-
SurveyJS
Open-Source JSON Form Builder to Create Dynamic Forms Right in Your App. With SurveyJS form UI libraries, you can build and style forms in a fully-integrated drag & drop form builder, render them in your JS app, and store form submission data in any backend, inc. PHP, ASP.NET Core, and Node.js.
-
-
meta
A community dedicated to supporting tools for technical and scientific communication and interactive computing (by executablebooks)
-
-
From the repo [1]:
"research publishing platform that is community based, transparent and censorship resistant" (my emphasis)
"Community members moderate the platform and can increase or decrease the visibility of the uploaded files"
[1] https://github.com/hugoroussel/xirva
Ah cool… I also took a stab at something similar several years ago: https://github.com/ecausarano/heron
Also at the time I was considering IPFS.
But I guess the real trick is implementing a WOT to implement peer review and filter out the inevitable junk that will be published
Using Wikipedia as an example of a seemingly naïve idea that was ultimately proven to work is a pretty bad argument that completely ignores how Wikipedia operates at the moment.
It's routinely used for propagating smears:
https://odysee.com/@AlisonMorrow:6/how-wikipedia-decides-if-...
Even one of its co-founders says it's failing as an accurate source of information:
https://odysee.com/@TimcastIRL:8/former-founder-of-wikipedia...
Just like Jaron Lanier predicted in 2006:
https://www.edge.org/conversation/jaron_lanier-digital-maois...
I never understood why so many technologists vehemently defend a website that was obviously prone to a form of "regulatory capture" and groupthink.
https://github.com/executablebooks/meta/discussions/102 :
> jupyter-comment supports a number of commenting services ([executablebooks/sphinx-comments#14](https://github.com/executablebooks/sphinx-comments/issues/14) , [executablebooks/jupyter-book#861](https://github.com/executablebooks/jupyter-book/issues/861)). In helping users decide which commenting and annotation services to include on their pages and commit to maintaining, could we discuss criteria for assessment and current features of services?
> Possible features for comparison:
> * Content author can delete / hide
> * Content author can report / block
> * Comments / annotations are screened by spam-fighting service
> * Content / author can label as e.g. toxic
> * Content author receives notification of new comments
> * Content author can require approval before user-contributed content is publicly-visible
> * Content author may allow comments for a limited amount of time (probably more relevant to BlogPostings)
> * Content author may simultaneously denounce censorship in all it's forms while allowing previously-published works to languish
https://github.com/executablebooks/meta/discussions/102 :
> jupyter-comment supports a number of commenting services ([executablebooks/sphinx-comments#14](https://github.com/executablebooks/sphinx-comments/issues/14) , [executablebooks/jupyter-book#861](https://github.com/executablebooks/jupyter-book/issues/861)). In helping users decide which commenting and annotation services to include on their pages and commit to maintaining, could we discuss criteria for assessment and current features of services?
> Possible features for comparison:
> * Content author can delete / hide
> * Content author can report / block
> * Comments / annotations are screened by spam-fighting service
> * Content / author can label as e.g. toxic
> * Content author receives notification of new comments
> * Content author can require approval before user-contributed content is publicly-visible
> * Content author may allow comments for a limited amount of time (probably more relevant to BlogPostings)
> * Content author may simultaneously denounce censorship in all it's forms while allowing previously-published works to languish
https://github.com/executablebooks/meta/discussions/102 :
> jupyter-comment supports a number of commenting services ([executablebooks/sphinx-comments#14](https://github.com/executablebooks/sphinx-comments/issues/14) , [executablebooks/jupyter-book#861](https://github.com/executablebooks/jupyter-book/issues/861)). In helping users decide which commenting and annotation services to include on their pages and commit to maintaining, could we discuss criteria for assessment and current features of services?
> Possible features for comparison:
> * Content author can delete / hide
> * Content author can report / block
> * Comments / annotations are screened by spam-fighting service
> * Content / author can label as e.g. toxic
> * Content author receives notification of new comments
> * Content author can require approval before user-contributed content is publicly-visible
> * Content author may allow comments for a limited amount of time (probably more relevant to BlogPostings)
> * Content author may simultaneously denounce censorship in all it's forms while allowing previously-published works to languish
Related posts
-
Besides odysee what are others lbry's front end?
-
Crash on upload screen (Desktop app)
-
What is next?
-
The beginning of the end? Specific files are being “disabled” from the ocean we love to sail. Are they just experiencing server issues? Seems unlikely. Only time will tell. “Disabled” means a manual action. This is not good. Hoping to see mass re-uploads for the creators files who got disabled.
-
Working with the Progress Bar in the Desktop Client