[HN Gopher] Ibis: Federated Wikipedia alternative
___________________________________________________________________
Ibis: Federated Wikipedia alternative
Author : mostcallmeyt
Score : 124 points
Date : 2024-10-27 17:39 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ibis.wiki)
(TXT) w3m dump (ibis.wiki)
| schoen wrote:
| It's super-cool to see an alternative approach to dealing with
| Wikipedia content disputes.
|
| In the past, when there have been Wikipedia forks, they haven't
| generally tried to stay in sync with Wikipedia, at least not in
| both directions. Do we have an example of long-term forks of
| collaborative software or text editing projects that did manage
| to keep sharing productively in multiple directions? Maybe the
| BSDs to some extent?
|
| I wonder how much work people are willing to do to keep actively
| collaborating with people whom they have big ongoing
| disagreements with (at least in areas where those disagreements
| don't have an impact). Or can such collaboration be made
| relatively seamless with appropriate tooling?
| woodruffw wrote:
| I don't have any particular trust (or distrust) in Wikipedia as
| an institution, but this seems to be putting the cart before the
| horse: is there a reason to believe that a federated wiki would
| be _more_ accountable, rather than less?
|
| (This isn't meant to be a jab; I like federated stuff. But I'm
| also not sure the order of operations is right here.)
| whatshisface wrote:
| The answer to your question is basically the same as for
| federation in real life: I don't care if they mayor of a city
| 300 miles away is accountable to me. I only care if my mayor is
| accountable to me. Making mayors into presidential appointees
| would represent a slight increase in my influence in the city
| code of places I don't know the name of, but that's not a great
| trade for my influence in the city I live in.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| Yeah, but the question here is how _your mayor_ being
| accountable to you helps with the problem that _everyone 's
| president_ is not being held accountable?
|
| Exactly how does it help that there's a bunch of small
| Wikipedia mirrors with like four different pages each that
| differ from the main one.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Imagine if there was only one soft drink brand, or a single
| giant book.
| pessimizer wrote:
| When you join a federated instance, the owner of it still
| isn't accountable to you, and is likely to be more eccentric
| than a centralized instance that is at least run by a larger
| number of people.
|
| Speaking of federation in real life reminds me of people
| yelling about state's rights. I'm pro-distribution, but none
| of these e-institutions are democratic, they're all little
| fiefdoms. Governance needs to be distributed, not just
| bandwidth.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| I don't know about accountability on the part of the
| participants, but in theory it ought to be harder to attack
| because success means coordinating a consistent (maliciously-
| altered) experience across infra maintained by a wider variety
| of people, some of whom might be harder to coerce than others.
|
| In practice, I don't know how much that would matter. If I were
| the kind of powerful actor that federation is supposed to guard
| against, I'd use DNS poisoning and crooked CA's/ISP's to work
| at the network level rather than attempting to corrupt each
| server admin separately.
|
| So I see it as a good start, but really only meaningful if we
| de-root-of-trust those things also.
| woodruffw wrote:
| Serious question: why are we talking about Wikipedia like it
| has the same shape of trust problem as the Web PKI? With
| Wikipedia, you or I or anybody else can go and edit out the
| obvious misinformation. That leaves subtle misinformation,
| but I don't think there's a technical solution to that.
|
| It's already "hard" to attack Wikipedia, in the sense that
| there's an army of pedantic dorks ready to argue about
| _anything_ already on it. Which is a different kind of hard
| than attacking a PKI.
| mzajc wrote:
| This points out several valid issues with Wikipedia, but does not
| explain how the replacement addresses them.
|
| Centralized moderation, for instance, is replaced by moderating
| every instance separately. But doesn't that simply shift the
| problem? The largest instance(s) can still moderate maliciously,
| while the rest are insignificant.
|
| Also, are there any plans to import existing articles from
| Wikipedia? I find it hard to imagine an alternative gaining
| traction by disregarding decades of edits on Wikipedia itself.
| whatshisface wrote:
| > _But doesn 't that simply shift the problem? The largest
| instance(s) can still moderate maliciously, while the rest are
| insignificant._
|
| The effect of this on Mastodon was to establish walls between
| the big servers over moderation disputes, controlling their
| growth.
| mzajc wrote:
| I think this works much better for social media than it would
| for an encyclopedia - while a Mastodon user I'm interested in
| is likely on a single instance, a topic an encyclopedia would
| cover might be present on many instances, each hosting a
| different version. I don't think it's feasible to expect
| users to read every single one.
| whatshisface wrote:
| That would only be likely to happen when communities
| identify by their bias (see: "conservapedia.") Existing
| wiki communities tend to divide based on topic, without a
| lot of overlap. (See: fandom). A federated alternative to
| fandom.com is what I would imagine when someone says
| "federated wiki."
| wkat4242 wrote:
| The problem there was also that it attracted some pretty
| seriously incompatible ideologies. Like neonazis on gab.com
| and tankies on lemmy.ml for example. That was never going to
| end well. How are they supposed to come to an agreement on
| moderation :)
|
| And then in the middle of that you have the German instances
| that demand everyone else pledges to follow their peculiar
| local laws precisely to the latter or get banned.
|
| Fwiw I'm with none of the above groups, I'm pro
| LGBT/progressive for which there's also a lot of instances
| but I'm just sad that the fediverse didn't come out.
|
| Having said that, some instances have really made a name for
| themselves like beehive <3
| whatshisface wrote:
| They're not supposed to come to an agreement on moderation.
| The whole idea behind federation is that a company is not
| trying to navigate a middle ground between Nazis and
| chinese communists! :-)
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Hmm yeah but the idea was not to duplicate moderation a
| thousand times. And then where is your community?
|
| My problem is that the fediverse is tearing itself apart
| on tiny differences. Lots of instances have banned others
| from the same ideology because one little time someone
| said something one of the founders didn't agree with.
|
| It's just not working like this. I think ideological
| choices should be made by the end user.
|
| I think the instance should be agnostic like an internet
| browser. And moderation done by the groups the user
| subscribes to. That's the model that works. We had
| exactly this in Usenet which is just not really used
| anymore due to complex technical implementation.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| That's what I don't get about mastodon. Big servers use
| commonly shared block lists for others that don't abide by
| their censorship rules. Now we're back to something similar
| to what existed anyways - big powerful centralized social
| media separated from smaller ones that don't benefit from
| networks.
| dietr1ch wrote:
| > Centralized moderation, for instance, is replaced by
| moderating every instance separately. But doesn't that simply
| shift the problem? The largest instance(s) can still moderate
| maliciously, while the rest are insignificant.
|
| I've always thought about modeling this as vote based system
| votes support claims.
|
| Like, "Israel's IDF is committing genocide in Palestine" would
| be maybe supported by Wikipedia, but would have opposing votes
| by the US and Israel, and it's up to each client to decide who
| to trust. Non controversial claims would be generally
| supported, and on controversial ones you could have them scored
| given your prior trust in voters and have the UI mention it's
| controversial and show the underlying votes if you want to dig
| into that.
| EGreg wrote:
| I have a different approach -- rather than keeping people
| apart in echo chambers, I force them all together in a
| centralized site where they have to see the best arguments
| for and against each claim
|
| Building this to clean up online discourse:
| https://rational.app
|
| Anyone want to join me? Reply or find my email in my profile
| mzajc wrote:
| Wikipedia generally avoids resolving disputes democratically,
| instead opting to establish consensus based on sources where
| possible.
|
| With voting systems you end up walking the tightrope between
| making your system susceptible to Sybil attacks and
| sockpuppetry on one end, and giving well-established users
| undue voting rights on another.
| iterance wrote:
| Obligatory - Wikipedia is not a democracy - https://en.m.wi
| kipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_...
|
| (Or the related / more in depth "Polling is not a
| substitute for discussion" - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik
| i/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_s...)
| mirekrusin wrote:
| Sybil and sockpuppetry is solvable by "following" (possibly
| truth-weighted, can nicely express negative weights). The
| downside is that there is no global truth view, only
| individual ones based on who you grant trustworthiness and
| how it recursively expands - but arguably this reflects
| reality better.
| yorwba wrote:
| "No global truth view" also makes discoverability
| difficult. How do you know whom to follow? Just people
| you already know from elsewhere?
|
| Then if you don't know any subject-matter experts, will
| your individual view of the wiki be devoid of subject-
| matter expertise?
|
| That arguably reflects reality better, but also isn't
| terribly useful.
|
| Edit: I guess the situation of an expert correcting an
| article written by laypeople is similar to an expert
| replying to a layperson's toot or whatever. So maybe you
| could solve this by letting people see new edits made by
| other people on top of their own edits, and giving them
| the option to block or accept the change, or even follow
| the user in question.
| mirekrusin wrote:
| It would be neutral which is current status quo, not that
| bad?
|
| The nice part is that it would work the other way around
| as well - from article/subject back to people who endorse
| or object it - in case you want to follow (attract/repel
| their pov).
|
| In reality who to follow should be easy as it would be
| recursive - if you follow MIT and MIT follows ie. Noam
| Chomsky - you wouldn't have to directly follow Noam as
| your trust would already exist as transitive one from MIT
| etc.
| yorwba wrote:
| The status quo is not neutral. It is extremely biased,
| particularly against spam, vandalism and low-quality
| content. Its defense against sybil attacks and
| sockpuppetry is a single global truth, collectively
| patrolled by all users.
|
| If you tried to do a neutral wiki anyone can edit, it
| would be full of ads and porn.
| mirekrusin wrote:
| It's neutral in the sense that it's not trust-weight-
| filtered by observer.
|
| It can be created yes, just like any web page can be
| created, but won't surface for anybody because nobody
| will endorse it.
|
| If it's endorsed by sybil accounts - it'll be visible to
| sybils and their followers - ie. nobody real.
|
| To rephrase it - following somebody means it alters your
| view and nothing else - it's uni-directional (but
| recursive).
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| Yea but the list of sources accepted is itself
| editorialization. And furthermore the articles are
| unbalanced and incomplete on anything controversial,
| choosing to quote from sources supporting the view espoused
| and ignoring others.
| mirekrusin wrote:
| Exactly, votes + who you trust-follow (ie. "MIT" with high
| degree, "Flat Earth Society" with high negative degree) -
| recursively; creates your own landscape of truth-weighted
| information.
| drdaeman wrote:
| This requires web-of-trust/friend-to-friend or similar
| system, and despite numerous attempts none of such things had
| ever succeeded so far.
| reshlo wrote:
| That model doesn't work because there are plenty of issues on
| which a vote by the US would increase my confidence in the
| truthfulness of a claim, but others where it would not make a
| difference, or even decrease my confidence.
| jonstaab wrote:
| For a more relativistic approach, built on nostr, see
| wikifreedia.xyz, which allows everyone to maintain their own
| version of any article, fork, vote, and merge as needed.
| labster wrote:
| So move the moderation decisions onto the end user? Somehow
| this doesn't feel like progress.
| FireInsight wrote:
| Seems a bit bloated. I opened the front page and could only
| see a list of recently edited pages, with the count
| constantly ticking up. Trying to open any of them by clicking
| them didn't do anything, seems like the page was ground to a
| halt. Tried to search 'wikifreedia' to see if there's a wiki
| page explaining what the project is about, but could not get
| the search to go through.
| Levitating wrote:
| I am also confused how this project improves upon Wikipedia's
| moderation issues. Especially calling Ibis "federated", is it
| more "federated" than Wikipedia is?
|
| It's also not like Wikipedia is unusable because of these
| issues. As with any source of information it is necessary to be
| skeptical with wikipedia articles. Wikipedia has the major
| advantage over any other source that the edit history is
| public.
|
| And even though there are many incidents with Wikipedia's
| moderation, the website has also existed for a long time now
| and contains millions of articles. With the scope and size of
| Wikipedia some incidents are expected.
|
| Wikipedia also compiles their own backup collections.[1] If at
| any point Wikipedia becomes actually unusable anyone could use
| the existing article to produce a new alternative database.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download
| iterance wrote:
| Federation of a wiki is... well, it's a bit strange, isn't it?
| Imagine if only one library at a time held a copy of a given book
| you need, and the only way to access that book was via an inter-
| library loan via library partnerships, or by visiting the library
| that has the book. This is assuredly the situation many academics
| are in for key reference texts, but it is not what I'd call
| ideal. It is in fact very fragile at times. There is a book I
| need right now, for example, but if I want to read it I will have
| to drive to see it... The library that has it won't send it for
| ILL. In a physical sense they "declined to federate."
|
| The difference between a wiki and a social media network is that
| anyone can spin up a template social media site; the fundamental
| _user-side_ barrier to entry is pretty small. The same is not
| true of wikis - at least not high quality ones. Documentary
| standards, tone, quality, reviewership, consistency, policy,
| moderation, accountability, leadership, thoroughness, these are
| all qualities that take time and commitment to develop. They are
| hallmarks of centralization for a reason: arguably the innovation
| of human governance is centered around qualities like these. They
| take a long time to develop.
|
| As a counterpart to Wikipedia, well... fragmentation is often a
| death knell for efficient knowledge transfer. We are already
| losing massive swathes of our early Internet history due to
| fragmentation, attrition, and destruction. The thought that any
| piece of knowledge stored in a safehouse could go offline at
| once, without replication or warning, it scares me a bit. The
| thought that we don't really know who we're trusting as stewards
| of human knowledge in a federated model disturbs me too. You can
| have your issues with Wikipedia but at least you know who they
| are. You know their biases.
|
| That's not to say there aren't use cases for this... but man,
| this seems like an easy way to lose or destroy important parts of
| our shared history on accident.
| exitb wrote:
| I get the concerns towards Wikipedia governance, but this feels
| almost like slacktivism. It's been done numerous times, to slap
| ActivityPub onto a communication mode and call it a ,,federated
| foobar alternative". It never works, it always fails to gain
| meaningful adoption. The federated hosts end up in disputes
| between themselves and their users. It's mostly a miserable
| experience.
|
| There needs to be another way to increase accountability for
| critical online services.
| bbor wrote:
| Hmm when has it happened in the past? This is literally the
| Lemmy creator so it seems somewhat unique! But I could
| definitely just be behind the times.
|
| Are there other federation projects other than mastodon and
| Lemmy?
| Vivtek wrote:
| There are one or two.
|
| https://github.com/shleeable/Big-List-of-ActivityPub
| rapnie wrote:
| Also https://delightful.club/delightful-fediverse-apps/
| input_sh wrote:
| If by "never works" you mean "someone's side project whose
| monetization strategy is to put up a donation link never takes
| down an established business worth hundreds of millions in a
| fraction of the time it took for such business to establish
| itself as some sort of a monopoly", then yeah, no shit.
| foxhop wrote:
| If the maintainers are reading this is cool. I would start with
| an exporter/importer for pages from Wikipedia format into
| whatever format you use, it should also deal with the media. This
| is no small task but what you need.
| kemayo wrote:
| It's legitimately a pain to do, because most Wikipedia articles
| use a bunch of templates. So for anything outside the most-
| simple of articles you suddenly have to implement a lot of the
| more painful bits of wikitext. Then if you want to import them
| _back_ to Wikipedia, you 've got to match those things back up
| or you'll get reverted for messing up the page...
|
| Plus complying with CC BY-SA requirements for the content, of
| course.
| jll29 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| That seems to be the same goal for
| https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page
|
| Do you mean something different, e.g. not just structured data?
| kemayo wrote:
| For 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
| kemayo wrote:
| The 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.
| richardw wrote:
| If the top "scandals" in the article are considered reasons to
| change, just wait until the alt-crew get a hold of wikipedia.
| Medical, political, science, education, religion discussions
| would all be even more crazy when people can point to some wiki
| gospel as proof. We'd find the list of scandals grows a
| thousandfold.
|
| Wikipedia is amazing, if imperfect. Make it better, don't try to
| break it by splintering it into some weird "whatever you think is
| right" solution. That's already what we have in social media.
| Truth is already federated enough.
|
| Edit: what would convince me more is some demonstration
| article/cluster of articles and maybe some math proof that shows
| how this is better, through faster convergence on truth, defence
| against rando's etc. I think even getting a definition of
| "better" would be a bit of a battle!
| highwayman47 wrote:
| What does this term "federated" being thrown around in tech
| lately mean?
| rrgok wrote:
| Good question. I too don't understand it.
| fragmede wrote:
| Meaning it's like email. I can have my own domain name -
| @example.com , not just Gmail, and they talk to each other so
| people on Gmail can send email outside of Gmail, and people can
| send emails into Gmail.
| poszlem wrote:
| It means that each federated technology creates a federation of
| "self-governing" entities, for example Mastodon servers. The
| meaning is very similar to the political meaning of the word.
| somat wrote:
| I don't intend to be mean but isn't the federated wikipedia, the
| web.
|
| Wikipedias whole value function, don't get me wrong it's a great
| value function, is that it is a curated centralized web.
| sureglymop wrote:
| ActivityPub federation, while maybe a little complicated, seems
| to be well thought through.
|
| I think many platforms would benefit from implementing that.
| Especially git forges, though I think _someone_ is already
| working on that.
| Levitating wrote:
| How ironic that the link to the mentioned article by Helen
| Buyniski "Wikipedia: Rotten to the Core" is the victim of link
| rot.
|
| You can find the article reposted here:
|
| https://helenofdestroy.substack.com/p/49-wikipedia-rotten-to...
| timmytokyo wrote:
| Fascinating that the first person cited on this site's
| announcement page is Helen Buyniski, a "journalist" for Russian
| state media and a COVID conspiracy theorist. It's almost as if
| this project has an agenda.
| anthk wrote:
| The only wiki I like it's the rational wiki.
| pona-a wrote:
| See previous discussion
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39694045
|
| 163 points | 252 comments
| kemayo wrote:
| It'd be more convincing if the "problems with Wikipedia" section
| referenced anything from the last decade. (Also, one of the three
| things that apparently warranted being called out as an example
| was pretty petty -- the ArbCom member's on-wiki job didn't have
| anything to do with how they misrepresented their credentials.)
| nightpool wrote:
| I have the same problem with this that I do with "federated
| forums" or "federated forges"--what does it even mean for an
| encyclopedia to be federated? In fact, they already are--if I
| want to go look up information about Minecraft, I can use the
| federated internet to go to minecraft.wiki.
|
| So what are these new "federation" features actually giving us?
| Is it just OpenID login reinvented?
| hiAndrewQuinn wrote:
| This alternative doesn't load with NoScript on, so I think I'll
| pass.
| fny wrote:
| Social problems demand social solutions.
|
| If you're skeptical about Wikipedia, you can easily create your
| own fork of Wikipedia: the data and code is open source after
| all. In the end, it's all about whether you can keep a community
| alive and kicking. No one gives a damn about whether a wiki is
| built on ActivityPub.
|
| There are many examples: Larry Sanger, who was mentioned in the
| article, created Citizendium after breaking from Wikipedia.[0] He
| was then involved with Everipedia, a for-profit venture built the
| original code base which later morphed into crypto nonsense.[1]
|
| There are many examples of other wikis too. Some are
| focused[2][3], some are fun[4][5], some are revisionist[6][7][8],
| and some meet the requirements of totalitarian regimes[9][10].
|
| If Wikipedia's not your style, grab the code, rally a crowd, and
| make the encyclopedia you want to see--just know it's the people,
| not the platform, that make it thrive.
|
| [0]: https://ballotpedia.org/Main_Page
|
| [1]: https://rosettacode.org/
|
| [2]: https://citizendium.org/
|
| [3]: https://iq.wiki/
|
| [4]: https://uncyclopedia.com/wiki/Main_Page
|
| [5]: https://edramatica.com/Main_Page
|
| [6]: https://www.metapedia.org/
|
| [7]: https://www.conservapedia.com/
|
| [8]: https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
|
| [9]: https://www.qiuwenbaike.cn
|
| [10]: https://ruwiki.ru
| f33d5173 wrote:
| A social problem is by definition one with a social solution.
| If we can find a technical solution to a problem, it turns into
| a technical problem. Wikipedia is itself a technology. It's not
| outrageous to suggest that new technologies can improve on it.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| How does this overcome power struggles and bias? That's the most
| important question for me, as bias in Wikipedia is rampant these
| days, and even acknowledged by its founder.
| ErrantX wrote:
| As with all Wikipedia competitors, this misses two key points
|
| Firstly the most critical part of competing with WP is not the
| technology, it's having the critical mass of people willing to
| write article. Scandals aside over decades hundreds of thousands
| of people have built out the content and continue to do so - that
| is not easy to emulate.
|
| Also for all the scandals, the toughest problems in WP early days
| were spammers and trolls. Moderation is a niche community problem
| (which till you have a community is moot). Stopping bot armies
| and countless trolls is a day 1 issue.
| aljgz wrote:
| Out of genuine curiosity, what are the scandals?
| GuB-42 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversie.
| ..
|
| One good thing about Wikipedia is that it is pretty open with
| regards to internal affairs. If you want to criticize
| Wikipedia, there is no better source than Wikipedia itself.
| ErrantX wrote:
| As always, there is an article about it :)
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controvers.
| ..
| ComplexSystems wrote:
| > Firstly the most critical part of competing with WP is not
| the technology, it's having the critical mass of people willing
| to write article.
|
| This is much less of an issue now that there are LLMs, even
| with the occasional hallucination.
| lionkor wrote:
| LLMs do not write information dense content
| ErrantX wrote:
| Actually writing the content is usually the easiest part.
|
| 98% of writing these articles is research. Current LLMs are
| nowhere near good enough.
| harrisi wrote:
| One must always assume anything an LLM outputs is false until
| proven otherwise, not the opposite.
| birriel wrote:
| Ok, but that criterion is true for human-generated output
| as well.
| fragmede wrote:
| False. Please prove otherwise.
| harrisi wrote:
| If you truly never believe anything anyone has ever told
| you until you prove it yourself, I'm amazed you've
| somehow learned to type in English on a website with
| accounts.
|
| We trust people all the time for many reasons. Authority,
| past experience, logic (why would they lie about
| something in context), etc. and we get by alright.
| Knowing it's another conscious, mortal human existing in
| society makes it much easier to know when someone is
| likely being truthful.
|
| Obviously there are all sorts of caveats to that. The
| main difference is that LLMs don't lie. They don't tell
| the truth either. They just generate stuff with no
| meaning. There's no way to ever put any trust in that,
| the same way I wouldn't trust my ice maker to make sure
| my dog gets enough water while I'm on vacation.
| openrisk wrote:
| Some sort of federation has already been discussed in the
| Wikimedia universe [1]. It aims to operate at a lower level,
| federating _structured_ data between different specialized
| wikibases [2]. AFAIK it has not (yet?) seen much development and
| /or traction.
|
| ActivityPub style federation opens up some interesting technical
| possibilities for exchanging data but if the main motivation is
| to "fix" the consensus/moderation processes of Wikipedia one
| should start with outlining how _that_ would work.
|
| [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase/Federation
|
| [2] https://wikiba.se/
| groceryheist wrote:
| This is the latest in a long line of attempts to make a non-
| centralized Wikipedia. A Wikipedia (not me) maintains a record
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AHaeB%2FTimeline_of_dist...
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > This means the same topic can be treated in completely
| different ways. For example geology.wiki/article/Mountain may be
| completely different different from poetry.wiki/article/Mountain.
|
| Doesn't MediaWiki (and other common wikis) support this kind of
| thing already via the InterWiki-links system? You can set up a
| MediaWiki install such that [[geology:Mountain]] and
| [[poetry:Mountain]] go to the appropriate places. What does Ibis
| add that's not accounted for by this?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-27 23:00 UTC)