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?

  • lacaio da inquisição@mander.xyzOP
    18·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • Steve@communick.newsEnglish
      2·
      1 day ago

      “Best” isn’t a question of truth.
      Truly there is no “best”.
      Truth only describes what is, without any judgement.

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      131·
      2 days ago

      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.