Wikipedia alternatives?

[journo]

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.

[ericbarbour]

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.

[Ognistysztorm]

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.

[Bbb23sucks]

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.

[Ognistysztorm]

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]

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.

[journo]

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.

[journo]

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]

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