Comment

Comment on How AI and Wikipedia have sent vulnerable languages into a doom spiral

Hmm, the law begins with “Given enough eyeballs”. So it’s explicitly not about small-language Wikipedia sites having too few editors.

It also doesn’t talk about finding consensus. “All bugs are shallow” means that someone can see the solution. In software development, that’s most often quite easy, especially when it comes to bugfixes. It’s rarely difficult to verify whether the solution to a bug works or not. So in most cases if someone finds a solution and it works, that’s good enough for everyone.

In cultural fields, that’s decidedly not the case.

For most of society’s problems, there are hardly any new solutions. We have had the same basic problems for centuries and pretty much “all” the solutions have been proposed decades or centuries ago.

How to make government fair? How to get rid of crime? How to make a good society?

These things have literally been issues since the first humans learned to speak.

That’s why Linus’ law doesn’t really apply here. We all want different things and there’s no fix that satisfies all requirements or preferences.

source

Sort:hotnew top

vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

For most of society’s problems, there are hardly any new solutions. We have had the same basic problems for centuries and pretty much “all” the solutions have been proposed decades or centuries ago.

That’s because people generally don’t know or understand these solutions. One can’t raise above separate human’s ability to understand any system. And I mean any. Doesn’t mean a housewife has to know electrical engineering, but enough people in any group reliant upon any system should have passive knowledge and understanding.

So, thanks to AI translators and such, I can now link kvant.digital here.

The very first problem in the very first issue of that journal is very enlightening.

source
Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Wikipedia (from my understanding) was built off similar doctrine as Linus’ law for iterative improvement where the dedicated and the many culled the misinformation and the outdated.

I wonder what would be a viable alternative for delicate situations like these where “hugs of death” (too many eager users who don’t understand the damage they’re causing) are occurring due to the current model for niche cultural systems like these. Maybe a council established group of authors and editors based on their background and qualifications?

source
- squaresinger@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  That’s kinda what Wikipedia does. They have a quite elaborate review process before stuff goes live: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reviewing
  
  In the English Wikipedia, that process is working quite well. But in e.g. the Welsh Wikipedia or other tiny languages, they might only have a handful of reviewers in total. There’s no way that such a small group of people could be knowledgeable in all subjects.
  
  Welsh Wikipedia, for example, has less than 200 total active users, and there are dozens of small language or dialect Wikipedias that have <30 active users.
  
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias
  
  I don’t think there’s an actual solution for this issue until AI translations become so good that there’s no need for language-specific content any more. If that ever happens.
  
  source