Hacker News Reader

Comment by tokenizer | Hacker News Reader

That sounds interesting, but useless. I only want to see the most 'correct' version. It's almost as if saying when you use an app you can also use many of the apps versions, including its beta or alpha, regardless of how incorrect or useless they are with the current version.

I also think that information needs to be organized and many of his ideas make the collection or the organization of information almost impossible.

But nevertheless very interesting.

View on HN

Did you notice that most articles on Wikipedia, although mostly 'correct', are very dry? And this is because they try to be as 'correct' as possible. But it brings to a point where some (most??) users can't use it comfortably anymore. Think children, who are trying to find some basic information about the subject they are interested in. My 8yo recently has gone through the 'dinosaurs' stage. Drawings, books, stories, films. You think she found this fascinating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur ?? Nope. Here comes in the federated version, with 'alternative' of the story. Tailored for the 4-10yo audience. Is it less 'correct'? Perhaps. But useful nonetheless.

Wikipedia already has alternate versions of articles such as https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur

Something similar could be done for various reading ages.

The article describes this as being like a fork. For example, choosing between OpenOffice and LibreOffice, or ffmpeg and libav. Both are the current version, but with different ideas and implementation.

If two groups are editing a book about Python (for example) on a wiki, they might have different ideas about how a particular concept should be explained. They fork that, and both versions can exist in parallel, even exchanging ideas when suitable.

I hear what you're saying about only wanting the most "correct" version, and no doubt that's how most people feel when looking for information, but about some things you have an ability and perhaps an obligation to contribute to deciding what is the most correct version...

This suggests to me that Ward is onto something here, but also that you may have a point about it's limitations in its current form. I hope the hypothes.is project (funded by kickstarter, http://hypothes.is) succeeds, and I wonder if some degree of integration between the two is possible so that reputation and correctness rating across wiki-nodes (or any such federated system) can naturally "bubble up" to top visibility with some citation/indication of the bubbling via the hypothes.is client, regardless of which specific fork of the wiki you happen to be looking at... I'd love to discuss this possibility further with Ward, hypothes.is, or anyone else interested since they'll both be open source projects any of us can try to make this happen in :-)

Well, you're only getting the correct version in terms of Wikipedia's processes. This relates to both a horizontal axis of what narratives (for lack of a better abstraction) are being represented and a vertical axis relating to the depth to which a narrative is mentioned, if at all.

Both of these are, famously, super disputed on Wikipedia itself: people fight about the contents of articles about controversial issues (→ NPOV), and people fight about the extent to which certain things are covered (→ notability).

I think there's room for multiple, equally "correct" versions of an article on both of these dimensions; but particularly regarding the notability criteria.

Who decides which version is the most correct? Read the same Wikipedia article on history in different languages and you'll find out that there's no such thing as the 'correct version'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com