Wikipedia Sucks!

I got sick of wikipedia denying 90% of information, they have an elitism problem, the pages are almost impossible to edit, so

I made an alternative, to try resolving some of those problems; Compendium
https://indiegamenews.github.io/Compendium/Home.html

It allows anyone to create or edit an article so long as they have a brain and a Github and costs no money.

All you have to do is fork the repo:
https://github.com/IndieGameNews/Compendium

then add or edit your article
and pull request back to the main repository.

and It is not run by wiki or any of their associates i'm just a guy with a journalism hobby. : )

indiegamenews wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 25, 2025 5:24 am

I got sick of wikipedia denying 90% of information, they have an elitism problem, the pages are almost impossible to edit, so

I made an alternative, to try resolving some of those problems; Compendium
https://indiegamenews.github.io/Compendium/Home.html

It allows anyone to create or edit an article so long as they have a brain and a Github and costs no money.

All you have to do is fork the repo:
https://github.com/IndieGameNews/Compendium

then add or edit your article
and pull request back to the main repository.

and It is not run by wiki or any of their associates i'm just a guy with a journalism hobby. : )

This is basically what Encycla is all about, except that they have become a moribund project for some reason. There's also ibis.wiki, which is a federated encyclopedia project. Maybe you'll be the first one to start a major ibis.wiki instance which will go big in the mainstream?

You can use the datasets at dumps.wikimedia.org as starting points.

while these are close they are not the same, do not conflate them. yes Compendium was designed for indie game devs but its purpose is general use for any author or audience. it allows first hand sources, and with repo expansion in the future can help severely mitigate the problem of elitism which I intend to do once I find people to bring onto the project who want to be part of it. it allows nsfw topics we do not blacklist websites (if you have good information, you have good information); we are not bought and paid for, and while yes it is open source this was more of a thing I had to do in order to make it functional rather than something I wanted to do in principle, despite this it does make the site maintainable by a community rather than an individual so its certainly not a negative. if you want to write for a tv show, video game, developer, historical event or anything else you can do that, you can prevent first hand sources, you can have second hand sources, you can have third hand sources. it builds a story it shows the reader every flaw in that story as they read with color coding, it automatically sorts links in the description on the basis of where they come from and even red flags things that are opinionated, or unverifiable. it allows all the information to come in that wikipedia denies and does a better job without the burden of wikipedias stuck up nose telling you how to behave. since its github it also automatically credits the person who wrote or edited the article and you can pretty easily check for experts. for instance Seboops an expert on himself, wrote the article on himself and its clearly apparent that he is the one that wrote it. but because of how the site functions he is not writing an autobiography and anyone can edit it giving 2nd and 3rd hand sources to verify information or red flag the article for things they cannot or anywhere they find opinionated content (which also strongly reduces the potential for bias).