Wikipedia alternatives?

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
User avatar
journo
Sucks Fan
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:57 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: Wikipedia alternatives?

Post by journo » Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:43 pm

Bbb23sucks wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:36 am
https://en.wikialpha.org/wiki/Main_Page

Supposedly an "inclusionist" Wikipedia.
I remember someone on Wikipediocracy saying that inclusionism was a slippery slope to people listing random non-notable items like a rock they found on their last walk or the dump they took this morning. And that this would be unsustainable.

Might put at least those two theories to the test on wikialpha. See if it holds up.

Thank you for the recommendation.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4597
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1141 times
Been thanked: 1842 times

Re: Wikipedia alternatives?

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Feb 15, 2024 10:37 pm

journo wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:43 pm
Might put at least those two theories to the test on wikialpha. See if it holds up.
FWIW I punched the random-article button on Wikialpha many times and kept seeing self-promoting articles about people and companies.....quite a few of them are in Africa, India or Bangladesh.

User avatar
Ognistysztorm
Sucks Critic
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2022 1:39 am
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 199 times

Re: Wikipedia alternatives?

Post by Ognistysztorm » Fri Feb 16, 2024 4:23 am

journo wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:43 pm
Bbb23sucks wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:36 am
https://en.wikialpha.org/wiki/Main_Page

Supposedly an "inclusionist" Wikipedia.
I remember someone on Wikipediocracy saying that inclusionism was a slippery slope to people listing random non-notable items like a rock they found on their last walk or the dump they took this morning. And that this would be unsustainable.

Might put at least those two theories to the test on wikialpha. See if it holds up.

Thank you for the recommendation.
In the end the point is all about a balance between the two. Like you said, totally unbridled inclusionism is unsustainable, but so does unchecked deletionism which means that the control of world's knowledge falls to a very select few, which often in turn are easily suspectible to lies and distortions while escaping consequences.

User avatar
Bbb23sucks
Sucker
Posts: 1348
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:08 am
Location: The Astral Plane
Has thanked: 1281 times
Been thanked: 271 times

Re: Wikipedia alternatives?

Post by Bbb23sucks » Fri Feb 16, 2024 7:43 am

Ognistysztorm wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2024 4:23 am
journo wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:43 pm
Bbb23sucks wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:36 am
https://en.wikialpha.org/wiki/Main_Page

Supposedly an "inclusionist" Wikipedia.
I remember someone on Wikipediocracy saying that inclusionism was a slippery slope to people listing random non-notable items like a rock they found on their last walk or the dump they took this morning. And that this would be unsustainable.

Might put at least those two theories to the test on wikialpha. See if it holds up.

Thank you for the recommendation.
In the end the point is all about a balance between the two. Like you said, totally unbridled inclusionism is unsustainable, but so does unchecked deletionism which means that the control of world's knowledge falls to a very select few, which often in turn are easily suspectible to lies and distortions while escaping consequences.
The problem isn't that Wikipedia is "inclusionist" or "deletionist", the problem is that Wikipedia sucks. You can find many examples both of Wikipedia deleting articles unnecessarily while simultaneously having tons of junk that should have been deleted years ago.
"Globally banned" since September 5, 2023 for exposing harassment.

User avatar
Ognistysztorm
Sucks Critic
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2022 1:39 am
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 199 times

Re: Wikipedia alternatives?

Post by Ognistysztorm » Sat Feb 17, 2024 1:13 am

Bbb23sucks wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2024 7:43 am
Ognistysztorm wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2024 4:23 am
journo wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:43 pm


I remember someone on Wikipediocracy saying that inclusionism was a slippery slope to people listing random non-notable items like a rock they found on their last walk or the dump they took this morning. And that this would be unsustainable.

Might put at least those two theories to the test on wikialpha. See if it holds up.

Thank you for the recommendation.
In the end the point is all about a balance between the two. Like you said, totally unbridled inclusionism is unsustainable, but so does unchecked deletionism which means that the control of world's knowledge falls to a very select few, which often in turn are easily suspectible to lies and distortions while escaping consequences.
The problem isn't that Wikipedia is "inclusionist" or "deletionist", the problem is that Wikipedia sucks. You can find many examples both of Wikipedia deleting articles unnecessarily while simultaneously having tons of junk that should have been deleted years ago.
The solution to the predicament is multiple platforms, rather than a single unitary platform in the knowledge market. You should go and read Cory Doctorow's articles and essays about "enshittification" and the constraints against it, specifically competition, regulation, self-help and labour.

Dr Mario
Sucks
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:54 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: Wikipedia alternatives?

Post by Dr Mario » Wed Mar 13, 2024 3:27 pm

wexter wrote:
Sun Jan 15, 2023 2:51 pm
Folks have been sneaking in dead links to Justipedia since 2020. At present "Justipedia" is trying to raise money.

Wikipedia is a social network for participants and a revenue center for Google (and WMF).

WE have an "all or nothing" culture and economy.

The economy is moving from "growth" to "contraction."
have none of these folks heard of archive.org? If link is dead it can be in some cases be restored.

User avatar
journo
Sucks Fan
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:57 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: Wikipedia alternatives?

Post by journo » Tue Apr 02, 2024 4:05 pm

Ognistysztorm wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2024 4:23 am
unbridled inclusionism is unsustainable
The main issues are naming and storage size if one were to let it literally anything that exists. But there could be ways to deal with it, like requiring a username be appended to any page that is created. But that also removes consensus about what is true or false.

User avatar
journo
Sucks Fan
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:57 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: Wikipedia alternatives?

Post by journo » Tue Apr 02, 2024 4:21 pm

Another issue of complete inclusionism is proving existence and if something is unique. Like if someone names a grain of sand they found. How could that be further tracked for the Encyclopedia? There would have to be a way to standardize the naming of types of objects that have never been named before. And even then most random things would have to be appended by usernames unless they are owned in a legal sense and a proof of purchase was uploaded along with a full name and government ID number. At some point, a collection of authority (on or off wiki) has to be trusted by the wiki creators and editors if usernames aren't appended to everything.

Dr Mario
Sucks
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:54 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: Wikipedia alternatives?

Post by Dr Mario » Sat Apr 20, 2024 5:38 pm

Bbb23sucks wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2024 7:43 am
Ognistysztorm wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2024 4:23 am
journo wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:43 pm


I remember someone on Wikipediocracy saying that inclusionism was a slippery slope to people listing random non-notable items like a rock they found on their last walk or the dump they took this morning. And that this would be unsustainable.

Might put at least those two theories to the test on wikialpha. See if it holds up.

Thank you for the recommendation.
In the end the point is all about a balance between the two. Like you said, totally unbridled inclusionism is unsustainable, but so does unchecked deletionism which means that the control of world's knowledge falls to a very select few, which often in turn are easily suspectible to lies and distortions while escaping consequences.
The problem isn't that Wikipedia is "inclusionist" or "deletionist", the problem is that Wikipedia sucks. You can find many examples both of Wikipedia deleting articles unnecessarily while simultaneously having tons of junk that should have been deleted years ago.
One of the reasons why Wikipedia sucks is because it cannot decide what is notable. We can find countless examples of this in afd discussions whether or not they survived the nomination. We can also see this with reverts, rollbacks, and partial content deletions. So we have examples of articles going from useful to completely useless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal ... c_Monsters compared to an old version of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1183409033

Post Reply