3
10

A new free and open-source self-learning system

1mon 12d ago by lemmy.zip/u/darksecret in academia@mander.xyz from lemmy.zip

We are working on a new system for self-learning and teaching. Think of it as Wikipedia but arranged pedagogically. This is a curation and free learning of all kinds of knowledge.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/63831008

This is the new progress tracking ability added for users to check their progress of a skill graph. The backend handles this via Assessments and Capabilities - 2 general objects in the Brotherhood that will, in the future, serve as the blueprint for more exotic assessment systems like work-based, peer-verified assessments and capability certificates that will serve as the de-facto portable proof-of-skills.

This is currently in beta-stage and behind an invite-only access. However, very soon, signups will be open-for-all and you can test it for yourself. If you wish to try it out before that, please reach out through to us.

For more information, please visit the official website

  1. Why is this better than Wikipedia? Wikipedia is quite good.
  2. How can this be better than a textbook I can freely download from libgen?
  3. Who is going to write all these documents and who is going to check the quality of those documents?

It seems you have misunderstood the premise a bit. So I'll explain.

  1. It is not "better" than Wikipedia in the sense that it is competing. In fact it will work alongside Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is a heap of all information loosely linked with each other, the Skill Graph is the key to navigate the heap. It's the section of library that tells you how the library is itself arranged.

  2. You will use those free resources itself when you use the Skill Graph. We will NOT make documents. The internet already contains adeqaute sources, we simply chain them together in a way that makes learning make sense as it does in a curriculum. The trick is to do it in such a way as to not kill pluralism, hence the modular "Graph" format.

  3. We will not write documents, but if you mean who validates the source linking - no one. There will be many many sources linked for a topic and you will be able to filter it by popularity, type, media format, author etc. By making comparisons between sources easy, learners will be able to judge the best while choosing what suits them best.

Finally, this is NOT perfect, We simply believe that it is a good start by utilising the vast swathes of educational content on the internet. And a lot of other ideas are being brainstormed right now. To know our progress or to contribute your ideas as well, reach out and keep in touch.

Well, you're very tight-lipped about what you're actually intending to do. I see a lot of vague-ish mission statements, but not so much as to actionable methods to practically implement them, and for whom.

Throwing around grand promises about "skill graphs" and your "visionary reimagining of social contracts" is cheap, and frankly underwhelming.

  • The whole website, structure and layout, looks so bland it could be "AI" generated. In 2026, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to declare your stance on and use of "AI".

  • The "Brotherhood" branding sounds culturally tone deaf. No women allowed, then?

    • Or is this "invite only" thing more like the Freemasons? The Klan maybe? I'm asking in all earnestness because the site gives absolutely zero to go on.

This has to be a hard pass from me.

There you go, I wrote an extensive essay on AI usage like I promised. Post link

I did not even notice brotherhood but noticed the username dark secret. Like you I pretty much lost interest with the invite only thing. Free and open source will always perk up my ears but I expect those things to be transparent from the get go.

If you're interested to know, we are working very hard to make it open-access by June

it will be interesting to look at the code maybe in june.

You can view the code today as well, on the public repo where it is licensed under GPL 3.0, and will always remain open-sourced.

ah ok. I think you post would have done better if you started with the code aspect and at the very end mentioned you are doing limited closed alpha testing of the public site and signups are here. Lead with the transparency and I think its good to mention gpl 3 as well for any that use it as its the strongest copy left. When I see open source I assume its a weak copy left and if I see free libre I figure its likely gpl but when I see gpl 3 specifically mentioned then I have the highest confidence.

Noted!