservapedia and see how factual the content is there.
That’s because Facebook has discovered that fake and hateful news gets lots of clicks and engagement, and boosts their bottom line. Wikipedia has no such profit motive, nor does federated social media. It’s the economics that make them different, not the server paradigm.
Is…this your first day on the Internet? That is almost never how it works. You get one side posting sourced, verifiable, provable information at best. At worst, both sides are posting cherry-picked half-stories that agree with their preconceived ideas. In the end, no one changes their minds, but the people who are willing to stay and post about it for longer are the ones who are seen later on as the “winners.”
I’m reminded of a line from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: “Archaeology is the search for fact, not truth. If it’s truth you’re interested in, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.”
Similarly, encyclopedias are not where to go for truth. They’re where to go for fact, and fact isn’t decided by consensus.