Wikipedia alternatives?

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
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 16, 2023 12:46 am

The only thing that might slow WP down is, MAYBE, changes to Section 230 and other internet law. If the WMF was forced to take responsibility for the crap their crazy "editors" post, it would instantly become invitation-only.
Perhaps auto-generated content might eventually supplant Wikipedia. Auto-generated content can be more controllable and cheaper.

The declining number of "editors" and "administrators" are sad! Tamzin is a pitiable character; no matter where "she goes" there "she is."

A robot is so much more efficient and manageable.

There are lots of obvious risk factors on the horizon
WASHINGTON, Jan 15 (Reuters) - A severe fragmentation of the global economy after decades of increasing economic integration could reduce global economic output by up to 7%, but the losses could reach 8-12% in some countries, if technology is also decoupled, the International Monetary Fund said in a new staff report.
Having purchased $7 eggs today it seems to me that Wikipedia as entertainment sort of says "let them eat cake."
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 » Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:52 am

wexter wrote:
Sun Jan 15, 2023 2:51 pm
Folks have been sneaking in dead links to Justipedia since 2020.
I doubt that. According to Domaintools the domain Justapedia.org wasn't even registered until August of 2022.
oranges33 wrote:
Sun Jan 15, 2023 11:53 pm
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.
Justapedia barely exists yet (the site's contents aren't even publicly visible yet), so I don't think anyone knows at this point whether it's going to turn out to be another copy of Conservapedia or Infogalactic, or something more valuable.

I've felt for years that a big part of the reason Wikipedia hasn't reformed itself is because it's never had a legitimate competitor. I don't know whether that void will end up being filled by Justapedia, but I think Justapedia has a better shot at it than anything else does.

User avatar
badmachine
Sucker
Posts: 455
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:55 am
Has thanked: 553 times
Been thanked: 259 times
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia alternatives?

Post by badmachine » Mon Jan 16, 2023 9:10 pm

justipedia dot com is nearly nine years old

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 » Mon Jan 16, 2023 10:34 pm

badmachine wrote:
Mon Jan 16, 2023 9:10 pm
justipedia dot com is nearly nine years old
Justipedia.com was a separate site. Note the different spelling, Justipedia rather than Justapedia. According to the Wayback machine, Justipedia was a legal information site, with the "justi" being an abbreviation for "justice".

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 17, 2023 4:07 am

Captain Occam wrote:
Mon Jan 16, 2023 10:34 pm
badmachine wrote:
Mon Jan 16, 2023 9:10 pm
justipedia dot com is nearly nine years old
Justipedia.com was a separate site. Note the different spelling, Justipedia rather than Justapedia. According to the Wayback machine, Justipedia was a legal information site, with the "justi" being an abbreviation for "justice".
Joe: For the last time, I'm pretty sure what's killing the crops is this Brawndo stuff.
Secretary of State: But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.
Attorney General: So wait a minute. What you're saying is that you want us to put water on the crops.
Joe: Yes.
Attorney General: Water. Like out the toilet?
Joe: Well, I mean, it doesn't have to be out of the toilet, but, yeah, that's the idea.
Secretary of State: But Brawndo's got what plants crave.
Attorney General: It's got electrolytes.
Joe: Okay, look. The plants aren't growing, so I'm pretty sure that the Brawndo's not working. Now, I'm no botanist, but I do know that if you put water on plants, they grow.
Secretary of Energy: Well, I've never seen no plants grow out of no toilet.
Secretary of State: Hey, that's good. You sure you ain't the smartest guy in the world?
Joe: Okay, look. You wanna solve this problem. I wanna get my pardon. So why don't we just try it, okay, and not worry about what plants crave?
Attorney General: Brawndo's got what plants crave.
Secretary of Energy: Yeah, it's got electrolytes.
Joe: What are electrolytes? Do you even know?
Secretary of State: It's what they use to make Brawndo.
Joe: Yeah, but why do they use them to make Brawndo?
Secretary of Defense: 'Cause Brawndo's got electrolytes.
Wikipedia and Brawndo - same difference; water (wikipedia alternatives) can be used for flushing toilets and therefore are not for drinking.

What I am saying is that Bad ideas that get institutionalized are just that, bad ideas which are institutionalized. Computer generated content may eventually make Wikipedia less relevant over the next ten years.
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

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 » Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:44 am

It could be hastened if ugly truths about Wikipedia comes out to the public, i.e. Barbour's book or Jenn's investigative piece. From what I've heard, Justapedia is a fork which cloned the entirety of Wikipedia as a starting point, and which want to be more inclusionist than Wikipedia's ever been.

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 » Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:59 am

Ognistysztorm wrote:
Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:44 am
It could be hastened if ugly truths about Wikipedia comes out to the public, i.e. Barbour's book or Jenn's investigative piece. From what I've heard, Justapedia is a fork which cloned the entirety of Wikipedia as a starting point, and which want to be more inclusionist than Wikipedia's ever been.
What is Jenn's investigative piece? I know Peter Boghossian has been working on something along these lines, but I don't know who Jenn is.

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 » Tue Jan 17, 2023 5:05 am

Captain Occam wrote:
Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:59 am
Ognistysztorm wrote:
Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:44 am
It could be hastened if ugly truths about Wikipedia comes out to the public, i.e. Barbour's book or Jenn's investigative piece. From what I've heard, Justapedia is a fork which cloned the entirety of Wikipedia as a starting point, and which want to be more inclusionist than Wikipedia's ever been.
What is Jenn's investigative piece? I know Peter Boghossian has been working on something along these lines, but I don't know who Jenn is.
Jennsaurus. Apparently she works for a mainstream newspaper and is currently investigating the drama involving the hounding of a government employee.

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 17, 2023 1:28 pm

Ognistysztorm wrote:
Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:44 am
It could be hastened if ugly truths about Wikipedia comes out to the public, i.e. Barbour's book or Jenn's investigative piece. From what I've heard, Justapedia is a fork which cloned the entirety of Wikipedia as a starting point, and which want to be more inclusionist than Wikipedia's ever been.
What was the reaction to;
--A virus from China which makes people sick and kills millions
--The price of eggs and food doubling
--A major European war where anti-ship missiles are used to pound apartment buildings

THERE IS NO MEANINGFUL REACTION...TO MEANINGFUL EVENTS BECAUSE NOBODY REALLY CARES! until such time as a bomb lands on them, they run out of money to buy food, or they get crippled from the China virus (ps I know several people with heart problems et all from covid).

People care about narratives and tripe;
--Twitter files Musk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... estigation
--Lets go Brandon
--Trump tax returns
--and all sorts of meaningless nonsense
--Lizzo
--Mandorian Season 3, Adults playing with legos, toys, and funk-o-pops
--Metoo
--Tamzin style gender identity and the normalization of mental illness
--Chatgpt
--Reparations for Black Folk

Wikipedia is institutionalized as an established cultural and Internet icon -

People do a google search and 99.9999% of the time google sends them to Wikipedia; that is what they know, expect, and enjoy. They don't know or care that editors and administrators are bat shit crazy with every entry being mostly wrong or abject nonsense. Even if there were better alternatives (which there are in the form of Britannica) nobody would care or use it.

Having an alternative is not about having an alternative at all. Caring about the information you consume, considering what is important and what is not important; that is the question....

People are so stupid (and brainwashed) that they are numb to stimulus. Something bad has to happen to folks personally before realization sets in. (literally, a bomb needs to fall on their head) and even then they are so un-grounded in reality they will be angry and confused.
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

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 » Wed Jan 18, 2023 1:58 am

wexter wrote:
Tue Jan 17, 2023 1:28 pm
Ognistysztorm wrote:
Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:44 am
It could be hastened if ugly truths about Wikipedia comes out to the public, i.e. Barbour's book or Jenn's investigative piece. From what I've heard, Justapedia is a fork which cloned the entirety of Wikipedia as a starting point, and which want to be more inclusionist than Wikipedia's ever been.
What was the reaction to;
--A virus from China which makes people sick and kills millions
--The price of eggs and food doubling
--A major European war where anti-ship missiles are used to pound apartment buildings

THERE IS NO MEANINGFUL REACTION...TO MEANINGFUL EVENTS BECAUSE NOBODY REALLY CARES! until such time as a bomb lands on them, they run out of money to buy food, or they get crippled from the China virus (ps I know several people with heart problems et all from covid).

People care about narratives and tripe;
--Twitter files Musk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... estigation
--Lets go Brandon
--Trump tax returns
--and all sorts of meaningless nonsense
--Lizzo
--Mandorian Season 3, Adults playing with legos, toys, and funk-o-pops
--Metoo
--Tamzin style gender identity and the normalization of mental illness
--Chatgpt
--Reparations for Black Folk

Wikipedia is institutionalized as an established cultural and Internet icon -

People do a google search and 99.9999% of the time google sends them to Wikipedia; that is what they know, expect, and enjoy. They don't know or care that editors and administrators are bat shit crazy with every entry being mostly wrong or abject nonsense. Even if there were better alternatives (which there are in the form of Britannica) nobody would care or use it.

Having an alternative is not about having an alternative at all. Caring about the information you consume, considering what is important and what is not important; that is the question....

People are so stupid (and brainwashed) that they are numb to stimulus. Something bad has to happen to folks personally before realization sets in. (literally, a bomb needs to fall on their head) and even then they are so un-grounded in reality they will be angry and confused.
That's a wildcard. Wikipedia problems are as nichey as Avengers comics was before the sudden popularization with the MCU. I'm sure that Jenn had collected more egregious examples of power abuses, if not greater. There's strong Theranos vibe as well.

Post Reply