1051
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2023
1051 points (99.3% liked)
Games
31255 readers
820 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
An ActivityPub wiki would be nice
Don't think it's really necessary. The different wikis don't really need to talk to each other. But an open source Gamepedia-like wiki software would be great. Maybe it exists already.
Wiki.gg is very good though.
That’s a separate issue from federation altogether. Federation might have some benefits, but I don’t see “crowding out Fandom with SEO” as one of them.
Idk if that makes any sense tbh. I guess it could work though. I don't really see the application.
Ability to contribute to all wikis and to federate content from the wikis across one another without having them all owned by one company like fandom.com
Why would you contribute to multiple wikis, there should only be one, and I don't know how or why you'd federate content when you can just simply link a url. Having people host wikis on their own servers already accomplish that. The fedi makes no sense here, nor does it make sense to have forks of wikis.
? Literally the same reasons for multiple lemmy servers?
There would be a star trek wiki and a star wars wiki run on different servers by respective fan bases but people who mainly use one wiki could still contribute to the other. Having the content federate instead of just linking to a url would help prevent the data being gone if a server goes down.
Federation for wikis doesn't make sense, IMO. For wikis that are intended to serve as authoritative resources, you actually want to require editors to be local accounts because if they're remote, you can never end trolling / vandalism edits. Also, local accounts give more accountability for editorial control since, among other things, editing locally means editing the toolset (eg.: parser modifications, buttons, smileys, custom emojis, whatever) of the local instance.
How would you federate content though? A Star Trek article in a Star Wars wiki makes no sense
since federation is the new hammer, there are going to be people who think everything is a new nail. just like what happened with blockchain
Let's put the edit history on the blockchain!
Probably the most apt analogy I’ve heard.
Not that directly, but you can still have a "communities" tab with other Wikis. With the same kind of framework, it would be easy to share the same code and look, but still have it set up as one big mega site like Fandom is.
Or just one instance host a bunch of different Wikis, based on subject, and they agree to federate. There could even be a discussion tab for each page that allows any instance to post.
how is this so confusing? it would be exactly like lemmy but wikis instead of threads. startrek.wiki would focus on startrek info but still have overall wiki stuff. just like db0zero lemmy focuses on piracy but still has other communities and content from other lemmy servers
It’s not confusing, there’s just nothing to gain from it. Federation makes sense for communication like e-mail and social media like Mastodon or Lemmy, where you have a “home” and want to be able to interact with others regardless of their server. But with wikis, it over-complicates things with little gain. Right now, people browse wikis on different websites. You don’t have a “home,” and that works just fine.
What makes a good wiki sustainable is if its articles are under a libre license, and if its database can be downloaded.
I hadn't considered that previously, but I think that is a great idea!