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
>
edia.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
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
day, 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.
Bu
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
] 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
ikimedia-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, indepe
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
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 t
...
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
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:
>
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
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
-
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
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
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
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
>
"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
"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:
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:
"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.
21 matches
Mail list logo