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.

[–] mojo@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Idk if that makes any sense tbh. I guess it could work though. I don't really see the application.

[–] nix@merv.news 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] mojo@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] nix@merv.news 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

? 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.

[–] veniasilente@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] ziggurism@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

How would you federate content though? A Star Trek article in a Star Wars wiki makes no sense

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] axtualdave@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Let's put the edit history on the blockchain!

[–] fox2263@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Probably the most apt analogy I’ve heard.

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] nix@merv.news 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] jadedctrl@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] TechieDamien@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

I hadn't considered that previously, but I think that is a great idea!