Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[Gergő Tisza]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 11:13 AM, David Gerard  wrote:

> "INFOGALACTIC: an online encyclopedia without bias or thought police"
>
> Home page: http://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
> Announcement: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/10/project-big-fork-
> infogalactic.html
> Roadmap: http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Roadmap


In case you don't want to read their (somewhat pretentious) introductory
material, in a nutshell, they focus on US politics (ie. they are mainly
concerned about what bias articles have on a scale ranging from radical
left to radical right), and are trying to create a wiki where different
viewpoints can coexist so editors have no reason to fight edit wars (like
Wikinfo tried in ages past, except they want to take a more software-driven
approach). They want to break up articles into separate parts depending on
how bias-prone they are (pure facts, context, opinions) and use editors'
self-assessment of political POV to show them the page revision just after
the last edit from someone with the same POV.

So far, they don't actually seem to be doing any of that; it's just a copy
of Wikipedia content with people doing random changes in it.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[Alessandro Marchetti]

You can simply leave a warning on sandboxes and drafts, or a "NOINDEX" 
template. And rejected content can also stay there, it just can't go to ns0 at 
least for a while. I mean if I open a sandbox or draft, write a description of 
something below notability in many cases it's not erased and/or noticed. It 
just stays there. So why a content deleted from ns0 is so different? Of course 
than every platform has its own rules  but there's a clearly difference between 
an Afd of a dust-covered sandbox or draft and a freshly edited article. I mean 
the number of deleted articles are the same in the end, it's just less 
controversial.
You can just take all the very old unused non-ns0 content pages and revise 
after few years. There's stuff you can actually use after a while. Most of the 
time that person has become important "enough" to have an ns0 entry, the local 
factory is still open and can be inserted in the paragraph about economy of a 
village, a new article has appeared on wikivoyage where the description a shop 
can be cited, the image locally uploaded by a newbie can be transferred to 
commons, the poor description of an actor or athlete or researcher has enough 
IDs to crate an item on wikidata, the description of a building can be put in a 
table in the new article about the street or neighborhood where the building is 
located. And so on. Sometimes the original owner has forgot about it so you can 
work with calm at this revision. 
It's mainly a lack of management, IMHO, that forces people to go keep/delete in 
a rigid way. We waste there more stuff than necessary while we need maybe just 
a good retropatrolling. 
 

Il Mercoledì 12 Ottobre 2016 12:51, Anders Wennersten 
<m...@anderswennersten.se> ha scritto:
 

 One (unrealistic?) brainchild of me is that Wikipedia should be have as 
a key element, a reliability class set on all articles, say A-F, where 
today's articles would mainly be C (no issues) and D (issues exist). 
That articles with a A or B class would require only Trusted user 
account to edit, and E and F would be new set of articles not qualified 
for Wikipedia. And it would require special setting to access E or F 
articles and they would be seen with another Logo then Wikipedia and 
perhaps a red warning dimmingsceen

Anders

016-10-12 kl. 12:22, skrev Peter Southwood:
> I agree.
> There is a lot of information that could be provided for and by people who 
> are interested in trivia (I am not using the term derogatively - just 
> couldn’t think of a better one).
> Cheers,
> P
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf 
> Of Alessandro Marchetti
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2016 11:40 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic
>
> I agree with Anders. About the issue of weak/bad/irrelevant/border-line 
> content management. I don't care about that specific project although I do 
> support plurality in any case.
> But "not wasting" material and HRs is a key issue. For all platforms. At the 
> moment I would strongly encourage at least to use all the "tools" we have 
> already at their maximum potential, which we are not doing. These include:
> 1) a better knowledge of all wiki platforms and how they work.Try to avoid 
> that paternalism that some wikipeda users show off when they decide a priori 
> something is not even worth transferring. It's quite snob. We have many 
> projects and sometimes transferring content is not so difficult. Even if you 
> delete pokemon articles a book about pokemons on wikibooks is still a good 
> thing to have. And that recipe in a food article maybe deserves more than 
> just be cut off.
> 2) support an extensive use of draft space and a correct management of all 
> drafts. And a bigger tolerance for draft spaces in general. Don't stress 
> people on that, there are always better things to do than "harassing" people 
> about stuff in sandboxes and drafts. Next time you want to do something like 
> that, don't and work on the main namespace. And see yourself if things are in 
> the end better or worse globally. Some of these problems just require time. 
> You wait and sources arrive.
> 3) a better information sharing with the projects. This always annoys me, 
> these long-term wiki users that rarely inform any project or usually the lest 
> competent one about an Afd or a warning. And when you do inform people around 
> and you show that other users disagree with a rigid deletion procedure and 
> they're willing to help or similar they never thank you, and never learn. 
> They play their little game and they have never understood after years that 
> wiki is about sharing knowledge. Not about deleting a content as fast as 
> possible because "I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[Anders Wennersten]

One (unrealistic?) brainchild of me is that Wikipedia should be have as 
a key element, a reliability class set on all articles, say A-F, where 
today's articles would mainly be C (no issues) and D (issues exist). 
That articles with a A or B class would require only Trusted user 
account to edit, and E and F would be new set of articles not qualified 
for Wikipedia. And it would require special setting to access E or F 
articles and they would be seen with another Logo then Wikipedia and 
perhaps a red warning dimmingsceen


Anders

016-10-12 kl. 12:22, skrev Peter Southwood:

I agree.
There is a lot of information that could be provided for and by people who are 
interested in trivia (I am not using the term derogatively - just couldn’t 
think of a better one).
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Alessandro Marchetti
Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2016 11:40 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

I agree with Anders. About the issue of weak/bad/irrelevant/border-line content 
management. I don't care about that specific project although I do support 
plurality in any case.
But "not wasting" material and HRs is a key issue. For all platforms. At the moment I 
would strongly encourage at least to use all the "tools" we have already at their maximum 
potential, which we are not doing. These include:
1) a better knowledge of all wiki platforms and how they work.Try to avoid that 
paternalism that some wikipeda users show off when they decide a priori 
something is not even worth transferring. It's quite snob. We have many 
projects and sometimes transferring content is not so difficult. Even if you 
delete pokemon articles a book about pokemons on wikibooks is still a good 
thing to have. And that recipe in a food article maybe deserves more than just 
be cut off.
2) support an extensive use of draft space and a correct management of all drafts. And a 
bigger tolerance for draft spaces in general. Don't stress people on that, there are 
always better things to do than "harassing" people about stuff in sandboxes and 
drafts. Next time you want to do something like that, don't and work on the main 
namespace. And see yourself if things are in the end better or worse globally. Some of 
these problems just require time. You wait and sources arrive.
3) a better information sharing with the projects. This always annoys me, these long-term wiki 
users that rarely inform any project or usually the lest competent one about an Afd or a warning. 
And when you do inform people around and you show that other users disagree with a rigid deletion 
procedure and they're willing to help or similar they never thank you, and never learn. They play 
their little game and they have never understood after years that wiki is about sharing knowledge. 
Not about deleting a content as fast as possible because "I know how the world works". 
No, you DON'T. Sometimes these rigid deletionists are pushing for the road that allows a fast 
deletion per se, not because this makes the life of editors simpler. I'm convinced because fo that 
we pay a price as a community that is much bigger than the "embarrassment" of leaving on 
the main namespace for few days or weeks an improper article that most of the time almost noone 
visits. I did many lists of all articles that needed revision (unedited by human users in years, 
for example) and in every platform there's always plenty of stuff that was much more critical and 
people missed for years, including hoaxes. Because they were spending too much time copy-pasting 
the same links or comments in order to delete the article of the last minor actor or mid-sized 
company whose presence doesn't really make any difference in the perception of our overall quality.
4) efficient article connectivity. Make article-lists for example. Encourage to group 
content with a rationale. You can prevent a lot of useless "spin off" in many 
cases.
If you start to apply this good practices,  you can reduce the number of critical cases 
(and "social" consequences) by a double digit. Only at that point I would ask 
for additional solutions. Because If after so many years we can't even do that, I think 
we still have better things than worrying or making fun about forks.

  


 Il Mercoledì 12 Ottobre 2016 10:31, Peter Southwood 
<peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> ha scritto:
  


  Wikitrivia?
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Anders Wennersten
Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2016 12:16 PM
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

I think this initiative point to a weakness in our approach, that is worth 
discussing, independent if just this will be anything or not.

In 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[Alessandro Marchetti]

trivia makes me thinks about "wikia" platforms and similar. I also read 
discussions where people promoted a bigger interactions with wikia. They 
suggested for example that a iink at the end of the pages of toons or series to 
wikia webpages would be not so bad, even if it is not 100% reliable it's what 
readers would use to go further in many cases. This way people would know also 
where  to recycle "leftovers". Few users are even both on wiki and wikia (or 
similar projects, sometimes more serious than pop culture, for example 
vexilology). 
Someone even wrote "deletionism" is in the main interest of people who own 
shares those websites :). 
I confess that I had to search in the past for detailed information about a TV 
series for example and maybe I regretted a little bit that there was no space, 
free of ads, on our wiki-ecosystem, for that. To me they could be as important 
as wikivoyage (not an insult to voyage, just thinking as a reader here).
But in general I didn't care too much about this issue of "keeping more 
different stuff" because when I think abut it "linearly" this looks to me like 
something that is not an important strategical challenge in perspective. IMHO 
our priority should be keeping what is worth now. We're not even sure about 
this goal.



Il Mercoledì 12 Ottobre 2016 12:22, Peter Southwood 
<peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> ha scritto:
 

 I agree. 
There is a lot of information that could be provided for and by people who are 
interested in trivia (I am not using the term derogatively - just couldn’t 
think of a better one). 
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Alessandro Marchetti
Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2016 11:40 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

I agree with Anders. About the issue of weak/bad/irrelevant/border-line content 
management. I don't care about that specific project although I do support 
plurality in any case.
But "not wasting" material and HRs is a key issue. For all platforms. At the 
moment I would strongly encourage at least to use all the "tools" we have 
already at their maximum potential, which we are not doing. These include:
1) a better knowledge of all wiki platforms and how they work.Try to avoid that 
paternalism that some wikipeda users show off when they decide a priori 
something is not even worth transferring. It's quite snob. We have many 
projects and sometimes transferring content is not so difficult. Even if you 
delete pokemon articles a book about pokemons on wikibooks is still a good 
thing to have. And that recipe in a food article maybe deserves more than just 
be cut off.
2) support an extensive use of draft space and a correct management of all 
drafts. And a bigger tolerance for draft spaces in general. Don't stress people 
on that, there are always better things to do than "harassing" people about 
stuff in sandboxes and drafts. Next time you want to do something like that, 
don't and work on the main namespace. And see yourself if things are in the end 
better or worse globally. Some of these problems just require time. You wait 
and sources arrive.  
3) a better information sharing with the projects. This always annoys me, these 
long-term wiki users that rarely inform any project or usually the lest 
competent one about an Afd or a warning. And when you do inform people around 
and you show that other users disagree with a rigid deletion procedure and 
they're willing to help or similar they never thank you, and never learn. They 
play their little game and they have never understood after years that wiki is 
about sharing knowledge. Not about deleting a content as fast as possible 
because "I know how the world works". No, you DON'T. Sometimes these rigid 
deletionists are pushing for the road that allows a fast deletion per se, not 
because this makes the life of editors simpler. I'm convinced because fo that 
we pay a price as a community that is much bigger than the "embarrassment" of 
leaving on the main namespace for few days or weeks an improper article that 
most of the time almost noone visits. I did many lists of all articles that 
needed revision (unedited by human users in years, for example) and in every 
platform there's always plenty of stuff that was much more critical and people 
missed for years, including hoaxes. Because they were spending too much time 
copy-pasting the same links or comments in order to delete the article of the 
last minor actor or mid-sized company whose presence doesn't really make any 
difference in the perception of our overall quality.
4) efficient article connectivity. Make article-lists for example. Encourage to 
group content with a rationale. You can prevent a lot of useless "spin off" in 
many cases.
If you start to ap

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[Chris McKenna]

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Peter Southwood wrote:

I agree. 
There is a lot of information that could be provided for and by people who are interested in trivia (I am not using the term derogatively - just couldn’t think of a better one). 
Cheers,

P



The subject-specific Wikia wikis seem to generally do this job in their 
areas of interest.



Chris McKenna

cmcke...@sucs.org
www.sucs.org/~cmckenna


The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,
but with the heart

Antoine de Saint Exupery
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[Peter Southwood]

I agree. 
There is a lot of information that could be provided for and by people who are 
interested in trivia (I am not using the term derogatively - just couldn’t 
think of a better one). 
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Alessandro Marchetti
Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2016 11:40 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

I agree with Anders. About the issue of weak/bad/irrelevant/border-line content 
management. I don't care about that specific project although I do support 
plurality in any case.
But "not wasting" material and HRs is a key issue. For all platforms. At the 
moment I would strongly encourage at least to use all the "tools" we have 
already at their maximum potential, which we are not doing. These include:
1) a better knowledge of all wiki platforms and how they work.Try to avoid that 
paternalism that some wikipeda users show off when they decide a priori 
something is not even worth transferring. It's quite snob. We have many 
projects and sometimes transferring content is not so difficult. Even if you 
delete pokemon articles a book about pokemons on wikibooks is still a good 
thing to have. And that recipe in a food article maybe deserves more than just 
be cut off.
2) support an extensive use of draft space and a correct management of all 
drafts. And a bigger tolerance for draft spaces in general. Don't stress people 
on that, there are always better things to do than "harassing" people about 
stuff in sandboxes and drafts. Next time you want to do something like that, 
don't and work on the main namespace. And see yourself if things are in the end 
better or worse globally. Some of these problems just require time. You wait 
and sources arrive.  
3) a better information sharing with the projects. This always annoys me, these 
long-term wiki users that rarely inform any project or usually the lest 
competent one about an Afd or a warning. And when you do inform people around 
and you show that other users disagree with a rigid deletion procedure and 
they're willing to help or similar they never thank you, and never learn. They 
play their little game and they have never understood after years that wiki is 
about sharing knowledge. Not about deleting a content as fast as possible 
because "I know how the world works". No, you DON'T. Sometimes these rigid 
deletionists are pushing for the road that allows a fast deletion per se, not 
because this makes the life of editors simpler. I'm convinced because fo that 
we pay a price as a community that is much bigger than the "embarrassment" of 
leaving on the main namespace for few days or weeks an improper article that 
most of the time almost noone visits. I did many lists of all articles that 
needed revision (unedited by human users in years, for example) and in every 
platform there's always plenty of stuff that was much more critical and people 
missed for years, including hoaxes. Because they were spending too much time 
copy-pasting the same links or comments in order to delete the article of the 
last minor actor or mid-sized company whose presence doesn't really make any 
difference in the perception of our overall quality.
4) efficient article connectivity. Make article-lists for example. Encourage to 
group content with a rationale. You can prevent a lot of useless "spin off" in 
many cases.
If you start to apply this good practices,  you can reduce the number of 
critical cases (and "social" consequences) by a double digit. Only at that 
point I would ask for additional solutions. Because If after so many years we 
can't even do that, I think we still have better things than worrying or making 
fun about forks.

 

Il Mercoledì 12 Ottobre 2016 10:31, Peter Southwood 
<peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> ha scritto:
 

 Wikitrivia?
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Anders Wennersten
Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2016 12:16 PM
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

I think this initiative point to a weakness in our approach, that is worth 
discussing, independent if just this will be anything or not.

In our version we have somewhat lower quality demand then enwp, and we can also 
be more pragmatic and handle cases individually, but still one of our most 
recurrent discussion is on how we handle articles that is too 
weak/bad/irrelevant to be allowed into our articlespace but still not are 
rubbish. We have looked into 1)enwp alteranative with a draft space, 2) to have 
special signals to engage editor willing to work on these, 3) to give it back 
to the user who put it into Wikipedia with text explaining what is the problem, 
4) different type of templates, 5)and have special 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[Alessandro Marchetti]

I agree with Anders. About the issue of weak/bad/irrelevant/border-line content 
management. I don't care about that specific project although I do support 
plurality in any case.
But "not wasting" material and HRs is a key issue. For all platforms. At the 
moment I would strongly encourage at least to use all the "tools" we have 
already at their maximum potential, which we are not doing. These include:
1) a better knowledge of all wiki platforms and how they work.Try to avoid that 
paternalism that some wikipeda users show off when they decide a priori 
something is not even worth transferring. It's quite snob. We have many 
projects and sometimes transferring content is not so difficult. Even if you 
delete pokemon articles a book about pokemons on wikibooks is still a good 
thing to have. And that recipe in a food article maybe deserves more than just 
be cut off.
2) support an extensive use of draft space and a correct management of all 
drafts. And a bigger tolerance for draft spaces in general. Don't stress people 
on that, there are always better things to do than "harassing" people about 
stuff in sandboxes and drafts. Next time you want to do something like that, 
don't and work on the main namespace. And see yourself if things are in the end 
better or worse globally. Some of these problems just require time. You wait 
and sources arrive.  
3) a better information sharing with the projects. This always annoys me, these 
long-term wiki users that rarely inform any project or usually the lest 
competent one about an Afd or a warning. And when you do inform people around 
and you show that other users disagree with a rigid deletion procedure and 
they're willing to help or similar they never thank you, and never learn. They 
play their little game and they have never understood after years that wiki is 
about sharing knowledge. Not about deleting a content as fast as possible 
because "I know how the world works". No, you DON'T. Sometimes these rigid 
deletionists are pushing for the road that allows a fast deletion per se, not 
because this makes the life of editors simpler. I'm convinced because fo that 
we pay a price as a community that is much bigger than the "embarrassment" of 
leaving on the main namespace for few days or weeks an improper article that 
most of the time almost noone visits. I did many lists of all articles that 
needed revision (unedited by human users in years, for example) and in every 
platform there's always plenty of stuff that was much more critical and people 
missed for years, including hoaxes. Because they were spending too much time 
copy-pasting the same links or comments in order to delete the article of the 
last minor actor or mid-sized company whose presence doesn't really make any 
difference in the perception of our overall quality.
4) efficient article connectivity. Make article-lists for example. Encourage to 
group content with a rationale. You can prevent a lot of useless "spin off" in 
many cases.
If you start to apply this good practices,  you can reduce the number of 
critical cases (and "social" consequences) by a double digit. Only at that 
point I would ask for additional solutions. Because If after so many years we 
can't even do that, I think we still have better things than worrying or making 
fun about forks.

 

Il Mercoledì 12 Ottobre 2016 10:31, Peter Southwood 
<peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> ha scritto:
 

 Wikitrivia?
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Anders Wennersten
Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2016 12:16 PM
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

I think this initiative point to a weakness in our approach, that is worth 
discussing, independent if just this will be anything or not.

In our version we have somewhat lower quality demand then enwp, and we can also 
be more pragmatic and handle cases individually, but still one of our most 
recurrent discussion is on how we handle articles that is too 
weak/bad/irrelevant to be allowed into our articlespace but still not are 
rubbish. We have looked into 1)enwp alteranative with a draft space, 2) to have 
special signals to engage editor willing to work on these, 3) to give it back 
to the user who put it into Wikipedia with text explaining what is the problem, 
4) different type of templates, 5)and have special pages where these can be 
discussed.

Some of these (and pragmatism and good mentors) help a little bit, but does not 
solve the basic issue, that users create articles (not being
rubbish) that is not allowed into our article space, which makes them very 
disappointed (angry)

Anders

Den 2016-10-11 kl. 11:58, skrev Peter Southwood:
> Competition is healthy, it can be useful to test alternatives and separate 
> out the ones that work from the ones that d

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[Peter Southwood]

Wikitrivia?
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Anders Wennersten
Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2016 12:16 PM
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

I think this initiative point to a weakness in our approach, that is worth 
discussing, independent if just this will be anything or not.

In our version we have somewhat lower quality demand then enwp, and we can also 
be more pragmatic and handle cases individually, but still one of our most 
recurrent discussion is on how we handle articles that is too 
weak/bad/irrelevant to be allowed into our articlespace but still not are 
rubbish. We have looked into 1)enwp alteranative with a draft space, 2) to have 
special signals to engage editor willing to work on these, 3) to give it back 
to the user who put it into Wikipedia with text explaining what is the problem, 
4) different type of templates, 5)and have special pages where these can be 
discussed.

Some of these (and pragmatism and good mentors) help a little bit, but does not 
solve the basic issue, that users create articles (not being
rubbish) that is not allowed into our article space, which makes them very 
disappointed (angry)

Anders

Den 2016-10-11 kl. 11:58, skrev Peter Southwood:
> Competition is healthy, it can be useful to test alternatives and separate 
> out the ones that work from the ones that don’t. However I think Starlords 
> may be one that doesn’t work and may bring down the project prematurely. I 
> will watch in case they develop anything actually useful - who knows...
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of Craig Franklin
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2016 8:48 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic
>
> So what you're saying is, Vox Day has created a "safe space" where his circle 
> of friends can reinforce each other's biases without interference from the 
> outside world?  Great.
>
> Also, "Starlords".  Good grief.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 11 October 2016 at 04:13, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "INFOGALACTIC: an online encyclopedia without bias or thought police"
>>
>> Home page: http://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
>> Announcement: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/10/project-big-fork-
>> infogalactic.html
>> Roadmap: http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Roadmap
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to:
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13187 - Release Date: 
> 10/10/16
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13187 - Release Date: 10/10/16


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[Anders Wennersten]

I think this initiative point to a weakness in our approach, that is 
worth discussing, independent if just this will be anything or not.


In our version we have somewhat lower quality demand then enwp, and we 
can also be more pragmatic and handle cases individually, but still one 
of our most recurrent discussion is on how we handle articles that is 
too weak/bad/irrelevant to be allowed into our articlespace but still 
not are rubbish. We have looked into 1)enwp alteranative with a draft 
space, 2) to have special signals to engage editor willing to work on 
these, 3) to give it back to the user who put it into Wikipedia with 
text explaining what is the problem, 4) different type of templates, 
5)and have special pages where these can be discussed.


Some of these (and pragmatism and good mentors) help a little bit, but 
does not solve the basic issue, that users create articles (not being 
rubbish) that is not allowed into our article space, which makes them 
very disappointed (angry)


Anders

Den 2016-10-11 kl. 11:58, skrev Peter Southwood:

Competition is healthy, it can be useful to test alternatives and separate out 
the ones that work from the ones that don’t. However I think Starlords may be 
one that doesn’t work and may bring down the project prematurely. I will watch 
in case they develop anything actually useful - who knows...
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Craig Franklin
Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2016 8:48 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

So what you're saying is, Vox Day has created a "safe space" where his circle 
of friends can reinforce each other's biases without interference from the outside world? 
 Great.

Also, "Starlords".  Good grief.

Cheers,
Craig

On 11 October 2016 at 04:13, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:


"INFOGALACTIC: an online encyclopedia without bias or thought police"

Home page: http://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
Announcement: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/10/project-big-fork-
infogalactic.html
Roadmap: http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Roadmap


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to:
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13187 - Release Date: 10/10/16


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[Peter Southwood]

Competition is healthy, it can be useful to test alternatives and separate out 
the ones that work from the ones that don’t. However I think Starlords may be 
one that doesn’t work and may bring down the project prematurely. I will watch 
in case they develop anything actually useful - who knows... 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Craig Franklin
Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2016 8:48 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

So what you're saying is, Vox Day has created a "safe space" where his circle 
of friends can reinforce each other's biases without interference from the 
outside world?  Great.

Also, "Starlords".  Good grief.

Cheers,
Craig

On 11 October 2016 at 04:13, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "INFOGALACTIC: an online encyclopedia without bias or thought police"
>
> Home page: http://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
> Announcement: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/10/project-big-fork-
> infogalactic.html
> Roadmap: http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Roadmap
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: 
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13187 - Release Date: 10/10/16


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[Craig Franklin]

So what you're saying is, Vox Day has created a "safe space" where his
circle of friends can reinforce each other's biases without interference
from the outside world?  Great.

Also, "Starlords".  Good grief.

Cheers,
Craig

On 11 October 2016 at 04:13, David Gerard  wrote:

> "INFOGALACTIC: an online encyclopedia without bias or thought police"
>
> Home page: http://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
> Announcement: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/10/project-big-fork-
> infogalactic.html
> Roadmap: http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Roadmap
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[HaeB]

Background for some of the references in this thread (for people, such
as myself, who haven't been following this particular, peculiar corner
of the universe closely):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_Day
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Theodore_Beale

2016-10-10 11:13 GMT-07:00 David Gerard :
> "INFOGALACTIC: an online encyclopedia without bias or thought police"
>
> Home page: http://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
> Announcement: 
> http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/10/project-big-fork-infogalactic.html
> Roadmap: http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Roadmap
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[David Gerard]

On 10 October 2016 at 20:50, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:

> Ads on the horizon according to
> http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Roadmap and
> https://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Advertising


Well past that:

http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Corelords


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 2016-10-10 6:41 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
That said, "neutrality" has always been philosophically iffy for an 
encyclopedia pretty much by definition: reality takes sides. 


To clarify what I mean in relation to that fork - "objectivity" (their 
second canon) is arguably a much better ideal to aspire to than our 
"neutrality".  Things either are, or are not.  It's our human failings 
that make the ideal impossible and an attempt at neutrality the next 
best thing.


So what we did is keep the dross alongside reality, and hope that 
references and a neutral POV would suffice to set them apart for the reader.


-- Coren / Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 2016-10-10 2:13 PM, David Gerard wrote:


"INFOGALACTIC: an online encyclopedia without bias or thought police"


Why is it people unfailingly mistake "no bias" with "biases that match 
mine"?


That said, "neutrality" has always been philosophically iffy for an 
encyclopedia pretty much by definition: reality takes sides.


-- Coren / Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[John Mark Vandenberg]

Ads on the horizon according to
http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Roadmap and
https://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Advertising

forks are hard... lots of bugs on
https://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Bug_list_for_editors

My first Special:Random result was ... a connection timeout, reloaded
ok https://infogalactic.com/info/Reza_Mansouri

Special:Random again, and another connection timeout, reloading ok
https://infogalactic.com/info/Feature_integration_theory

After 10+ successful Special:Random, I get another connection timeout,
reloading ok https://infogalactic.com/info/Vasiliki_Papazoglou

Here is one to watch:

https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Gamergate_controversy=history

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:13 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> "INFOGALACTIC: an online encyclopedia without bias or thought police"
>
> Home page: http://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
> Announcement: 
> http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/10/project-big-fork-infogalactic.html
> Roadmap: http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Roadmap
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[Tanel Pern]

Now, if only he could just go and also found his own damn Sci-Fi award,
that would be just great :)

2016-10-10 21:13 GMT+03:00 David Gerard :

> "INFOGALACTIC: an online encyclopedia without bias or thought police"
>
> Home page: http://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
> Announcement: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/10/project-big-fork-
> infogalactic.html
> Roadmap: http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Roadmap
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[David Gerard]

"No, it's not. My designs always work. See: multibutton mice."

http://voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/project-big-fork-infogalactic.html#c2393769086409813649

On 10 October 2016 at 20:18, Asaf Bartov  wrote:
> "Starlords".
>
> okay.
>
> A.
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 9:35 PM geni  wrote:
>
>> S
>>
>> On 10 October 2016 at 19:13, David Gerard  wrote:
>> > "INFOGALACTIC: an online encyclopedia without bias or thought police"
>> >
>> > Home page: http://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
>> > Announcement:
>> http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/10/project-big-fork-infogalactic.html
>> > Roadmap: http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Roadmap
>> >
>> >
>> > - d.
>>
>> So the neoreactionaries have their wiki just like the more traditional
>> far right have Metapedia.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> geni
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[Asaf Bartov]

"Starlords".

okay.

A.

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 9:35 PM geni  wrote:

> S
>
> On 10 October 2016 at 19:13, David Gerard  wrote:
> > "INFOGALACTIC: an online encyclopedia without bias or thought police"
> >
> > Home page: http://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
> > Announcement:
> http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/10/project-big-fork-infogalactic.html
> > Roadmap: http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Roadmap
> >
> >
> > - d.
>
> So the neoreactionaries have their wiki just like the more traditional
> far right have Metapedia.
>
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[geni]

S

On 10 October 2016 at 19:13, David Gerard  wrote:
> "INFOGALACTIC: an online encyclopedia without bias or thought police"
>
> Home page: http://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
> Announcement: 
> http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/10/project-big-fork-infogalactic.html
> Roadmap: http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Roadmap
>
>
> - d.

So the neoreactionaries have their wiki just like the more traditional
far right have Metapedia.



-- 
geni

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

[David Gerard]

"INFOGALACTIC: an online encyclopedia without bias or thought police"

Home page: http://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
Announcement: 
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/10/project-big-fork-infogalactic.html
Roadmap: http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Roadmap


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,