The Wikipedia killer

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.

Re: The Wikipedia killer

Postby CrowsNest » Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:45 pm

This is happening people......

https://www.cnet.com/news/an-ibm-comput ... mpetition/

This is a taster of the things that will make up the "knowledge service" of the future. And Wikipedia, the Wikipedia of Casliber and Doc James et al, will have no part to play in it. Except to perhaps desperately try to claim ownership of the term "knowledge service".

Other than the WMF, who definitely wouldn't be able to afford the license and absolutely couldn't replicate it, why would anyone waste this sort of technology on simply having it write/rewrite Wikipedia articles? And what use would it have for Wikipedia?

When set against this type of capability, Wikipedia will be the next decade's version of the paper encyclopedia.

Dead.

So sorry Casliber and whoever else it was who acted like frightened little babies when I raised this on Wikipediocracy, but you really don't know shit. That why you're Wikipedians. Dumb is what you do.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: The Wikipedia killer

Postby Graaf Statler » Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:36 am

Once someone said to me, how do you eat a mammoth? In slices. And that is where it went wrong with every study.

Wikipedia as a reference work, encyclopedia doesn't exist. It's only a brand, a name, because as long there is no editorial office there is no consistency, and the different language versions operate separately.
So, it's impossible to say something about the quality of wikipedia. It's the same as if I did a general statement about the quality of Worldpress blogs.

The best way to look at Wikipedia is as a huge collection blogs. Some are superb, some are fine, there is a lot of middle of the road stuff, and there is a huge amount of rubbish. And with Wikipedia that's the same. But researcher always investigates wikipedia in the wrong way. They try to study a part of the complex wikipedia, but forget first to make a overall view, a helicopter view, and don't know what they are studying. They just pick at random a part of wikipedia and start to study it. It is as stupide as someone is studying a car part, but has no idea what a car is.

The main problem is only a few people on this globe have a good view what Wikipedia real is. Most people only know a part of it, and are talking about the part they know and understand. (more or less.)
Wikipedia is far to complex to understand for most people, and that is the real problem and drama of Wikipedia.
User avatar
Graaf Statler
 
Posts: 3774
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The Wikipedia killer

Postby Dysklyver » Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:50 am

Graaf Statler wrote:Once someone said to me, how do you eat a mammoth? In slices. And that is where it went wrong with every study.

Wikipedia as a reference work, encyclopedia doesn't exist. It's only a brand, a name, because as long there is no editorial office there is no consistency, and the different language versions operate separately.
So, it's impossible to say something about the quality of wikipedia. It's the same as if I did a general statement about the quality of Worldpress blogs.

The best way to look at Wikipedia is as a huge collection blogs. Some are superb, some are fine, there is a lot of middle of the road stuff, and there is a huge amount of rubbish. And with Wikipedia that's the same. But researcher always investigates wikipedia in the wrong way. They try to study a part of the complex wikipedia, but forget first to make a overall view, a helicopter view, and don't know what they are studying. They just pick at random a part of wikipedia and start to study it. It is as stupide as someone is studying a car part, but has no idea what a car is.

The main problem is only a few people on this globe have a good view what Wikipedia real is. Most people only know a part of it, and are talking about the part they know and understand. (more or less.)
Wikipedia is far to complex to understand for most people, and that is the real problem and drama of Wikipedia.


Not even a Wikipedian knows what all of Wikipedia is. You are dead right though, There is a massive range of stuff on Wikipedia, the only problem is that most of it falls into the total crap bin. If Wikipedia was ever published you would have a mighty curious reference work, but as you say, that's really not what it is.

Of course I only know what I specialise in, but I look at those. And yeah it's a mess, except where me and people I know have written stuff. Of course those bits are awesome, 100% accurate, and completely notable.
De facto globally banned on all Wikimedia sites. Editor of The Wiki Cabal. find me on the Wikipediocracy Discord.
User avatar
Dysklyver
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:14 am

Re: The Wikipedia killer

Postby Paul Bedson » Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:24 am

Everipedia's plans to become the Wikipedia Killer and the source-of-truth online were detailed by Sam Kazieman in an article this week. https://medium.com/@imeosone/imeos-inte ... f9fda4b0c7
Wikipedia Sucks! Everipedia doesn't and you can get paid! https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/paul-bedson/
Image
User avatar
Paul Bedson
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:48 am
Location: Coventry, UK

Re: The Wikipedia killer

Postby CrowsNest » Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:51 pm

It may pose a threat to Wikipedia, but it would be just as under threat from the technology I've outlined in here as Wikipedia is.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: The Wikipedia killer

Postby Paul Bedson » Sat Jul 21, 2018 8:26 am

CrowsNest wrote:It may pose a threat to Wikipedia, but it would be just as under threat from the technology I've outlined in here as Wikipedia is.

I would see it as an opportunity! Get the AI to run around fixing all the things we know about so we can concentrate on finding and creating new things, which is the more fun part after all. AI hasn't figured out how to do that yet and I suspect it's a way off.

Life on Wikipedia would be much better without walls of text debate to wade through every time you wanted to create something.
Wikipedia Sucks! Everipedia doesn't and you can get paid! https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/paul-bedson/
Image
User avatar
Paul Bedson
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:48 am
Location: Coventry, UK

Re: The Wikipedia killer

Postby AndrewForson » Sat Jul 21, 2018 12:51 pm

It might pose a threat to Wikipedia, but only by being an even bigger threat to the whole concept of knowledge than Wikipedia is already: by being like Wikipedia, only worse in every respect. There is no single way in which Everipedia is more likely to produce a reliable compendium of human knowledge than Wikipedia, and some in which it is much less so. Foolish or even futile though the standards of Wikipedia may be for inclusion of topics and sources, Everipedia is much much worse. It proposes to pay people in cryptocurrency with no obvious model for where the real value backing that currency will come from: that payment will have apparent value precisely until there's a serious attempt to spend it, and then it will be revealed as a bubble. Fortunately the whole enterprise is so inept and misguided that it is most unlikely to gain any traction. I'm astonished that Larry Sanger should choose to be associated with it.
User avatar
AndrewForson
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm

Re: The Wikipedia killer

Postby CrowsNest » Sat Jul 21, 2018 1:53 pm

Paul Bedson wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:finding and creating new things, which is the more fun part after all. AI hasn't figured out how to do that yet and I suspect it's a way off.
Depends What you mean. Discovery of new things is one of its most common uses I would have thought. Protein folding and the like. I've even heard for it being used to create new songs and artworks, which they presumably did in answer to people posing the question, what makes us human. Apparently it's not culture. As humans, we over-estimate our creativity. We're remarkably narrow minded and set in our ways, which probably means AI won't reach its own potential until it can design itself, or rather, it's progeny. Which, you guessed it, is already a topic of research.

If Everipedia can ensure all of this information on the current state of the field is available to the world, then it would certainly beat Wikipedia, because they're beyond rubbish at summarising such things. They claim it is because that is beyond the remit of an encyclopedia, as a staid work of tertiary reference. Which is easy to disprove, because through that outlet we sure as shit get play by play details on Trump, Tragedy and, of course, Football. And all the other crap their lazy gimp army thinks is knowledge.

It's news, as I keep telling those dumbasses. They built a fucking news site. They even killed their own sister news site, because they liked writing news so much.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: The Wikipedia killer

Postby ericbarbour » Sat Jul 21, 2018 2:58 pm

Paul Bedson wrote:Everipedia's plans to become the Wikipedia Killer and the source-of-truth online were detailed by Sam Kazieman in an article this week. https://medium.com/@imeosone/imeos-inte ... f9fda4b0c7

That's both very funny, and people have said this before--and failed to follow up. I can't even make a list of all the "Wikipedia killers" that have come and gone. Too many. And this article seems to be more about sneaking around the Chinese government's censorship than about "replacing Wikipedia".

Plus I'd like to know how much Everipedia content was scraped from WMF sites. Cuz I looked at one random article (https://everipedia.org/wiki/Antique_Air ... sociation/) and the Everipedia article is an exact copy of the WP article.

Although I still think it's hopeless, it would crack me up to watch WP have all its content copied to a new site, which then proceeded to make deals with search engines so as to steal (at least some of) WP's traffic.
#BbbGate
User avatar
ericbarbour
Psyop
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: #Bbb23

Re: The Wikipedia killer

Postby Graaf Statler » Mon Jul 23, 2018 12:07 am

It would crack me up too. But it is a tricky road they are walking. Because there is a tremendous reservoir of gamers, copyright thieves, POV pushers , psycho's etc. how can't wait to rush in.
And how do they want to avoid people start to make money with the work of others? How do they want to avoid people are trying to get the power to push there political view, or social extreem views like what happend with that gender discussion? Een beetje vent laat zich tot vrouw ombouwen is now the message. If you are a real man, let yourself change in a transgender. Because it is unhealthy, unnatural.

And what about that pachwork of international copyright, are you dealing with that in a pirate way, or are you looking for solutions? And I don't, mean the solution trying to press the politic to turn the clock back to the year 2000 and before with lobbying, because that is a dead end. Because ievery search engine will boycott you in the near future.

I am positive, but I see also a lot of pitfalls.
User avatar
Graaf Statler
 
Posts: 3774
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron