The idea of a federated, decentralized Wikipedia alternative is intriguing, but implementing it successfully faces major hurdles. Federating moderation policies and privileges across different instances seems incredibly complex. I believe it would also require some kind of web of trust system. Quality control is also a huge challenge without centralized oversight and clear guidelines enforced universally.
While it could potentially replace commercial wiki farms like Wikia/Fandom for niche topics, realistically replacing Wikipedia’s dominance as a general reference work seems highly ambitious and unlikely, at least in the short term. But as they say - shoot for the stars, and you may just land on the moon.
That said, ambitious goals can spur innovation. Even if Ibis falls short of usurping Wikipedia, it could blaze new trails and pioneer federated wiki concepts that feed back into Wikipedia and other platforms. The federated model allowing more perspectives and focused communities is worth exploring, despite the technical obstacles around distributed moderation and content integration. The proof-of-concept shows the core pieces are in place as a starting point.
Human bias is a pervasive element in many online communities, and finding a platform entirely free from it can be akin to searching for the holy grail. Maybe look into self-hosting an instance and punish moderators who don’t follow their own rules.
I’ve noticed that the current sorting algorithms prioritize posts based on votes, which can sometimes lead to posts with high votes but few comments dominating the feed. This may not accurately reflect user engagement. On the other hand, sorting by “Most Comments” disregards votes entirely. I believe Lemmy should consider...
This is not possible because sorting is done in the database, so adding a new sort option requires a database migration with new indexes, columns and updated queries. Not something that can be done with a simple plugin.
An alternative approach could involve utilizing an API endpoint that provides metadata for recent posts, allowing users to implement custom sorting logic on their client side using JavaScript. This API endpoint is currently accessible only to moderators and administrators
There is already such an API endpoint which is available for mods and admins.
I do feel like there needs to be some further tweaking, controversial should have a time falloff so it shows recent controversy instead of something 6 months old for example.
The number of sorting algorithms needs to be much more limited than that; otherwise, it puts too much load on the server calculating all those combinations. It’s important to strike a balance between customization and system performance to ensure smooth operation and optimal user experience.
Well, that would only be implemented if it were offered by the API; otherwise, just use what is available right now, which are votes and the number of comments. I find it more invasive that other users can see the post history in my profile than admins being able to see the amount of time I spend reading each post. Revealing my feed feels akin to exposing my browsing history.
I don’t understand platforms like Mastodon that mimic Twitter without incorporating the features that contribute to its popularity. If I were looking for a most recent sorting algorithm I would use a chat.
Would it be feasible to expose the metadata for posts in such a way that search queries could be customized to sort a front page any way a user wants to see it?
There is already such an API endpoint which is available for mods and admins.
Yeah, it would definitely be feasible to expose post metadata for customized search queries. Currently, the data is restricted to admins and mods, but having an API endpoint for users could enhance the sorting options without significant strain on the server. It could lead to more tailored and engaging user experiences on the platform.
Perhaps even a sentiment analysis would be interesting to see: serious discussion, jokes and memes discussion, informative posters, political conversation left or right, etc.
Slashdot moderation> this was something I loved about slashdot moderation. When voting, people had to specify the reason for the vote. +1 funny, +1 insightful, +1 informative, -1 troll, -1 misleading, etc. > > That way you can, for example, set in your user preferences to ignore positive votes for comedy, and put extra value on informative votes. > > Then, to keep people from spamming up/down votes and to encourage them to think about their choices, they only gave out a limited number of moderation points to readers. So you’d have to choose which comments to spend your 5 points on. > > Then finally, they had ‘meta moderation’ where you’d be shown a comment, and asked “would a vote of insightful be appropriate for this comment” to catch people who down-voted out of disagreement or personal vandetta. Any users who regularly mis-voted would stop receiving the ability to vote. > > I don’t think this is directly applicable to a federated system, but I do think it’s one of the best-thought-out voting systems ever created for a discussion board. > > edit: a couple other points i liked about it: > > Comments were capped at (iirc) +5 and -1. Further votes wouldn’t change the comment’s score. > > User karma wasn’t shown. The user page would just say Karma: good. Or Excellent, or poor, or some other vague term. > > beehaw.org/comment/208569
Announcing Ibis, the federated Wikipedia Alternative (ibis.wiki)
deleted_by_author
Should Lemmy's sorting algorithms incorporate user engagement metrics? (github.com)
I’ve noticed that the current sorting algorithms prioritize posts based on votes, which can sometimes lead to posts with high votes but few comments dominating the feed. This may not accurately reflect user engagement. On the other hand, sorting by “Most Comments” disregards votes entirely. I believe Lemmy should consider...