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 » Wed Jan 18, 2023 2:50 am

At a guttural (and historic) level Wikipedia was a "get rich quick scheme" - which was second try for Jimbo Wales after his pornography business failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomis

Wikipedia makes money for Google by providing free content. I sent a few letters off to Google executives suggesting that they were too reliant on Wikipedia and I wanted to opt-out. Voicing dissatisfaction with Google, or asking to talk to an executive, was such an affront to Google their legal department responded even though no legal demand was made of them.

In follow on letters, I argued with the legal department that my issue needed to be addressed by an executive.

Wikipedia and Google have become "gigantic corporate megaliths that exert increasing control over every aspect of daily life," and as such they are totally impervious to just about everything including pesky controversies.

If you sincerely want to know about the context that makes Wikipedia immutable read the following book.

https://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindg ... giants.pdf


BTW here is one of my letters to Google.. as you see its full of intimidating legal threats; not! The fact that in-house counsel at Google read my letter and responded in a bespoke manner is quite telling.

I enjoy using Google products including Chrome, Chrome OS, Android, and Google Search Engines.

In simple terms, I would like to “fire” Wikipedia from my search results.

I have concerns regarding the dominance that Wikipedia enjoys in the Google search results that are displayed to me. I would prefer to have my personal Google search results prioritize primary source information, first hand reporting, expert opinion, and professionally vetted research.

It was suggested to me by Wikipedia administrators that “If you don’t like Wikipedia, don’t use it.” It was something quite easy to say but hard for me to easily accomplish given the fact that all searches lead to Wikipedia. I reached out to Wikimedia with concerns about Wikipedia and they couldn't care less about the quality of content on their flagship product.

I would appreciate it if Google would help me (personally) avoid Wikipedia in search results in total, through personal customization of search ranking, or through de-prioritization of Wikipedia in its global ranking schema.

The unavoidable dominance of Wikipedia in Google Search means that a questionable source of information surplants quality sources of information. Quality sources such as Briticanica are currently de-prioritized by Google. This structure adversely impacts consumers of information that cannot evaluate the quality of information and critical thinkers who are well equipped to process and organize information. Google has presented Wikipedia as a “Hobson's choice” , a choice of taking what is available or nothing at all.

Again, I thank Google for providing quality products which I enjoy and rely upon.
For a criticism site, Wikipedia Sucks is incredibly fact based! There are more factual examples here then there is grousing. Yet, the facts outlined here are totally "radioactive" to major corporations and revenue streams. Nobody is going to fuck with the money aggregating to big players (certainly not book publishers or the press; or Congress see sec 230)
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 6:03 am

Wikipedia's financial cancer could be fatal regardless of symbiotic relationship with Google. When their revenue suddenly declines due to boycotts out of scandals they will put more disruptive banners and even resort to paywalling, alienating readers and editors alike. The community would then fracture and go look for a greener pasture (i.e. Justapedia) while Wikipedia declines a la DMOZ until Botipedia takes it over as a dark horse. That's my educated guess.

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 » Wed Jan 18, 2023 1:32 pm

Ognistysztorm wrote:
Wed Jan 18, 2023 6:03 am
When their revenue suddenly declines due to boycotts out of scandals
No way Jose - Your "fantasy narrative" is just that - it is a free country and you are free to believe whatever fantasy you want. Because you don't want to think about what I am saying; I am replying to you solely for the benefit of other people.

Wikipedia is endowed up the ying-yang - At least $100,000,000 with the biggest recurring donors being Amazon, Google, and Facebook in that order.

https://wikimediaendowment.org/
Today, Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects are a core part of the 21st century cultural infrastructure. The purpose of the Wikimedia Endowment is to support Wikimedia projects in perpetuity.
-Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia it is a social network for participants and "cultural infrastructure" (entertainment) for everyone else.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimed ... _Endowment
The Endowment was launched in January 2016 (on the 15th anniversary of Wikipedia) with the initial goal of raising 100 million dollars to support the Wikimedia projects by 2026. The funds may be transferred from Tides either to the Wikimedia Foundation or to other charitable organisations selected by the Wikimedia Foundation to further the Wikimedia mission.

The Endowment reached our initial $100 million goal in June 2021. Per the minutes of the January 27, 2022 Endowment Board meeting, as of December 31, 2021, the Endowment held $105.4 million ($99.33 million in an investment account and $6.07 million in cash), with an additional $8 million raised in December 2021 due to be transferred to the Endowment in January 2022.
Wiki - is really really cheap "old tech" -with free autistic labor it's even cheaper. Perhaps AI (computer generated stuff) could do an end run around Wikipedia or the autistic and mentally ill population of Wikipedia editors/administrators will "age out" which is actually happening. Yes, a large percentage of Wikipedia fanatics are autistic or mentally ill as opposed to the percentage autistic and mentally ill people in the total population.
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 5:00 pm

wexter wrote:
Wed Jan 18, 2023 1:32 pm
Ognistysztorm wrote:
Wed Jan 18, 2023 6:03 am
When their revenue suddenly declines due to boycotts out of scandals
No way Jose - Your "fantasy narrative" is just that - it is a free country and you are free to believe whatever fantasy you want. Because you don't want to think about what I am saying; I am replying to you solely for the benefit of other people.

Wikipedia is endowed up the ying-yang - At least $100,000,000 with the biggest recurring donors being Amazon, Google, and Facebook in that order.

https://wikimediaendowment.org/
Today, Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects are a core part of the 21st century cultural infrastructure. The purpose of the Wikimedia Endowment is to support Wikimedia projects in perpetuity.
-Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia it is a social network for participants and "cultural infrastructure" (entertainment) for everyone else.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimed ... _Endowment
The Endowment was launched in January 2016 (on the 15th anniversary of Wikipedia) with the initial goal of raising 100 million dollars to support the Wikimedia projects by 2026. The funds may be transferred from Tides either to the Wikimedia Foundation or to other charitable organisations selected by the Wikimedia Foundation to further the Wikimedia mission.

The Endowment reached our initial $100 million goal in June 2021. Per the minutes of the January 27, 2022 Endowment Board meeting, as of December 31, 2021, the Endowment held $105.4 million ($99.33 million in an investment account and $6.07 million in cash), with an additional $8 million raised in December 2021 due to be transferred to the Endowment in January 2022.
Wiki - is really really cheap "old tech" -with free autistic labor it's even cheaper. Perhaps AI (computer generated stuff) could do an end run around Wikipedia or the autistic and mentally ill population of Wikipedia editors/administrators will "age out" which is actually happening. Yes, a large percentage of Wikipedia fanatics are autistic or mentally ill as opposed to the percentage autistic and mentally ill people in the total population.
In the long run there's still a limit. Jenn reportedly collected many harrowing stories of editors stalking/abusing those who crossed them such as an assault outside the apartment in Mexico. At the very least if she put these all out Wikipedians will be forever associated with psychopathy and so forth, instead of the "drivers of free knowledge" which the mainstream audiance currently believe.

Before Carreyou's exposure article Theranos was at one point cheered as revolutionary in medical field, with even Biden given a staged tour of its facility. There's a reason I brought it up as well.

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 Nov 10, 2023 11:09 pm

Vikaspedia - an Indian government-run alternative to Wikipedia. Like Wikipedia, it also appears to be written by volunteers.
"Globally banned" since September 5, 2023 for exposing harassment.

User avatar
ChaosMeRee
Sucker
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2023 11:59 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 154 times

Re: Wikipedia alternatives?

Post by ChaosMeRee » Sat Nov 11, 2023 8:26 pm

oranges33 wrote:
Sun Jan 08, 2023 4:57 pm
Does anyone know of any good wikipedia alternatives?
Depends what you are using Wikipedia for I guess?

It baffles me that anyone uses it for any purpose, because the disclaimer is crystal clear......

In order to be able to trust any single Wikipedia article, you need to not just check every single word of the article is backed by a reliable source, you also need to do your own research to figure out if the Wikipedia article in question has failed to include all significant viewpoints as reflected by reliable sources.

That's a shit load of work, especially since the disclaimer also makes it clear that you shouldn't be using Wikipedia AT ALL for anything that could reasonably be deemed important to a human being (medical advice, financial advice, legal advice, construction advice, childcare advice).

I'm sure if they thought about it for even a second, people would realise they don't need to use Wikipedia for anything. Nothing at all.

Which is a good way to explain Wikipedia's core market.....

PEOPLE WHO DON'T THINK, NOT EVEN FOR A SECOND.

The tragedy being, that disproportionately includes children and the disadvantaged.

Wikipedia is a cancer. It preys on vulnerable people.

Do the world a favour. Torture a Wikipedia editor today. Create a brighter tomorrow for everyone.

HTD.

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 » Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:36 am

https://en.wikialpha.org/wiki/Main_Page

Supposedly an "inclusionist" Wikipedia.
"Globally banned" since September 5, 2023 for exposing harassment.

User avatar
suckadmin
Janitor
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:56 pm
Has thanked: 88 times
Been thanked: 50 times

Re: Wikipedia alternatives?

Post by suckadmin » Wed Jan 17, 2024 1:07 am

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

Supposedly an "inclusionist" Wikipedia.
Inclusive of pages spammed with porn apparently :flamingbanana:

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 » Wed Jan 17, 2024 1:12 am

For a small price, YOU can have a checkmark in YOUR article: https://en.wikialpha.org/wiki/Template:Verified :lol:
"Globally banned" since September 5, 2023 for exposing harassment.

User avatar
suckadmin
Janitor
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:56 pm
Has thanked: 88 times
Been thanked: 50 times

Re: Wikipedia alternatives?

Post by suckadmin » Wed Jan 17, 2024 1:32 am

Bbb23sucks wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2024 1:12 am
For a small price, YOU can have a checkmark in YOUR article: https://en.wikialpha.org/wiki/Template:Verified :lol:
:twitter_blue:

Post Reply