And they are just as fragile.
this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
459 points (96.2% liked)
Showerthoughts
29827 readers
747 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- Avoid politics
- 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
- 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
- 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You can’t rely on YouTube videos staying up over time.
Better download what you want might want to look up again
Can't count on the library of Alexandria staying up over time either
I think we also overestimate the valve if what would have been at Alexandria.
Considering everything would have been hand copied/transcribed back then, and his expensive that would have been, the selection bias would be massive.
I doubt it could compare to Wikipedia.
One of those is not a non-profit foundation, and that's a Problem.
And that one is not really comparable to the library of Alexandria.
But it would probably be the most interesting to future archeologists. At least all the noncommercial videos people make about their lives. The "you" part of YouTube.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I think it’s a bit ironic that Wikipedia hasn’t succumbed to the modern era of misinformation the way other information sources have, particularly given the warnings about it that have been given in the past. Not saying those warnings aren’t warranted, just that the way things have played out is counter to said expectations.
There's an obvious reason for that. Wikipedia is owned by a nonprofit foundation and does not accept advertising.
It definitely has, just not to as large a scale.
In practice it’s ran like a heirarchical aristocracy, where a admins control articles they care about and are very picky about the changes they allow.
One article about an illness contains false information related to alternative medicine “treatments” and I edited it, this was removed by the person who made most of the page. I got into an argument with them, and turns out they have the same username and come from the same country as an account on other platforms selling alternative medicine products, which are subtly advertised on the page they control. They also are a wikipedia admin.
Anyways I reported this to the admin team, and my report was immediately deleted by the admin I was reporting, and I got a three year ban. Mind you I have over a thousand wikipedia edits and have made some big contributions so this was quite annoying.
And this is far from the only incident. The people who are most likely to edit wikipedia pages are those who really care about, or could really benefit from the topic. So you end up having situations where companies hire agencies to improve their image by changing the wikipedia article about them and their products, same thing for celebrities.
Interesting anecdote. Though to judge by your username, it seems you may have an agenda yourself.
So you end up having situations where companies hire agencies to improve their image by changing the wikipedia article about them and their products, same thing for celebrities
This is a major problem that takes up a lot of time for the editors. It explains some of their trigger-happiness.
That said, you have a valid point. I once tried to water down what I considered to be excessively POV language in an article about diet. This earned me an official warning for "extremism" or "conspiracism" or whatever. My impressive account pedigree also counted for nothing. So there's definitely a bit of the political bias, the power-tripping and gatekeeping that you see in any online community. But it's a bit of a conundrum too, because they are fighting an uphill battle against people with strong incentives and sometimes money too.
Interesting anecdote. Though to judge by your username, it seems you may have an agenda yourself.
This wasn’t the ME/CFS article (the illness I am personally disabled by) and anyways all this happened before I became disabled.
Anyways my ban is over now, but I can’t get myself to edit wikipedia anymore. It was a pretty shitty experience and I don’t wanna go back.
And it wasn’t the only one. So much NPOV-violating stuff on most the fringe articles and whenever you edit to make more neutral tone or you remove something unsupported by citations you end up in an insufferable straw man argument chain on the talk page.
The main fun part is filling out abandoned articles and making new articles yourself. But anything showing problems in other people’s work becomes really tiring really quick with all the talk page nonsense and endless reverts.
What's a shame. No way to report him higher in hierarchy?
load more comments
(1 replies)
All the more reason to data horde. The costs of storing these libraries are going down, and it is likely that everyone can have their own copy of it all in the near future.
The amount of data is also increasing constantly and by a lot.
The article they linked goes over that. It's a really good read
Let's help PeerTube replace YouTube.
I would add Project Gutenberg and Open Street Map to your list.
Wikipedia essentially can't be destroyed without a global catastrophe that would mean we have way worse problems. Wikipedia is downloadable. Meaning the ENTIRE Wikipedia. And so there are many copies of it stored all around the planet.
If you have an extra 150 GB of space available then you can download a personal copy for yourself
https://www.howtogeek.com/260023/how-to-download-wikipedia-for-offline-at-your-fingertips-reading/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia
It's under 25 GB, too.
But that's just for the text version without media files
load more comments
(1 replies)
With scraping, you can fully download YouTube, too.
You just need an additional 10 EB of storage space, Millions of different IP addresses, a law firm to deffend against Alphabet, lots of time and energy, ...
load more comments
(1 replies)
I wish that the Internet Archive would focus on allowing the public to store data. Distribute the network over the world.
In theory this could be true. In practice, data would be ripe for poisoning. It's like the idea of turning every router into a last mile CDN with a 20TB hard drive.
Then you have to think about security and not letting the data change from what was originally given. Idk. I'm sure something is possible, but without a real 'omph' nothing big happens.
The data would be hashed so any changes would be thrown out.
Hashed by whom? Who has the source of truth for the hashes? How would you prevent it from being poisoned? .. or are you saying a non-distributed (centralized) hash store?
If centralized: you have a similar problem to IA today. If not centralized: How would you prevent poisoning? If enough distributed nodes say different things, the truth can be lost.
This is a topic that is pretty well tested. Basically the data is validated when received.
For instance in IPFS data is tracked by its hash. You request something by a CID which is just a hash.
There are other distributed networks and they all have there own ways of protecting against attacks. Usually an attack requires a huge amount of resources.
Even in ipfs, I don't understand discoverability. Sort of sounds like it still needs a centralized list of metadata to content I'd, etc.
Nah, that's the easy part. Checksum technology has been around for many decades
Blockchain? Prolly not a perfect solution by far, but
Huh? The public can store data on IA just fine. I've uploaded dozens of public-domain books there.
But all the data is on IA's servers. In the event their servers go down for good, that's it. There's no way to self host parts of the Archive fediverse style.
That's true, but organising and managing such a distributed form of IA would probably be a nightmare of a job. I've seen many people suggest that to IA, but they seem to be very very reluctant about the idea.
Distributed systems have come a long way. It would be possible
Alexandria was important in its time, but in terms of the volume and quality of information we keep on Wikipedia alone, it is a mosquito in the Taj Mahal.
There was a video I saw (I think it was hank or John Green), where they talked about the implications of twitter being deleted during the start of Elon. They pulled out a joke book they bought of "1000 twitter posts" and said how it would be the only recorded proof they (personally) had of what twitter was.
It's terrifying thinking of just how much information is just being put in the hands of companies that don't care or just on old hard drives about to give out due to funding. I wish there was a way to backup a random part of the information automatically, like a "I'll give you a terabyte of backup, make the most of it" automatically choosing what isn't backuped already.
Also add reddit too, the amount of times I've searched a question and went through 2024 website crap then went back to the search and added "site:reddit" into DuckDuckGo and got an answer instantly.
Add wiki books https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page
Libretexts https://commons.libretexts.org/
And Openstax https://openstax.org/subjects
wikibooks is cool, had no idea that existed. I'm sure next time I get curious at 3am I'll end up there reading about the history of 'vectors' or some other random stuff lol
If we're going to stick to ancient Greek references, one of these is closer to the modern day Augean stables.
There pught to be a decentralized archive of YT. ...and Archive
The problem with YouTube is the sheer amount of storage required. Just going by the 10 Exabyte figure mentioned elsewhere in the thread, there are about 25,000 fediverse servers across all services in total IIRC, so even if you evenly split that 10EB across all of them, they would still need 400TB each just to cover what we have today.
Famously YouTube needs a petabyte of fresh storage every day, so each of those servers would need to be able to accept an additional 40GB a day.
Realistically though, any kind of decentralised archive wouldn't start with 25,000 servers, so the operational needs are going to be significantly higher in reality
I know it's totally subjective, but I wonder how much "non-trash" YouTube is uploaded each day?
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›