1. I just assumed that would be easy, that you would have one instance with no actual content. It just fetches the wikipedia article with the same name, directly from the wikipedia website. I guess I didn’t really think about it.

2. I guess that’s a design choice. Looking at different ways similar issues have been solved already…

How does wikipedia decide that the same article is available in different languages? I guess there is a database of links which has to be maintained.

Alternatively, it could assume that articles are the same if they have the same name, like in your example where “Mountain” can have an article on a poetry instance and on a geography instance, but the software treats them as the same article.

Wikipedia can understand that “Rep of Ireland” = “Republic of Ireland”. So I guess there is a look-up-table saying that these two names refer to the same thing.

Then, wikipedia can also understand cases where articles can have the same name but be unrelated. Like RIC (paramilitary group) is not the same as RIC (feature of a democracy).

I do think, if each Ibis instance is isolated, it won’t be much different from having many separate wiki websites. When the software automatically links you to the same information on different instances, that’s when the idea becomes really interesting and valuable.

Great song that I’d nearly forgotten about.

This is a great project. I had the same idea myself, and posted about it, but never did anything about it! It’s great that people like you are here, with the creativity, and the motivation and skills to do this work.

I think this project is as necessary as Wikipedia itself.

The criticisms in these comments are mostly identical to the opinion most people had about Wikipedia when it started - the it would become a cesspool of nonsense and misinformation. That it was useless and worthless when encyclopaedias already exist.

Wikipedia was the first step in broadening what a source if authoritative information can be. It in fact created richer and more truthful information than was possible before, and enlightened the world. Ibis is a necessary second step on the same path.

It will be most valuable for articles like Tieneman square, or the Gilets Jaunes, where there are sharply different perspectives on the same matter, and there will never be agreement. A single monolithic Wikipedia cannot speak about them. Today, wiki gives one perspective and calls it the truth. This was fine in the 20th century when most people believed in simple truths. They were told what to think by single sources. They never left their filter bubbles. This is not sustainable anymore.

To succeed and change the world, this project must do a few things right.

1. The default instance should just be a mirror of Wikipedia. This is the default source of information on everything, so it would be crazy to omit it. Omitting it means putting yourself in competition with it, and you will lose. By encompassing it, the information in Ibis is from day 1 greater then wiki. Then Ibis will just supersede wiki.

2. There should be a sidebar with links to the sane article on other instances. So someone reading about trickle down economics on right wing instance, he can instantly switch to the same article on a left wing wiki and read the other side of it. That’s the feature that will make it worthwhile for people.

3. It should look like Wikipedia. For familiarity. This will help people transition.

That’s probably what will happen in the end. Using old familiar idea, because it is familiar.

But that’s not what I’m doing here. I’m interested in new and more effective plans, even if they are not familiar and are unlikely to be used for that reason.

How could that work, on a practical level? Would it work better than what I have proposed?

Thanks, internet stranger. I’m glad to hear that you think this has some value.

All the details are up for debate and possible improvement. But in this first draft of the idea:

Will people be forced to fill it in every year?

Only if they want to decide where their money goes.

Will they fill it in at all?

If they don’t fill it in, the fee goes to the RTE.

Will there be a default selection? Like all to RTÉ, or maybe an even split between all options?

All to RTE.

If people don’t have to make a selection every year, will they just choose once and never update or change it because it’s a hassle?

That’s a good idea. You could have an option to inform the revenue of your preference just once, and it will be recorded forever, or until you change it. That way, people don’t have to fill out a tax return every year.

Why would they want to do that?

Yes I’m sure that would happen. Good point. Only the heaviest players would feel the incentive to cut weight. But this would only affect players over 100kg, already over the average weight for a rugby player. So if the few heaviest players feel a pressure to cut weight, that might not be such a bad thing.

If weight classes existed, audiences would only want to watch the heaviest weight class. The best way is to keep one class, but still restrict the total team weight.

For private business the tickets are to fund the business. But for public transport they are never expected to cover the costs of the business.

It is run as a public service, not to make money. The function of tickets is to prevent overcrowding.

That’s why in well designed systems, the price is different at rush hour, and for high traffic routes and times.

I don’t know anything about montpellier specifically though.

If you care, but you’re not willing to try to make a change, then toy are worse than those indifferent people.

Yes that’s the value of game theory. It’s not really about the silly games. It’s a way to understand real life, using silly games as examples. It helps us think of ways to understand our problems and to change the world, that we would not have thought of otherwise.

Yes that’s it. If we all did it together, we could change the world. But as individuals there is no effective action we can take.

Things like effective democracy, or powerful protest groups, could someday change the rules of the game. They could provide a low effort path for each individual to improve the collective (and his own) outcome.

I disagree. Polls always show strong support for these kinds of measures. This shows that they would vote for such policies of given the chance.

IMO the problem is that there is no direct practical way for the people to force the government to take action.

Today and for the foreseeable future, no real progress on clumsy change is happening. Nobody had any stronger ideas than this one.

Even if I am wrong. It’s worth a try.

Thanks that’s interesting. It is not really a carbon tax through. It only applies to certain fuels. For example does not apply to jet fuel (ATF) nor shipping fuel (HFO). It does not apply to other significant greenhouse gas sources like fertiliser, concrete, beef.

It does show that this type of tax is workable, and shows a good way to implement it.

yes good point. i was thinking so much of new ideas i forgot about this old one.

polar bears. it’s the only animal that likes to eat people. daily life is just too safe and dull.

die hard

Simple? It would be easier to have some time per night when the streets are not lit.

It is useful to have lots of stupid laws. It makes people feel powerless and frustrated. It means the police can always find excuses to persecute you.

The technicalities of the individual laws are not important. It’s the psychological effect of the whole body of laws on a people.