View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Oct 21, 2019 1:51 am




Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Larry posts another project to Twitter 
Author Message
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1573
Reply with quote
First I saw this:
Attachment:
kevintweet.jpg
kevintweet.jpg [ 50.93 KiB | Viewed 225 times ]

And speaking of "dumbest motherfuckers", Kevin "Ktr101" Rutherford was a slavering, blind, ass-licking, yet deeply useless Wikipedian. Five failed RFAs, and finally eternabanned in 2016. Hah.

But not long after that idiocy, I saw this.
Attachment:
sangertweet.jpg
sangertweet.jpg [ 38.95 KiB | Viewed 225 times ]

Good luck Larry! Ask Google for some cash!


Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:55 pm
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:25 pm
Posts: 585
Location: Elsewhere
Reply with quote
Larry Sanger is too nice for the Internet, which is now heavily a bullshit factory. He needs to be paid for his Bomis Wikipedia work, after Jimmy is slugged in the head with a knight's armoured gauntlet.

_________________
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.


Tue Oct 08, 2019 6:46 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:45 pm
Posts: 212
Reply with quote
All he does is create projects that go anywhere. Citizendium is still around*, but it never did get up to the same level of popularity as Wikipedia. I've never heard of a project he's done that has succeeded (and I say that loosely) as Wikipedia.

*And it's pretty depressing.

_________________
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"I am a dark bouquet of neuroses..."
- Jerry Holkins, Penny Arcade


Tue Oct 08, 2019 8:51 pm
Profile
Modsquad
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:27 pm
Posts: 375
Reply with quote
Larry wrote:
https://larrysanger.org/2019/10/want-to-help-build-an-open-encyclopedia-network-an-encyclosphere/
It’s not just social media. It’s Wikipedia, too. If you want to participate in the world’s largest encyclopedia, you must collaborate with a shadowy group of anonymous amateurs and paid shills on exactly one article per topic. If you’re new, you won’t be treated very nicely. If you don’t play their strange game, you’ll be summarily dismissed. Like the social media giants, Wikipedia has become an arrogant and controlling oligarchy.
...
They have in a very real way centralized epistemic authority in the hands of an anonymous mob. This is worse than Facebook. At least with Facebook, Congress can call Mark Zuckerberg to testify. There isn’t anyone who is responsible for Wikipedia’s content.

This is 10/10 exact autopsy of WP. TDA has never came this close to dissecting it (just a comparison).

Anyone wrote:
did you see that tweet in which Larry promised an announcement on October 18?

Another project, with a weird name from Sanger :lol: https://encyclosphere.org (not open, yet) The name makes sense after reading the article above:
https://larrysanger.org/2019/10/want-to-help-build-an-open-encyclopedia-network-an-encyclosphere/
https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/10/wikipedia-co-founder-prepares-to-launch-decentralized-encyclosphere/94685/amp/
https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1181669454117253127
https://twitter.com/ks_found/status/1182293678779441154

I like Everypedia, it's usable, pleasure to look at (professional), and I love the ideology behind it. It addresses wikipedia's shortcomings in ways, that I have thought of (not all of it, ofc).

Encyclosphere sounds like another idea I had recently: a curated collection of valuable, independent sources, without a central policing group (aka. wiki cabal).
I'm still looking into the details.


Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:58 am
Profile
Modsquad
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:27 pm
Posts: 375
Reply with quote
Quote:
https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/10/wikipedia-co-founder-prepares-to-launch-decentralized-encyclosphere/94685/amp/
* hosting of individual content will not be controlled by a singular source
* Thus preventing any one group or individual from asserting complete control over the entire network of competing articles.
* Each topic will offer competing versions of the article, each available for the audience to see and rate. (My idea too)
* They may strike down article scores, but they cannot strike down the article in question.


Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:28 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3500
Reply with quote
JuiceBeetle wrote:
I like Everypedia, it's usable, pleasure to look at (professional), and I love the ideology behind it. It addresses wikipedia's shortcomings in ways, that I have thought of (not all of it, ofc).

Encyclosphere sounds like another idea I had recently: a curated collection of valuable, independent sources, without a central policing group (aka. wiki cabal).
I'm still looking into the details.

No, I treid it, but I didn't like it at all. Because it still contains the system errors of wikipedia.
Importing the junk yard Wikipedia solves nothing.

OK, the software is great, i agree. But all the rubbish, the content whit snakes, rats, cockroaches and sometimes a living scorpion is still there. And is maybe now even worser because now anyone can poop and pee there complete uncontrolled.
And, not created but honest stolen content will never generate any value. So, that Tokkens will always be worthless.

Guido's Wikisage, that has potential in my opinion. Special if you combine it whitt my "Jimbo Coin".
A kind of airmail, not connected to existing money, crypto or not.
Something complete new with created content, not with butcher of the flee market content. Something what create complete independent from the existing money market it's own value.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:32 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:22 pm
Posts: 248
Reply with quote
JuiceBeetle wrote:
Quote:
https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/10/wikipedia-co-founder-prepares-to-launch-decentralized-encyclosphere/94685/amp/
* hosting of individual content will not be controlled by a singular source
* Thus preventing any one group or individual from asserting complete control over the entire network of competing articles.
* Each topic will offer competing versions of the article, each available for the audience to see and rate. (My idea too)
* They may strike down article scores, but they cannot strike down the article in question.

The English Wikiversity allowed what was effectively this, there could be more than one version of a page, as subpages, linked by a rigorously neutral top-level page, neutral by complete consensus (or so complete that disagreement was totally isolated with no support). It worked, and revert warring almost totally disappeared. And that was killed by trolls and Wikipedians who hated academic freedom.

It's still technically there, but for this to work it needs admin support, and the last admin who really supported this is currently subject to a bullshit Community Review to remove his tools. I know much of the backstory, and it's ugly as hell. The Founder of Wikiversity called the trend Wikipedia Disease, but I realized and wrote that it was more general. Any public wiki that does not develop protective structure is vulnerable to it.

Quora allows multiple Answers to Questions and how they are presented depends on a formula they don't reveal, but it largely works. Good answers float to the top. One down side: old answers may have accumulated lots of upvotes and a new answer that is better may get short shrift. But . . . a good writer will accumulate followers and followers are fed all new Answers by those they follow, so by writing what people actually like enough to want to be informed, one gains power.

My main concern about Sanger's plan is that it replicates the Wikipedia problem that nobody is actually responsible. So I would suggest article ownership, where a named person (real name!) owns each article version. They may allow others to edit, but have full responsibility for accepting it or rejecting it, in whole or in part. They may resign from that, either turning it over to someone they accept, or anyone willing to be real-name and take responsibility may volunteer. If there are competing volunteers, no problem. They each get a version to be responsible for. The top-level page with version ratings, etc., would show all "major versions" according to ratings and then have subpages for minor versions. The only material removed would be illegal or otherwise inacceptable material by clear community standards. Overall site management would be by paid staff. (Or at least people working on the possibility of being paid. Paid staff would have responsible supervision.)

The project would start by importing all Wikipedia pages, and they become owned when a validated account takes responsibility. Others would simply be copies of the wikipedia version, automatically updated until someone takes responsibiliy. If anyone thinks the Wikipedia article is better, they can import it and take responsibility for it. Where there is a Wikipedia version, it would always be linked from the top-level version index page. A reader can decide that they want to see the top-rated version at all times. That version would contain a header with very minimal information about other versions.

My vision of such a project was called "Wikipedia or better." Not ever worse.


Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:42 pm
Profile WWW
Modsquad
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:27 pm
Posts: 375
Reply with quote
Abd wrote:
revert warring almost totally disappeared

Music to my ears.
Abd wrote:
And that was killed by trolls and Wikipedians who hated academic freedom

And the sobering noise of trucks and crowd from the busy streets. As expected.

What vision you suggest (that I very much like / endorse) is a bit similar to Everypedia, btw. There is no technical support for different versions of an article, but anyone can create an alternative version to any article. No deletionists.


Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:45 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2018 6:39 am
Posts: 29
Reply with quote
I haven't looked at Everipedia for a very long time, so skimmed a couple of articles on it this morning. It looks to have a problem with handling references? Notes also seem to be included as references. Looking at the home page, a lot is dedicated to 'models' and the like?


Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:19 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3500
Reply with quote
Complete idiots like you are as dangerous for the knowledges ecologie as plastic in the ocean. Why? Because people like you think a place where everybody can poop or peep pure rubbish will leads to something.
Evrypedia will make not any difference, and maybe even will be worser than wikipedia.

Quote:
No deletionists.


This is the argument of users who are basically to stupide and nor able to string there one shoe strings. All just walked away out of DSM-5. They don't filter, no, they go from dust tin to dust tin to look if there is something in what they can use. Rotten, stinking, in a state of dissolution, they don't care. They will never create, only copy indeed as the butcher of the flee marked. And kick anyone away with there troll technics who complain.

Everything what is written somewhere is the holy true for them, again because of there mental defect. They have no filter and are stubborn as gonorrheas. Sweety is a typical wikipedia sysop, I have seen so many of them.

Abd, Kum and our Sweety simple doesn't belong on any project. And for sure not as the compleet Sweety crackhead mod we have seen here till now with his constant topic fucking, socking, trolling and lying.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:24 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 10 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.