Wikipedia alternatives?

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
User avatar
oranges33
Sucks Fan
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2022 5:33 am
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 78 times

Wikipedia alternatives?

Post by oranges33 » Sun Jan 08, 2023 4:57 pm

Does anyone know of any good wikipedia alternatives?

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 281 times

Re: Wikipedia alternatives?

Post by wexter » Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:17 pm

There is no point in trying to replace "Not an Encyclopedia" with an "Encyclopedia"

What we are talking about is replacing "Facebook" with "Ticktock or Instagram"
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 281 times

Re: Wikipedia alternatives?

Post by wexter » Tue Jan 10, 2023 3:02 pm

Ahhhh ERGHHH chatbot.ai is a musk company! (where he is the "founder!"
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
Captain Occam
Sucks Noob
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2023 4:04 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Wikipedia alternatives?

Post by Captain Occam » Fri Jan 13, 2023 3:36 am

There's also Justapedia, although that site is currently invitation-only until they finish constructing it.

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 » Fri Jan 13, 2023 9:10 am

It doesn't matter---some "good Wikipedian" will steal any content they wish to steal from other online sources.

book wiki time:
Plagiarism into Wikipedia:

1911 Encyclopedia topics -- the now defunct project to copy the entire 1911 Britannica into Wikipedia. Page claims that all 40,000 articles were copied, yet the verification page says that only 4.8% of the content was proofread or checked as of 2009, the last update.

Examples of Wikia encouraging Wikia users to copy to/from Wikipedia: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]

Why you can't copy abstracts into Wikipedia -- blogger and en-WP administrator Joe Dunckley states that paper abstracts should not be copied into Wikipedia.

Wikipedia painting row escalates -- theft of images from National Portrait Gallery website for Wikipedia.

The Joy of Antique Wikipedia Entries -- commentary about reading 1911 Britannica articles on WP.

Daniel Brandt's 2006 test of WP articles for plagiarism. Corresponding CBC report. Corresponding Fox News report.

Rlevse leaves -- much discussion of his past plagiarism.

From WPocracy user 86mookie: "Bridey Murphy is heavily plagiarized from a book called Strange Stories, Amazing Facts. It used to be almost a word-for-word copy, there have been additions and subtractions since then but there are still large portions which are exactly the same. It's been like this for some time, I first noticed it years ago." Said book was published by Reader's Digest in 1976 and appears to be a typical Reader's Digest title; written for stupid people.

Wikiproject Citizendium Porting, a Wikiproject started in July 2009, and dedicated to "porting" content from Citizendium into Wikipedia. The persons doing this are supposed to tag such copy-pasting as coming from Citizendium. A comparative table is present yet appears to be woefully incomplete. The Wikiproject appears to have been nearly dead since late 2011, in any case.

There is no way to determine how many WP articles about plant and animal species were cribbed from the Encyclopedia Of Life, in violation of its restrictive licensing. An example pointed out in November 2014 was Platyla foliniana[25].

User avatar
Captain Occam
Sucks Noob
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2023 4:04 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Wikipedia alternatives?

Post by Captain Occam » Sat Jan 14, 2023 9:25 am

ericbarbour wrote:
Fri Jan 13, 2023 9:10 am
It doesn't matter---some "good Wikipedian" will steal any content they wish to steal from other online sources.
One of the goals of Justapedia is to present all the information that's being excluded from Wikipedia for political reasons (such as cultural Marxism as a thing that actually exists, which is how it was presented on Wikipedia until 2015). I don't think Wikipedia editors are likely to copy that type of material from Justapedia, unless the former site's politicization goes away at some point.

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 » Sun Jan 15, 2023 12:13 am

Captain Occam wrote:
Sat Jan 14, 2023 9:25 am
One of the goals of Justapedia is to present all the information that's being excluded from Wikipedia for political reasons (such as cultural Marxism as a thing that actually exists, which is how it was presented on Wikipedia until 2015). I don't think Wikipedia editors are likely to copy that type of material from Justapedia, unless the former site's politicization goes away at some point.
Are you joking? I scraped around in WP noticeboards for mentions of Justapedia. Seriously doubt they will take any content.

This post on the Village Pump by "Justapidiot", calls it a "far-right historical revisionist" thing. THEY BLOCKED HIM FOR POSTING THIS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... pedia_FORK
Yesterday I posted a message at ANI and it was suggested this was a more appropriate place to alert the community about Justapedia. Basically it is a proposed online encyclopedia being marketed as "the neutral and objective encyclopedia that Wikipedia should have been". Yesterday the website was taken down after the post at ANI.

The creators of Justapedia appear to be active Wikipedia editors who, unhappy with the way this community works, have download the entirety of English Wikipedia with the intention of marketing it as their own. They have even plagiarised the majority of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Since the post at ANI yesterday they seem to have taken their website down for now.

Where their project starts to diverge from Wikipedia appears to be American politics and administration. In terms of content, the overwhelming majority remains what contributors to English Wikipedia have made. But, they are removing critical commentary of conservative US political figures and engaging in some far-right historical revisionism, for example claiming Nazism is a left wing ideology that is comparable to contemporary US Democratic Party ideologies, on the right are some screenshots of some Justapedia diffs that were taken before visibility was restricted. In terms of project administration, they seem unhappy with community consensus and instead intend to retain complete control through a Politburo-like "Board of Representatives", while all editorial decisions will be enforced by a number political commissar-like appointees to the "Editorial Board".
And this one calls it "THE STOLEN ENCYCLOPEDIA".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... cyclopedia
An IP address, probably the same guy who ran "Justapidiot". Will probably get blocked soon. And AS USUAL on AN/I, a moiety of admin idiots shows up to splutter "just ignore them, they will fail, like all the others". I CLEARLY remember repeated putdowns of Conservapedia, and even organized attempts by Wikipedians to vandalize Conservapedia. That "logic" didn't work with Schlafly's project because he wasn't wholesale-copying WP content and modifying certain bits to fit his worldview. I still dislike Andy Schlafly, but you have to admit, he's running his own wiki successfully, complete with his right-wing ragey opinions, but also with mostly original content. I bet David Gerard mutters in disgust about Conservapedia every day--having failed to destroy it or to defame it on Wikipedia and RationalWiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... a_edit_war

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 » Sun Jan 15, 2023 1:35 am

ericbarbour wrote:
Sun Jan 15, 2023 12:13 am
Captain Occam wrote:
Sat Jan 14, 2023 9:25 am
One of the goals of Justapedia is to present all the information that's being excluded from Wikipedia for political reasons (such as cultural Marxism as a thing that actually exists, which is how it was presented on Wikipedia until 2015). I don't think Wikipedia editors are likely to copy that type of material from Justapedia, unless the former site's politicization goes away at some point.
Are you joking? I scraped around in WP noticeboards for mentions of Justapedia. Seriously doubt they will take any content.

This post on the Village Pump by "Justapidiot", calls it a "far-right historical revisionist" thing. THEY BLOCKED HIM FOR POSTING THIS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... pedia_FORK
Yesterday I posted a message at ANI and it was suggested this was a more appropriate place to alert the community about Justapedia. Basically it is a proposed online encyclopedia being marketed as "the neutral and objective encyclopedia that Wikipedia should have been". Yesterday the website was taken down after the post at ANI.

The creators of Justapedia appear to be active Wikipedia editors who, unhappy with the way this community works, have download the entirety of English Wikipedia with the intention of marketing it as their own. They have even plagiarised the majority of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Since the post at ANI yesterday they seem to have taken their website down for now.

Where their project starts to diverge from Wikipedia appears to be American politics and administration. In terms of content, the overwhelming majority remains what contributors to English Wikipedia have made. But, they are removing critical commentary of conservative US political figures and engaging in some far-right historical revisionism, for example claiming Nazism is a left wing ideology that is comparable to contemporary US Democratic Party ideologies, on the right are some screenshots of some Justapedia diffs that were taken before visibility was restricted. In terms of project administration, they seem unhappy with community consensus and instead intend to retain complete control through a Politburo-like "Board of Representatives", while all editorial decisions will be enforced by a number political commissar-like appointees to the "Editorial Board".
And this one calls it "THE STOLEN ENCYCLOPEDIA".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... cyclopedia
An IP address, probably the same guy who ran "Justapidiot". Will probably get blocked soon. And AS USUAL on AN/I, a moiety of admin idiots shows up to splutter "just ignore them, they will fail, like all the others". I CLEARLY remember repeated putdowns of Conservapedia, and even organized attempts by Wikipedians to vandalize Conservapedia. That "logic" didn't work with Schlafly's project because he wasn't wholesale-copying WP content and modifying certain bits to fit his worldview. I still dislike Andy Schlafly, but you have to admit, he's running his own wiki successfully, complete with his right-wing ragey opinions, but also with mostly original content. I bet David Gerard mutters in disgust about Conservapedia every day--having failed to destroy it or to defame it on Wikipedia and RationalWiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... a_edit_war
if there's any indication, Justapedia wants to be a more inclusionist alternative against Wikipedia. I suspect sites like that would one day become replacements to Wikipedia, when your book and Jenn's investigative report comes out. Internet would turn against Wikipedia literally overnight.

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 281 times

Re: Wikipedia alternatives?

Post by wexter » 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."
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
oranges33
Sucks Fan
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2022 5:33 am
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 78 times

Re: Wikipedia alternatives?

Post by oranges33 » Sun Jan 15, 2023 11:53 pm

Captain Occam wrote:
Sat Jan 14, 2023 9:25 am
ericbarbour wrote:
Fri Jan 13, 2023 9:10 am
It doesn't matter---some "good Wikipedian" will steal any content they wish to steal from other online sources.
One of the goals of Justapedia is to present all the information that's being excluded from Wikipedia for political reasons (such as cultural Marxism as a thing that actually exists, which is how it was presented on Wikipedia until 2015). I don't think Wikipedia editors are likely to copy that type of material from Justapedia, unless the former site's politicization goes away at some point.
Because "cultural marxism" is a stupid term. There's plenty wrong with Marx, but he wasn't a radical subjectivist.

The world doesn't need another right-wing version of wikipedia, (just use infogalactica then). World needs a somewhat open online encyclopedia with some sense to how its constructed. Wikipedia's first rule is that there are no rules, but then bans dozens of people per day based on a long list of rules. Their techno-libertarian "anything goes" thing didn't work out and it confusing. With no commitment to rules, including that with which to prevent a bureaucracy, it invited a corrupt (and dumb/emotional/petty) bureaucracy that can't be held accountable by any normal means.

Post Reply