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

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.

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?

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.

I didn't want to do an ad hominem, but yeah. The "dark secrets" username adds to the pseudo-Rosicrucian vibe 🤐 And they're outsourcing the writing of their secret rituals and tenets to the commons!

I mean, to a select, invite-only, apparently exclusively male portion of the commons, of course. Which is neither very progressive, visionary, or labour friendly. It is, in fact, how most of the world has worked for several thousands of years.

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.

Yes, we do value ideas immensely. Even greater, we value our goals, which will not sway much, the practical implementations may vary as our experience increases. And we do not overwhelm the audience with minute details. However if you're interested, some of it can be found in the official documents

We do NOT value linguistic constructivism. Words mean what we want them to mean. While I understand where you're coming from, we can always retort that the best way to "reclaim" a name is to use it in a radically different scenario - a sort of deconstruction, if you will.

We have a very small team and the website is not polished as much as we want it to be. This the need to keep it invite-only for now. However, we are working hard to make it open-access ASAP.

We are NOT at all opposed to AI usage. And we solemnly believe (not all of us, however), that the fact that an automation tool (which is all it really is) hurts the labour force is a shameful showcase of our underwhelming social contract. I will make a post dedicated to this issue soon.

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!

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

looks pretty interesting, but what's wrong with textbooks or wikipedia?

First off wikipedia to me is used to give an intro to a topic, or to remember something that I've learned before and forgot about. It's not something to learn a subject/topic rigourously as you would in a lecture.

Secondly, there are textbooks out there that are completely free, such as libretexts. All categorized in order, from arithmetic to analysis courses like number theory, real analysis, numerical analysis, complex analysis, etc...

for what it's worth, i do like the system. I'm just concerned on the rigor that after a certain threshold (eg, multivariable calculus) it won't be easier to make engaging assignments. The analysis courses I was referring to, there are a lot of theorems a lot of proofs and that is tricky to make engaging (hence why most people don't take analysis courses). If that is the progressional path you are going towards -- higher level STEM classes -- there's already plenty of textbooks that cover it and are more information dense.

one final point, all of this costs money. getting people to peer review is a tricky process in academia alone, the "brotherhood" network (as far as my research is concerned) isn't affiliated with a university unlike openstax or aforementioned libretexts which plenty of universities contribute to. There needs to be funding one way or another. How are you getting the necessary funds to prove to everyone that by taking this course will demonstrate that you know .

I like the ambition, but to make a system like that is a tricky (impossible) process to do without some funding. even the free and open source textbooks like openstax and libretext, don't have that certification it's a liability on the person reading it to get certified. MIT has a similar system with their opencourseware, and yet that still costs money to be "certified" in said specific course. The logistics of this project is near impossible without funding which explains my skepticism, on how you would maintain it to be free.

c/Lostlemmyuser

Okay the first skepticism about "why not wikipedia" have been answered by me on this app itself. So I will simply copy that here. Also we will never do "peer-review".

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.

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.

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.

Now onto the topic of funding and job-matching, it is unfortunately too complicated to explain here in one comment. In short, this is but the first step in a very broad project and we do not use education as the revenue pipeline. Please go to the landing page or check out the documents for more information.