Notability is genuinely subjective, so you’re going to need subjective/personalized filtering. That’s something I’m supposed to be working on, first by implementing graph database indexes that would make webs of trust efficient enough to be used for filtering web-wide annotations, for querying bespoke curation networks, and for transparent spam filtering. Distributed storage is also relevant there. If you care about an article, you should be able to pay its costs, or participate in p2p hosting. Atlas cannot whinge about its weight and threaten to drop it if he is no longer the one carrying it.
But Neutral Point of View isn’t so easily solved. I think there’s always going to be a single large high legibility wikipedians cluster, because the Neutral Objectivity thing is kind of actually real, it’s not subjective, there really is this one big demographic of researchers who can mostly agree about what’s well evidenced or not. I hope we can come up with more efficient moderation processes for them though. I’m a little worried I wont be able to hold them together. Nightmares where everyone splits off into a bunch of cults, treading on each others’ namespaces, diverging into babel.
I’m a little worried I wont be able to hold them together. Nightmares where everyone splits off into a bunch of cults, treading on each others’ namespaces, diverging into babel.
Unfortunately it might have boiled over weeks ago, when a WikiConference event in Toronto Reference Library was hit by a phony bomb threat, reportedly by disgruntled user(s) who were treated badly there.
A lot of these are technical problems.
Notability is genuinely subjective, so you’re going to need subjective/personalized filtering. That’s something I’m supposed to be working on, first by implementing graph database indexes that would make webs of trust efficient enough to be used for filtering web-wide annotations, for querying bespoke curation networks, and for transparent spam filtering.
Distributed storage is also relevant there. If you care about an article, you should be able to pay its costs, or participate in p2p hosting. Atlas cannot whinge about its weight and threaten to drop it if he is no longer the one carrying it.
But Neutral Point of View isn’t so easily solved. I think there’s always going to be a single large high legibility wikipedians cluster, because the Neutral Objectivity thing is kind of actually real, it’s not subjective, there really is this one big demographic of researchers who can mostly agree about what’s well evidenced or not. I hope we can come up with more efficient moderation processes for them though.
I’m a little worried I wont be able to hold them together. Nightmares where everyone splits off into a bunch of cults, treading on each others’ namespaces, diverging into babel.
Unfortunately it might have boiled over weeks ago, when a WikiConference event in Toronto Reference Library was hit by a phony bomb threat, reportedly by disgruntled user(s) who were treated badly there.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/bomb-threat-toronto-reference-library-1.7026287
https://twitter.com/AustinReporting/status/1723351006975582613