Had this thought the other day and tbh it’s horrifying to think about the implications of one, or God forbid all, of them going down.
Stackoverflow too but that only applies to nerds haha

  • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
    721·
    6 days ago

    One of those is not a non-profit foundation, and that’s a Problem.

      • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
        21·
        6 days ago

        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.

          • Baguette@lemm.ee
            13·
            6 days ago

            The you part of youtube was definitely people making videos for the fun of it. Things like videos about a topic they’re passionate about (eg. Fallout NV, weird mechanics in games, etc.), 2008-esque skits, lets plays, and all that. It still exists, but youtube was really at its peak when it was just a buncha random people living their lives and having fun.

      • sqw@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        1·
        5 days ago

        i was thinking about how much human effort has gone into making instructional videos on how to do things and how all that content exists almost solely in the hands of Alphabet Corp

  • Tedesche@lemmy.worldEnglish
    531·
    6 days ago

    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.

    • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      192·
      6 days ago

      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.

      • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
        6·
        6 days ago

        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.

        • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          81·
          6 days ago

          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.

    • Mwa@lemm.eeEnglish
      4·
      6 days ago

      There is people who watch most popular articles,its not rlly misinformation.

  • Beacon@fedia.io
    461·
    7 days ago

    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/

  • sit@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    181·
    6 days ago

    You can’t rely on YouTube videos staying up over time.

    Better download what you want might want to look up again

      • Ellen_musk_ox@lemm.eeEnglish
        31·
        6 days ago

        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.

  • The Snark Urge@lemmy.worldEnglish
    281·
    7 days ago

    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.

  • TriflingToad@sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
    15·
    6 days ago

    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.

  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
    8·
    6 days ago

    I wish that the Internet Archive would focus on allowing the public to store data. Distribute the network over the world.

    • csm10495@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      3·
      5 days ago

      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.

        • csm10495@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          4 days ago

          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.

          • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
            1·
            4 days ago

            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.

            • csm10495@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              4 days ago

              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.

      • Badoker@lemmy.nz
        6·
        6 days ago

        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.

        • antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          2·
          6 days ago

          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.

    • TriflingToad@sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
      9·
      6 days ago

      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

    • 9point6@lemmy.world
      7·
      6 days ago

      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

      • SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml
        1·
        6 days ago

        Hmm good point. If this was too be anywhere near realistic, there would need to be a way to triage videos by whether they are actually worth archiving