Launch of Justapedia

[Ognistysztorm]

I think I have overtaken both him and Martin from the Netherlands with their SanFran Bans, even though I never got that high, I got the Global Lock Championship title and also the Wikipediocracy Ban Championship because they banned me for being a Nazi supporter.

Hilarious, but typical. Personally I would be a bit curious about what they claimed marked you as a "nazi". This doesn't really help. Being pro-Russia (in early 2022, things have changed a LOT since then) and fighting with completely low-grade pricks, like Andythegrump and James Alexander, also doesn't explain it.

Wee Billy used the same pretext on others to get rid of them, because they were deadly-serious critics of the Wikipedia cult and threatened to reveal information the WP insider twats wanted under wraps, like "outing" anonymous admins and revealing deleted edits. It's STILL the cheapest possible shot and clear proof that Wikipediocracy is hopelessly compromised.

It's always a bad thing when a website that claims to "shine a light into dark corners", is run by a moderator who is obsessively anonymous and secretive. Plus lets Poetlister, one of the most demented Wikipedia fanboys I've ever seen, run around loose.

Plus Beeblebrox. He seems kind-of-okay with paid editing now, judging by this comment....

So, if I've got this straight, you can find 15 Wikipedia articles that already fit these criteria, edit them four times, and maybe, just maybe, if you do it on the right day, you could get three bucks for your trouble. If you actually created them from scratch, I would think it would take a minimum of two hours per article, so you'd earn about ten cents an hour, if you're lucky. Meanwhile paid editors over on Wikipedia are pulling down like 2K per article, at the low end.

When did Everipedia become this iq.wiki crap anyway? What good is a wiki about crypto-things that allows the crazed promoters of crypto-things to control the content? Nevermind, don't think I want to know.

PS, Mr. Bedson, indulge me and suggest a couple of changes to whoever runs Justipedia. Limit the size of articles, and ditch or revise things copied from Wp that have the paid-editing stench. And don't get involved in crypto nonsense!!

Justapedia is already dead-set to become a more inclusionist encyclopedia AFAIK. Having said that, it's better for the post-Wikipedia landscape to consist of two or more encyclopedias, instead of a singular monopoly.

[journo]

Justapedia is already dead-set to become a more inclusionist encyclopedia AFAIK. Having said that, it's better for the post-Wikipedia landscape to consist of two or more encyclopedias, instead of a singular monopoly.

Every crowdsource writing site like that is 'inclusionist' when it starts out, it's called 'write for me for free'

If it ever became popular and crowded it'd start 'picking and choosing' who to ban. One of the people there said they'd ban people just for being sexist, doesn't sound too inclusionary to me.

And I think it's fine for website to ban whoever they want, including racists, sexists etc whatever, just don't pretend it's some free speech thing when it's not. I've never even seen a free speech site in my life except maybe 8chan

[boredbird]

Justapedia is already dead-set to become a more inclusionist encyclopedia AFAIK.

Every crowdsource writing site like that is 'inclusionist' when it starts out, it's called 'write for me for free'

What's wrong with encyc.org? You would be the first contributor who isn't one of the site owner's sockpuppets.

[NadirAli]

Justapedia, an alternative and promising replacement of WIkipedia, has been launched at justapedia.org. It has not been indexed by search engine yet since it's early now.

Should I try linking pages on this Wiki on Wikipedia?

[Ognistysztorm]

Justapedia, an alternative and promising replacement of WIkipedia, has been launched at justapedia.org. It has not been indexed by search engine yet since it's early now.

Should I try linking pages on this Wiki on Wikipedia?

You can do it but please be mindful of the risks.

[Archer]

I saw someone archive this image and I thought it was a joke at first, but nope it's justapedia policy



https://archive.is/iDVQm

If the image ever gets taken down it says: information + disinformation + lies = truth, on a rules page on objectivity

It's a generic venn diagram depicting several violations of basic set theory. Namely, it asserts true information is the intersection of lies and disinformation and information, the intersection of lies and disinformation "bias", the intersection of information and disinformation "facts", and "data" the intersection of information and lies. It also asserts a false equivalence between truth and "true knowledge".

It is captioned "true knowledge sifts all sources". One can understand the intended meaning of this grammatically-offensive sentence, but only because it's a common platitude. Even though the concept is better expressed in literal terms, the reader is forced to interpret this sentence metaphorically because the agent, "true knowlege", is an abstract concept and cannot sift anything. It is also a bad metaphor; the rote, mechanical action of "sifting" being fundamentally different (if not opposite) from the cerebral action that it ostensibly represents - scrutinizing, criticizing, considering, etc. And why "sources"? Shouldn't truth or falsehood of the information itself be the issue?

This is Wikipedia's entire routine and indeed it's the mass media's entire routine. Notice just how well-insulated the actual idea is in a linguistic sense. An appeal to reason, communicated in an entirely nonsensical and ass-backwards infograph.

[Ognistysztorm]

Namu.wiki and ibis.wiki seem to have the potential to be among the replacement platforms for Wikipedia in the future.