Everipeidia blockchain migration

[Paul Bedson]

[ATTN: EDITS ON EVERIPEDIA.ORG WILL BE DISABLED ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2018]
As many of you know, our development has been working hard on developing the IQ Network platform. Given the fact that the Everipedia.org website has existed for 3 years, we are gradually taking active steps to move our knowledge base from pre-blockchain to blockchain.

That said, starting Monday, September 10, 2018, creating pages and edits on Everipedia.org will be permanently disabled. At that point, the only way to make contributions will be through the IQ Network (http://iqnetwork.io).

In addition, because of the narrow time gap between now and when we disable edits, we will no longer be sending invites for people to test the editing interface on Everipedia.org. For those who would like to contribute, the only option people now have is to stake IQ tokens to our network. We recommend reading and following the steps in this tutorial:
https://everipedia.org/wiki/everipedia- ... l-english/

[AndrewForson]

If we are to have innumerable threads about Everipedia, please could there at least be a single separate subforum for them? Better still, please could we not have posts on Everipedia at all unless they also include some serious discussion about Wikipedia, or Wikipedia critics, or some similar topic actually related to the purpose of this site.

[CrowsNest]

If we are to have innumerable threads about Everipedia, please could there at least be a single separate subforum for them? Better still, please could we not have posts on Everipedia at all unless they also include some serious discussion about Wikipedia, or Wikipedia critics, or some similar topic actually related to the purpose of this site.

The purpose of this site includes the promotion of any and all alternatives to Wikipedia, I would have thought. If you don't like like it, then please just say so. Hiding your dislike of the project (or Paul?) behind a manufactured objection about excessive threads is what the good people of Wikipediocracy would do. I'm all for good thread management, but public calls for that have to be consistently applied. Indeed, they need not be public at all, this board has a PM function.

[AndrewForson]

The purpose of this site includes the promotion of any and all alternatives to Wikipedia, I would have thought. If you don't like like it, then please just say so. Hiding your dislike of the project (or Paul?) behind a manufactured objection about excessive threads is what the good people of Wikipediocracy would do. I'm all for good thread management, but public calls for that have to be consistently applied. Indeed, they need not be public at all, this board has a PM function.

I rather thought I had made it plain that I didn't like it. Perhaps I should have typed louder. Since you wish me to be perfectly clear, I'm happy to make my position clear in public. My view is that Everipedia is worse than Wikipedia in every possible way; that it is rather likely to turn out to be a scam or a racket of some kind; and that persistently promoting it by press releases in multiple threads such as here is getting in the way of serious criticism of Wikipedia and serious discussion of serious alternative. If we are to discuss Everipedia as such, then there should be an area devoted to that discussion.

[Graaf Statler]

I don't agree. The pay system will motivate people to keep the place clean, and you don't have editors anymore who are only there to get a free lunch. (or better, a breakfast, lunch, dinner and supper without doing anything) The money streams in the wrong direction haver ruined Wikipedia.
In the second place it will be very, very good if WMF get a serious competitor so they have to start to improve there product instate of creating overpaid bullshit jobs. And, at last, Everipedia is a much more modern product in between Wikipedia and Facebook.

[CrowsNest]

The purpose of this site includes the promotion of any and all alternatives to Wikipedia, I would have thought. If you don't like like it, then please just say so. Hiding your dislike of the project (or Paul?) behind a manufactured objection about excessive threads is what the good people of Wikipediocracy would do. I'm all for good thread management, but public calls for that have to be consistently applied. Indeed, they need not be public at all, this board has a PM function.

I rather thought I had made it plain that I didn't like it. Perhaps I should have typed louder. Since you wish me to be perfectly clear, I'm happy to make my position clear in public. My view is that Everipedia is worse than Wikipedia in every possible way; that it is rather likely to turn out to be a scam or a racket of some kind; and that persistently promoting it by press releases in multiple threads such as here is getting in the way of serious criticism of Wikipedia and serious discussion of serious alternative. If we are to discuss Everipedia as such, then there should be an area devoted to that discussion.

You really should not be happy to have that known. I will not stand for this being seen as normal behaviour. This board aims to be different to Wikipediocracy, yet this here is one of their most toxic practices. You are entitled to think whatever you like about Everipedia, and say it here too. Although hopefully not with tedious regularity every time it comes up. But do not presume to act like others have to agree with it, or that you can use it as a pretext to tell others what they can and can't post about on this site, or where their posts must go. You are not staff here. Use the private channels for your forum management requests, or I will.

My apologies to you Paul. Unless or until you hear otherwise from a staff member, feel free to ignore Andrew's request.

[AndrewForson]

You are entitled to think whatever you like about Everipedia, and say it here too. Although hopefully not with tedious regularity every time it comes up. But do not presume to act like others have to agree with it, or that you can use it as a pretext to tell others what they can and can't post about on this site, or where their posts must go. You are not staff here. Use the private channels for your forum management requests, or I will.

My apologies to you Paul. Unless or until you hear otherwise from a staff member, feel free to ignore Andrew's request.

How very odd. You seem not to have noticed that my comments were suggestions, or requests, as you can plainly see from the use of the word "please" -- perhaps it is not in your lexicon. The only person issuing orders here would be you -- apparently you take the view that you are free to issue orders to me, but I am not free to make even polite requests of anyone else. Perhaps you would care to explain the asymmetry ... but no, don't waste everyone's time, I'll just state plainly that your ridiculous arrogance is a futile attempt to bully me, which I treat with the scorn and contempt it deserves. Ha ha.

You are also apologising to Paul Bedson for something, presumably something you have done or feel responsible for. What would that be exactly? Anyway, as you so correctly explain to Mr Bedson, he is free to ignore my politely worded request, just as I am free to ignore your arrogant bullying.

We return to the topic of conversation, which is Everipedia.

[Graaf Statler]

Do you think that is possible in a non Ming style AndrewForson? It is all bulshit because I say so? Because that was what you where claiming. Everipedia is even worser than a total corrupt and out of date internet product. Yes, Andrew, that was what you was claiming and that is the Ming way of talking.

[AndrewForson]

Do you think that is possible in a non Ming style AndrewForson? It is all bulshit because I say so? Because that was what you where claiming. Everipedia is even worser than a total corrupt and out of date internet product. Yes, Andrew, that was what you was claiming and that is the Ming way of talking.

I'm happy to give some reasoning to support my views, which I gave in summary form earlier at CN's request.

Everipedia incoporates a copy of Wikipedia, so its current content includes at least a million defective articles (references badly or not at all) thousands of them BLP, and thousands of known potential copyright violations. To produce better content it needs to have a way of dealing with this backlog and ensuring that its content going forward is of a significantly higher standard. To date we have seen no mention of any such system. At the very least, in addition to a clear plan for solving these problems, it will need to recruit tens of thousands of editors who are reasonably knowledgeable spanning the whole field of human knowledge, who are ready willing and able to work together to achieve that plan, and some incentives for them to spend their time on this project rather than anything else. I see no plan for recruiting or selecting these thousands of experts. What Everipedia has is at best, some way of paying contributors. There is no reason to suppose that enlisting random people with no particular qualifications or selection process for pay will work any better than it did for Wikipedia enlisting people for no pay. Indeed, the introduction of payment drives competitive rather than cooperative behaviour, at least among people who actually need the money. Wikipedia already fails as a cooperative enterprise when people aren't competing for anything other than reputation: there is no reason to suppose that Everipedia will do better.

Everipedia has the additional novelty that the "pay", such as it is, is in the form of a cryptocurrency whose real-world value is at best uncertain, and which it seems you now have to buy to participate. I'll be frank here. Schemes which claim they are going to reward you later but which you have to buy into now quite often turn out to be scams, especially when it's very hard to determine what if anything your initial payment is buying you. Schemes in which it is unclear what and how you invest are often scams. Schemes where you simply buy the right to participate are often scams. At the very least, the effect of spreading this cryptocurrency around -- and Everipedia's working model suggests that they will need tens of thousands of editors -- is to give the producers and owners of the currency an additional market, which is an advantage to them which is possibly worth a lot more to them than it is to any but the earliest holders. There is the additional uncertainty about whether or when you can cash in your gains.

Of course I can't predict the future. I can say that on the basis of what I've seen here, two points stand out. In those respects in which Everipedia can be compared with Wikipedia, it is worse. In those respects in which it is novel, it is questionable.

[AndrewForson]

Supplement to my previous post. I looked at the recent edits to everipedia.org just now. In the last hour just three topics have been edited.

• Infiniverse -- an "augmented reality platform" built in top of EOS, in other words, a plug for the system that runs Everipedia.
• ZAZA -- a blockchain startup
• Bill Fairclough -- autobiography

Awful. Just awful.