Wikipedia sucks but Everipedia doesn't - it pays you!

[Graaf Statler]

I said that because the posting of the gender lady's was suggestive and they where giving wrong information, what Paul has corrected. It was a negative shit posting of the lady's.

The 20 bucks will only get you a random user name, but once you have that, you can ask for a username of your choice. No word on bulk discounts for socks.

Not true.

But there is an old saying that “if you’re not paying for the product, you are the product”. I will explain more.

Not true, maybe your work is payed at the end with one chocolate bar, but that is always better than to get paid in WMF SB's, ShitBudgets. Or SOB's, I am not sure how there cryptos money is named, but I have a lot of it!

So the other day I felt a Disturbance in the Force and sure enough, some guy named Paul Bedson from something called Everipedia was saying nasty things about me here (see “I am now a reliable source for Everipedia“).

At least the gender desk lady's never say nasty things about people, or am I wrong? O, no! I was that psycho, that old hippy, that street waif named Graaf from the Netherlands, but wait, wait Wait! Pauls twitter! It is a scandal!

Anyway, I have decided to join Everipedia, and have made a account. Not for that chocolate bar, but to get ride of framing and foolish gender lady's trolls, idiots in general, and types like Alexander and Maher, complete incompetent people who has fallen up in the wiki mouvement due to the lack of gravity over there. And how that adventure ends up I will see. As long as I am not paid in SB's or SOB's it is fine for me, and at least there mail function works, because Paul answers every mail in the old English gentleman style.

[AndrewForson]

Graaf, what benefit do you see in working for Everpedia?

[Graaf Statler]

The Wiki system is not something what will disappear or destroyed, that is a illusion. To make a better Wikipedia, or to improve the Duch wikipedia is impossible, because the Dutch Wikipedia is fossilized and there is not a change anything will change there. So, the only way to improve things is by building a new Wiki, and hoping if you do that in a proper way, and it will be attractive for real content writers. You can start over from the sketch, but if it work out I can't say. But it is worth trying, and till now the system looks much better to me than te Wikipedia system. That is my motivation. And it is possible to reward the right persons, and I think that is the biggest iimprovement. And mister Paul has promised me there is no place for free loaders and wiki fools over there.

I already designed once a new Wiki, Wikiquote_NL, but the Wikipedians freakt complete out because the content was really improving with the help of Whaledad. I wish I could convince Whaledad to join me, I think we could make together a great wiki. And De Kolonel too. I am sure we can.
And I think it will be a good thing if WMF has a serious competitor, because if that happens it can result in two things. Or they improve Wikipedia and stop with there activism, or they will die, and both thing will be a blessing for the knowledge ecology.

[CrowsNest]

How exactly would somebody decide whether one article is better than the other? Maybe they will figure it out as they go along, like Wikipedia did.

Wikipedia has certainly showed how not to do it. The WMF spent money the software needed to implement a user feedback tool, which included an article rating tool, of the sort you might use to determine which was better. They binned it years ago. Not because it didn't benefit readers, but because it was making editors sad/mad.

[AndrewForson]

How exactly would somebody decide whether one article is better than the other? Maybe they will figure it out as they go along, like Wikipedia did.

Wikipedia has certainly showed how not to do it. The WMF spent money the software needed to implement a user feedback tool, which included an article rating tool, of the sort you might use to determine which was better. They binned it years ago. Not because it didn't benefit readers, but because it was making editors sad/mad.

But how would they know whether the article was getting better? Wikipedia has no way of controlling content, only conduct. Hence if a change in an article makes editors feel better or worse, then that is the only measure they can possibly have for the article getting better or worse.

[CrowsNest]

How exactly would somebody decide whether one article is better than the other? Maybe they will figure it out as they go along, like Wikipedia did.

Wikipedia has certainly showed how not to do it. The WMF spent money the software needed to implement a user feedback tool, which included an article rating tool, of the sort you might use to determine which was better. They binned it years ago. Not because it didn't benefit readers, but because it was making editors sad/mad.

But how would they know whether the article was getting better? Wikipedia has no way of controlling content, only conduct. Hence if a change in an article makes editors feel better or worse, then that is the only measure they can possibly have for the article getting better or worse.

It wasn't there to measure improvement over time (although I imagine that was possible). It was there to allow readers to rate the article at a specific point in time. Hence, if they had multiple versions available, side by side comparison is possible using the rating data. Although yes, given any article can at any time be hacked to bits, reducing quality and introducing errors (c.f Drmies), it is questionable how long that data remains useful for the purposes of comparison.

[Graaf Statler]

Wikipedia is to far beyond repair to fix anything. If you start there with paid editing for sure the money evaporates. And the problem of a new project from the sketch is they will never, never get the Google protection again Wikipedia had, because of the changing legalisation.
WMF is already imploded, only the sponsors and the rest of the world does't know that. There good faith approach has totally failed.
There is no solution for them. Yes, making a total new format, but that is not attractive for the wikipedians.

[ericbarbour]

Wikipedia has no way of controlling content, only conduct.

And they are completely awful at controlling conduct as well. Squeaky wheels don't get greased, they are (sometimes) beaten to a pulp and then banned forever. Or they are ignored, sometimes. No way to predict how the little shits will handle a real crisis.

[Paul Bedson]

[UPDATE ON INVITES: AUGUST 9, 2018]
There has been a lot of discussion regarding the invitation process and how to contribute to the Everipedia Network, especially since several publications have written that we launched on the blockchain. (Side Note: The site in question has been live since mid-July.)

To prevent any confusion, we believe it is important to distinguish the two different URLs to which you can contribute:

Everipedia.org (pre-blockchain): This is the pre-blockchain version of Everipedia. (We are sending invites at the end of every week to create content on the platform while the dev. team continues to work on building features and detect/fix any bugs they may see on the blockchain version.)

IQnetwork.io (blockchain): This is the website the Everipedia team has currently made available for people who want to experiment with the blockchain. (Use the site with caution; we recommend using this site only if you know what you're doing AND what you're risking by staking your IQ tokens.)

*The technology built on iqnetwork.io will be integrated into everipedia.org once the development of the network is complete.

If you would like to experiment with iqnetwork.io, please follow these instructions in this link:
https://everipedia.org/wiki/everipedia- ... l-english/

If you would like an invite to experiment with everipedia.org, please message @mahbodmoghadam1 or @Romiezzo with the following information:
1) Your email
2) The first page you'd like to create on the site (We can give you some ideas if you aren't sure, but think of something that you know is not on Wikipedia.)
—————————
[LATEST UPDATE ON IQNETWORK: July 27, 2018]
We are doing some smart contract and front end fixes starting July 27 12AM PST, so some features, especially editing, may not work temporily. Once this is done, voting should be enabled.

Creation of new pages has now been enabled (editing existing pages is still disabled). You need to stake some IQ to create Brainpower in order to edit, and you can do so by clicking the "GET BRAINPOWER" button on your username in the top right hand side of the screen.

Please note this is still very experimental and there is a small chance the pages will be lost in the future until the process. You can now test out the editor page and see the voting screen. Voting is still disabled at this time but will be enabled soon.

You can see recently proposed pages here:
https://iqnetwork.io/recent-activity/
When airdrop? DONE! The IQ token airdrop is now complete. You can find the MVP front end UX website at https://iqnetwork.io. All the pages have been IPFS'd and you can find the IPFS address for a given page at the bottom of the article. IPFS cat'ing a page will return gzipped html, so be sure to gunzip it beforehand.

The new site will run alongside everipedia.org for the time being, and should be considered complete alpha/MVP. Scatter should show your current EOS balance and a IQ balance once the airdrop is completed. Note: The current network does not have inflationary token rewards turned on during this testing phase.

Bitfinex IQX = Everipedia IQ
Bitfinex lists Everipedia IQ as IQX because their system does not allow for 2-character symbols. They are the same thing.

Exchanges - When Moon?
https://iqnetwork.io/exchange-listings/
These exchanges have indicated to us that they will support the airdrop, but not all of them have promised a trading pair. Please contact them for details.

White Paper
https://github.com/EveripediaNetwork/Ev ... tepaper.md