An alternative to Wikipedia
Linus and Lucy
11-12-2006, 01:48
Over the past several years, I have witnessed Wikipedia being overrun by megalomaniacs and power-trippers who are more concerned with enforcing every last minute detail and consequence of the most minor, obscure, and obtuse policies rather than, and often to the detriment of, getting actual work done.
Because of this, I have set up an alternative free, open-content encyclopedia at http://opencycle.vacommunity.net I encourage everyone who is interested in such a project to consider contributing to Opencycle.
CthulhuFhtagn
11-12-2006, 01:50
Let me guess. You vandalised Wikipedia and got banned for doing so.
New Stalinberg
11-12-2006, 01:51
Heresey!
Linus and Lucy
11-12-2006, 01:55
Let me guess. You vandalised Wikipedia and got banned for doing so.
Nope.
In fact, I'm still a fairly regular contributor to Wikipedia.
I have in fact been blocked for short durations (no more than a couple of days) a few times--mostly for childish stunts (adding references to Mojo Nixon's song "Elvis is Everywhere" to relevant articles) or for simply acting rather rude towards the aforementioned powertrippers and megalomaniacs--which I probably deserved, but this had nothing to do with my choice to create an alternative.
But I get more and more disillusioned with it every day.
But I get more and more disillusioned with it every day.
As well you should.
Recently, I was looking up details on Comet Halley, and read the discussion page, which involved a lengthy discussion on the title of the page. Some people (rightfully so) stated that it should be listed as Comet Halley (its official name) rather than Halley's Comet (its more common, yet unofficial name). In the end, the people who wanted Halley's Comet got their way. Why? Because apparently, using a documented IAU naming convention doesn't consitute as documented evidence to the fact that it's called the Comet Halley unless it EXPLICITLY says "Comet Halley".
The people there seem to be more concerned with pushing their own egos than accuracy. I welcome your alternative.
Hispanionla
11-12-2006, 02:01
the free web-based encyclopedia shabang is spoken for. You have no hope of becoming anything close to what wiki is. Especially given that, uh, you stole their format?
right.
And besides, even if you did somehow manage to gain the following wiki has, it would be the exact same thing, with a different name. The same people would come to nitpick.
The Lone Alliance
11-12-2006, 02:03
I got in a 100+ post arguement on another forum because someone posted in Wikipedia that Social Security became Congress funding in 1965.
Encyclopedia Dramatica is the one true rival to Wikipedia.
Why use Wiki? It's just a second-rate parody of Uncyclopedia (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia)...
Linus and Lucy
11-12-2006, 02:37
the free web-based encyclopedia shabang is spoken for. You have no hope of becoming anything close to what wiki is. Especially given that, uh, you stole their format?
What?
We use the same wiki software as Wikipedia...so what? It's publicly-available software, available for free download (under the terms of the GNU GPL) by anyone.
And besides, even if you did somehow manage to gain the following wiki has, it would be the exact same thing, with a different name. The same people would come to nitpick.
I don't think so.
We intend to foster a community that specifically opposes the megalomania and power-tripping that occurs on Wikipedia. While the same types of people would probably come, and while they'd be just as welcome to edit and contribute as anyone else, they wouldn't be able to engage in the power-tripping that they could on Wikipedia.
How do we do this? Simple. First off, we have as a fundamental policy: "Even if the action of a user strictly violates policy, if it didn't actually hurt anything then don't worry about it."
Second:
"Rules-lawyering is encouraged when it's being done to the benefit of a user accused of wrongdoing. When being used in a case against a user accused of wrongdoing, it is strongly discouraged."
Third:
"Anything that exists and for which verifiable information is available is acceptable as the subject of an article. It doesn't have to meet some abstract and arbitrary standard of 'notability' or importance."
Vegan Nuts
11-12-2006, 02:52
Heresey!
and blasphemy! all praise to wiki, the beneficent, the merciful!
Vegan Nuts
11-12-2006, 02:56
Why use Wiki? It's just a second-rate parody of Uncyclopedia (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia)...
Ergo: Wikipedia is a Massive Multiplayer Online Editing Game
heh...
Hispanionla
11-12-2006, 02:59
Right. good luck with that, your encyclopedia is going to be about as accurate as water balloon dropped from the 100th floor of a building.
Sel Appa
11-12-2006, 03:02
Futile
Socialist Pyrates
11-12-2006, 03:06
Over the past several years, I have witnessed Wikipedia being overrun by megalomaniacs and power-trippers who are more concerned with enforcing every last minute detail and consequence of the most minor, obscure, and obtuse policies rather than, and often to the detriment of, getting actual work done.
Because of this, I have set up an alternative free, open-content encyclopedia at http://opencycle.vacommunity.net I encourage everyone who is interested in such a project to consider contributing to Opencycle.
and how is one going to be better than the other? Wikipedia is ok but I wouldn't suggest anyone rely on it as a infallible reference
Vegan Nuts
11-12-2006, 03:14
Right. good luck with that, your encyclopedia is going to be about as accurate as water balloon dropped from the 100th floor of a building.
that simile escaped me...
New Xero Seven
11-12-2006, 03:16
I laikz thieese 1. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leetspeek)
Linus and Lucy
11-12-2006, 03:24
and how is one going to be better than the other? Wikipedia is ok but I wouldn't suggest anyone rely on it as a infallible reference
My reasons for creating an alternative to Wikipedia had nothing to do with Wikipedia's content.
CthulhuFhtagn
11-12-2006, 03:56
My reasons for creating an alternative to Wikipedia had nothing to do with Wikipedia's content.
It has to do with you being banned for vandalism.
Dinaverg
11-12-2006, 21:18
I call sour grapes as well...
isn't there already an alternative with real experts started by the founder of wikipedia?
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
11-12-2006, 21:37
Wikipedia's use of mediums to communicate with deceased philosophers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Judgment#Influences) will forever make it the Number One source of my information.
Kant's "posthumous dismay", indeed.
The Planet Jurai
11-12-2006, 22:00
and how is one going to be better than the other? Wikipedia is ok but I wouldn't suggest anyone rely on it as a infallible reference
While I don't claim that Wikipedia is an infallible reference, I time and again found it to be one of them most complete and detailed sources of information freely avaliable on the Internet. I doubt that better alternative to Wikipedia will be created anytime soon.
P.S.
I never had any troubles with people who run Wikipedia, in fact, I applaud their work of making sure that Wikipedia's articles are as accurate as possible.
A piss-poor rip off. Uncyclopedia may not be perfect and it can be unreliable at times but this alternative will never succeed.
New New Lofeta
11-12-2006, 22:14
www.uncyclopedia.org (http://www.uncyclopedia.org)
Swilatia
11-12-2006, 22:29
yay! another wiki to add nonsense to! :)
PS: I do NOT vandalise wikis. this is intended as a joke.
HotRodia
11-12-2006, 22:31
This really isn't the place to advertise another site.
NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia