> The sort of content that sends most Wikipedia moderators into catatonic seizures indexed and available.
The reason it is anathema to the Wikipedia concept is because Wikipedia wants its name on good content, not Alex Jones JOOZ-DID-IT (Oh, and Aliens-Big-Pharma-Bilderberger-USPS-Did-9/11 Too) bullshit, unless such bullshit is clearly marked as coming from a specific minority viewpoint.
I think that's a great reason to keep the crap on the current version of Wikipedia to a minimum: The world is confusing, especially when there are people like Alex Jones out there trying to make it more confusing to sell more videos. Having something where you have a good chance of getting the Sane People Version of controversial (or only-controversial-because-of-the-crazies) topics is invaluable if you want somewhere to start. Especially if it's a topic that books aren't really written about, like specific health scams.
So the Federated Wiki universe will need some way to mark specific forks of articles as being from a given group of people, so people aren't mislead into thinking that the sane editors approve of the version of reality Alex Jones is selling the gullible.
Exactly, the mods are there to keep the crazy out but occasionally you need to reference some of the more outlandish things for various reasons and letting people for things off into tinfoilhatswiki.net would be good for the mods sanity and useful for people who need to reference the over the top stuff. Not sure how the link direction would work, but I'm sure there's a way.
I agree that some way to remove links to forks that are spam or that you find reprehensible is a good idea, but the whole point of forking instead of editing is that the forks aren't approved.
As I said elsewhere, I (nor the people I quoted) meant to represent this as an alternative to Wikipedia itself. I'd see it more as some that a wiki farm like Wikia could use to allow editors to put more of their own perspective into an article (that's my opinion, not the Smallest Federated Wiki developers' opinion).
I get this. My whole point is that it needs to be very obvious where a fork comes from and what else the people responsible for it are responsible for.
The reason it is anathema to the Wikipedia concept is because Wikipedia wants its name on good content, not Alex Jones JOOZ-DID-IT (Oh, and Aliens-Big-Pharma-Bilderberger-USPS-Did-9/11 Too) bullshit, unless such bullshit is clearly marked as coming from a specific minority viewpoint.
I think that's a great reason to keep the crap on the current version of Wikipedia to a minimum: The world is confusing, especially when there are people like Alex Jones out there trying to make it more confusing to sell more videos. Having something where you have a good chance of getting the Sane People Version of controversial (or only-controversial-because-of-the-crazies) topics is invaluable if you want somewhere to start. Especially if it's a topic that books aren't really written about, like specific health scams.
So the Federated Wiki universe will need some way to mark specific forks of articles as being from a given group of people, so people aren't mislead into thinking that the sane editors approve of the version of reality Alex Jones is selling the gullible.