Launch of Justapedia

[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.

[ericbarbour]

Best of luck. So long as you know one thing: I've yet to see a "serious" general knowledge website survive Wikipedia's existence, other than for-pay things like Britannica. Citizendium ran out of money, Encyc.org was shut down for reasons Emperor refuses to explain, Sanger's other projects like Infobitt also died. Lack of interest. Others tend to have a blatant, openly conservative (Conservapedia, Metapedia) or leftist (RationalWiki, Dkosopedia) bias. Everipedia somehow lasted a few years; it was full of content scraped directly from Wikipedia anyway. Went under last year. Encyclopedia.com is run as a for-profit thing (?) using a mashup of content from older sources and I have no idea how they stay online. When you have very little traffic, hosting is cheap.

You could always do that; just grab WP content and modify it as desired. The hard part is getting people to use it.

Can I offer a suggestion? Take that WP tidal wave of babbling and summarize it. Place a hard limit on the length of articles and force editors to stick to it. No more megabytes of whinging about the Trump family, no more Doctor Who fan crap, no monuments to Taylor Swift or Madonna or Britney or anyone else. You will probably have to be a total bastard about this stuff.....and so be it. WP never apologizes and neither should you.

[rubricatedseedpod]

Got your Wikipedia alternative right here, friend. In seriousness, "Justapedia" isn't a good name at all, in fact it's self-sabotage level, but the site looks polished and I wish you luck. (Assuming this is your site) You might also want to make the favicon look more like the logo. That's confused me several times even through writing this comment.

Can I offer a suggestion? Take that WP tidal wave of babbling and summarize it. Place a hard limit on the length of articles and force editors to stick to it. No more megabytes of whinging about the Trump family, no more Doctor Who fan crap, no monuments to Taylor Swift or Madonna or Britney or anyone else. You will probably have to be a total bastard about this stuff.....and so be it. WP never apologizes and neither should you.

Excellent advice. This wiki is a fork. A good fork of wikipedia should start by tearing apart the mess it's inherited, free from the eyes of Wikipedians with their wierd investments, leaving no liberties untaken with the TNT. Only when that is done should it be time to build on the leftover material.

P.S. I can't wait to see Bbb23sucks comment on the lead image of the Fascism article. Article seems fairly balanced despite that.

[Ognistysztorm]

Best of luck. So long as you know one thing: I've yet to see a "serious" general knowledge website survive Wikipedia's existence, other than for-pay things like Britannica. Citizendium ran out of money, Encyc.org was shut down for reasons Emperor refuses to explain, Sanger's other projects like Infobitt also died. Lack of interest. Others tend to have a blatant, openly conservative (Conservapedia, Metapedia) or leftist (RationalWiki, Dkosopedia) bias. Everipedia somehow lasted a few years; it was full of content scraped directly from Wikipedia anyway. Went under last year. Encyclopedia.com is run as a for-profit thing (?) using a mashup of content from older sources and I have no idea how they stay online. When you have very little traffic, hosting is cheap.

You could always do that; just grab WP content and modify it as desired. The hard part is getting people to use it.

Can I offer a suggestion? Take that WP tidal wave of babbling and summarize it. Place a hard limit on the length of articles and force editors to stick to it. No more megabytes of whinging about the Trump family, no more Doctor Who fan crap, no monuments to Taylor Swift or Madonna or Britney or anyone else. You will probably have to be a total bastard about this stuff.....and so be it. WP never apologizes and neither should you.

I'm afraid that your suggestion about hard limit is best left to other projects such as Botipedia because Justapedia is set up to be inclusionist in terms of knowledge, information and history from the get go. Multiple projects with healthy competition between them is better than a monopoly which we have unfortunately found out in the form of Wikipedia.

[sashi]

I think encyc is still around, cf. its authoritative page on mushrooms.

[ericbarbour]

I think encyc is still around, cf. its authoritative page on mushrooms.

He shut it down in 2019. Apparently because he was "unhappy" that the Bird doxed him on this very forum.

Whoops! 2 years after yanking his website down in a snit, because "ooohhh the bird got me ohhh whaaaaa whaaaa", Jeffy put it back up on the 4th of July. 'MURICA! And yet Encyc still sucks ass.

But the lure of running a "Wikipedia competitor" (lol!) was ultimately irresistible. 90% of their "precious content" looks like this lump (currently featured on the front page).
https://encyc.org/wiki/Situation_comedy

Whatever Justapedia does, they can use Encyc for another example of what NOT to do.

[wexter]

A "foundation" https://www.justapedia.foundation/
The "founders" of the foundation are searchable
Active Contributors: 37
A Wikipedia dump
And a laudable idea

And no takers nor will there be any takers/users/readers/editors.

It is another Larry Sanger dropping that will go nowhere.. both Sanger and Wales believe every tool is a hammer, wiki is what they know and faux-encyclopedia is the product

https://encyclosphere.org/team

Christian Gribneau
Christian has been involved in internet and related technologies for decades. He has worked to evolve and lead tech advancement for startups and large telephone companies. He operates a small ISV that delivers cloud solutions, and has contributed simple URL resolution to the W3C DID:WEB specification.

The "head" of the operation is here

https://www.earthwave.org/

Betty Wills
Betty is a writer, photographer, documentary filmmaker, and longtime member of the Outdoor Writers Association of America (OWAA). Her programs have been featured on national television in the U.S. and Canada, and internationally in Japan, Qatar, and throughout Europe. They were also featured at such prestigious venues as the Carnegie Wildlife Film Festival in the U.S., the GOLEM Video Festival in Italy, and the Cannes Film Festival in France

Yet, there will be no "customers," users, editors, administrators or interest in adjunct nonsense. There is shiny new nonsense afoot in the form of AI. The project is starting out as the retread-shell of "another of the same" in the form of a data dump and dump it will be. A major flaw in the thinking is that "Wikipedia" is an encyclopedia - it is not an encyclopedia it is a cult and a revenue stream for Google.

Can Justipedia replace a cult? or even compete with a cult? Nooo
Will Justipedia become a revenue stream for Google? Nooo
Is there anything new here in terms of technology or product? Nooo

[rubricatedseedpod]

I think encyc is still around, cf. its authoritative page on mushrooms.

just cute.

It is another Larry Sanger dropping that will go nowhere..

NOOOO not the curse of Larry! At least Atsme seems like a genuine kind of person to me, if a hard conservative.

[journo]

Congratulations Justipedia, you are hosting a copy of English Wikipedia from late 2022.

[Ognistysztorm]

Congratulations Justipedia, you are hosting a copy of English Wikipedia from late 2022.

Yeah but some were updated and some new pages were created ever since. The job of updating them all to present day is daunting but if Justapedia puts something on the Feature Showcase that could accurately highlight systemic biases of Wikipedia without getting tainted by alt-right labels, such as Jewish or indigenous topics, a critical mass of editors could form which will make Justapedia go big.

For now, there is still a lot of room for Justapedia to prove itself as it's still premature yet.