You know what would be *really* great? Federated @Wikipedia (using ActivityPub or a fork of it).

Yes. Federated wikipedia. Like mastodon but.. instead of a social media site, it's wikis.

Millions of articles spread out on different servers. All editable. Someone should do this!

Tie that in with existing fediverse networks like Mastodon and Peertube. There is also the upcoming ForgeFed ( for Git.

Now imagine a collective of individuals and organisations, united in a newly unstoppable federation of freedom.

I covered this in a previous thread:

this is a long thread, but a federated wikipedia seems in-line with this vague vision:

@libreleah As far as I understand, Everipedia is trying to do that, except using a slightly different technology stack.

@libreleah Ward Cunningham does have a federated wiki project, but it predates ActivityPub, so I don't know what it would take to update the backend.

@libreleah How would you decide which server held the canonical page on any given subject? If you didn't, how would people distinguish between 1000 different pages on the same popular subject? It seems to me that the very nature of a wiki is to be a single, centralized source, but maybe I'm just not thinking out of the box enough here. I'd be curious how you see this challenge.

@Blort i don't think i would even attempt to solve this. however, we could think of it like the traditional usenet paradigm, and individual wiki hosts can decide what articles they copy between themselves, and adapt.

an "authoritative" article is so through social means. a person or group earns the respect from the community to become a recognized authority in a given field. i don't think that's really a problem

From what I understand, Activity Pub was conceived for a very different use. It has no provisions for resilience. It doesn't define a protocol, instance software does. It is more distributed in theory than in practice.

Having the talk page federate over AP seems "obvious", but wiki articles? I see some immediate downsides:
* I will only get to see those articles people on my instance have shown interest in so far
* when an instance goes offline temporarily or permanently or gets blocked, we will lose that part of the wikipedia

I'm also afraid we would end up with different projects that almost federate (while chasing changes to wikstodon code). Plus, we'd get a very small number of dominant instances. Having three instances is better than having one, but unless there are solutions to all of the other problems, I'd argue it is still worse.

So, while I would very much like to see a wikipedia which is less reliant on a single entity, I have a hard time seeing AP coming to the rescue. I would love to be proven wrong, however.
Sign in to participate in the conversation

Hello! is a general-topic instance. We're enthusiastic about Mastodon and aim to run a fast, up-to-date and fun Mastodon instance.