Wood Wide Web: Already a term in biology. “Research has shown that beneath every forest and wood there is a complex underground web of roots, fungi and bacteria helping to connect trees and plants to one another. This subterranean social network, nearly 500 million years old, has become known as the “wood wide web”.” (BBC)
Fungiverse: Most similar to the term fediverse though I never understood the “universe” part of the term. What does it mean in this context? Its more a social network, right? Much more like the internet it is based on a certain protocol.
Fungal/Fungi Web: Shorter than Wood Wide Web and maybe easier to say. In contrast to Wood Wide Web, maybe it’s also better to not confuse tech and nature here. I also in general like the term “social web” more, because it emphasizes that it is basically going on top of the usual web just through a new protocol.
I think Wood Wide Web would be best, because it could emphasize that it should be energy-efficient and have the goal of connecting people to collaborate toward a sustainable future. Also: in a story that plays in a world in which humanoid plants live, it would just make sense that they discover the Wood Wide Web at some point. What do you think?
Why an alternative term?
If you want something that carries more meaning then those proposed terms are maybe not the best as a mycelium network does not represent very well what the fediverse does.
If you want some more practical comparison then maybe a network of scribes in monastery libraries that copy texts and exchange them via a postal network?
Why an alternative term?
I find the term fediverse irritating and I’m currently writing a short story about the Fediverse.
If you want something that carries more meaning then those proposed terms are maybe not the best as a mycelium network does not represent very well what the fediverse does.
For me, ActivityPub does for the web about the same thing that fungi do in the forest: they allow communication about the content in the web without a central entity.
If you want some more practical comparison then maybe a network of scribes in monastery libraries that copy texts and exchange them via a postal network?
But they aren’t sharing only text. Also: the monk doesn’t exist. The communication works dezentralized through a protocol.
I find the term fediverse irritating
Why?
-
Why universe? It has nothing to do with virtual reality and it sounds very sealed. But what we currently see with the introduction to ActivityPub to Wordpress for example is that it actually becomes a part of the Web. Its more similar to the web than it is to virtual universes.
-
The concept “federated” only makes sense in the current context. We have centralized social networks. They are bad. We want something else and think federation could do it. But it would be nice to have a metaphor that somehow stands on its own legs without relying on the old system. And the main thing that ActivityPub brings us is that the web becomes a social place.
That’s why I find “social web” better. It’s more future-oriented and less defensive.
- But ‘universe’ doesn’t necessarily relate to virtual reality either. In fact, ‘universe’ is probably the least sealed term you could use, given that as far as we’re aware, the universe encompasses everything.
- ‘Federated’ has been a term in IT for a long, long time, and has always been used to refer to two extant systems with a protocol in common. In this case, it’s (for example) Mastodon and Lemmy, communicating via ActivityPub; but you could equally federate two Active Directory instances.
-
I think you’ve got tunnel vision. Federated universe makes perfect sense in the context it’s been built. You being a fan of fungi is not a good enough reason to pollute the already “difficult” (I disagree it is) concept.
I’m not a fan of fungi, I just think its a good metaphor for what ActivityPub does.
But I see your point: fediverse makes sense in the context, however:
- The context in which the Fediverse was created is one that should be overcome. We don’t want walled gardens, in a world without them, the term Fediverse doesn’t make sense anymore. I think what we need to achieve as a society is a true implementation of the “social web”. And federation is not a main thing here, it’s just a by-product that could make it work.
- I still think it would be great to have a handy metaphor that basically explains itself and that makes sense without having to explain centralized social networks first
For me it runs down to this: how do you explain the Fediverse to someone when walled gardens don’t exist anymore? Its a term created with respect to the old times. I think its contraproductive. The term “social web” is much better imo.
I 100% disagree with you.
