478
submitted 8 months ago by nutomic@lemmy.ml to c/fediverse@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Frogodendron@beehaw.org 19 points 8 months ago

This serves well as a statement.

It is, however, delusional to think that at this point anything can become a viable alternative to Wikipedia, unless Wikimedia collapses because of reasons from within.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 18 points 8 months ago

All the more reason to push this project forward, as a redundancy.

[-] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 8 points 8 months ago

You can already download the entirity of Wikipedia. If it ever fell, the content could easily be restored elsewhere.

Also, I don't think I understand why this should be federated.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 8 months ago

The infrastructure is already there in that case, to restore it, and it would be less likely to fall.

Having no sole source of information hosting in an encyclopedic format is safer.

[-] derpgon@programming.dev 5 points 8 months ago

But having an open data project full of information that's actively contributed to and fact checked, with copies over many servers, is much better than having the same thing but fragmented. I still don't see a reason. If it was something else or corporate driven, I wouldn't bat an eye. But Wikipedia?

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

You can have all of that good if you want to, but being federated allows people to break off if they want. It also allows for niche servers.

[-] mukt@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago

So contribute to the statement.

[-] summerof69@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

When Wikipedia collapses, it will be too late to create an alternative from scratch.

this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
478 points (92.8% liked)

Fediverse

17724 readers
106 users here now

A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.

Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".

Getting started on Fediverse;

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS