|
Alternatives to Wikipedia, Competitors to the beast |
|
|
DawnofMan |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 8
Joined:
Member No.: 17,885
|
I've been wandering the internet wasteland in search of alternatives to Wikipedia. Here's what I've found so far:
Brittanica: follows the traditional model of an encyclopedia written by experts, although it does allow some input allowed from readers. Seems to be failing slowly and falling behind more open models.
[Encyc]: is a tiny effort that is even more dysfunctional and anti-social than Wikipedia.
Neturalpedia: a start-up narrowly focused focused on criticisms of mainstream climate coverage including Wikipedia's cabal driven effort.
Wikinfo: a more open community allowing original research, attribution, articles critical of subjects, and creative writing and research. The most successful alternative I've come across so far although most of its content seems to consist of copies of Wikipedia articles. I don't really understand how that part of its content is useful. Created and governed in large part by Fred Bauder who is an admin in good standing on Wikipedia? More information on this forking of the Wikipedia effort and its founder would be interesting.
Encyclopedia Dramatica, a sarcasm and humor site.
Uncyclopedia, an "unencyclopedia" site that provides an opposite day type alternate universe to Wikipedia where deleted articles, irrelevancies, and the inappropriate are the focus.
Wikademia: a Wikiversity alternative? Not really an encyclopedia.
What have others found?
This post has been edited by DawnofMan:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies
John Limey |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 387
Joined:
Member No.: 12,473
|
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:14pm) QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Wed 17th March 2010, 8:47pm) QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:41pm) People willing to spend countless amounts of time "building an encyclopedia" are in some sense aberrant and deformed.
I'm sure the people behind Britannica, World Book, and Encarta might disagree. Then again they got paid. Emphasis added aboveThere you go. Then again, many projects have not paid their contributors. None of the contributors to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, a resource of unsurpassed quality, were paid. Generally speaking, contributors to various specialized Encyclopedia of X variants are not paid either. They are experts who work as part of the general enterprise of academia or to spread knowledge or to advance their careers. This post has been edited by John Limey:
|
|
|
|
Straightforward |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 17
Joined:
Member No.: 18,049
|
QUOTE(John Limey @ Thu 18th March 2010, 4:51pm) QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:14pm) QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Wed 17th March 2010, 8:47pm) QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:41pm) People willing to spend countless amounts of time "building an encyclopedia" are in some sense aberrant and deformed.
I'm sure the people behind Britannica, World Book, and Encarta might disagree. Then again they got paid. Emphasis added aboveThere you go. Then again, many projects have not paid their contributors. None of the contributors to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, a resource of unsurpassed quality, were paid. Generally speaking, contributors to various specialized Encyclopedia of X variants are not paid either. They are experts who work as part of the general enterprise of academia or to spread knowledge or to advance their careers. It is interesting to compare the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and its predecessor the Dictionary of National Biography, with Wikipedia. In both of them the articles on recently deceased people were frequently written by their relatives or friends. Even if not, there are often references to unpublished information obtained from relatives. This would of course not be allowed on Wikipedia under WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. I have heard the author of an article on ODNB, a professional historian, criticise the article on DNB that he replaced (written by a friend of the subject) as "a complete white-wash". I recently wrote to the ODNB pointing out differences between one of their articles and what was said in obituaries. They have referred it to the article author. I have no way of knowing what "the truth" is in this case or if it even exists, but the ODNB is not infallible. While I have no doubt that the great majority of articles on the ODNB are of high standard, it is at least possible that in a few cases WP will be better.
|
|
|
|
GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(Straightforward @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 6:54am) QUOTE(John Limey @ Thu 18th March 2010, 4:51pm) QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:14pm) QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Wed 17th March 2010, 8:47pm) QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:41pm) People willing to spend countless amounts of time "building an encyclopedia" are in some sense aberrant and deformed.
I'm sure the people behind Britannica, World Book, and Encarta might disagree. Then again they got paid. Emphasis added aboveThere you go. Then again, many projects have not paid their contributors. None of the contributors to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, a resource of unsurpassed quality, were paid. Generally speaking, contributors to various specialized Encyclopedia of X variants are not paid either. They are experts who work as part of the general enterprise of academia or to spread knowledge or to advance their careers. It is interesting to compare the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and its predecessor the Dictionary of National Biography, with Wikipedia. In both of them the articles on recently deceased people were frequently written by their relatives or friends. Even if not, there are often references to unpublished information obtained from relatives. This would of course not be allowed on Wikipedia under WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. I have heard the author of an article on ODNB, a professional historian, criticise the article on DNB that he replaced (written by a friend of the subject) as "a complete white-wash". I recently wrote to the ODNB pointing out differences between one of their articles and what was said in obituaries. They have referred it to the article author. I have no way of knowing what "the truth" is in this case or if it even exists, but the ODNB is not infallible. While I have no doubt that the great majority of articles on the ODNB are of high standard, it is at least possible that in a few cases WP will be better. If by better you mean they include drive by vandalism, baseless statements concerning the person's sexuality, images including genitalia "for comparison" and a detailed listing of any reference on Family Guy, The Simpsons and Futurmara I susppose.
|
|
|
|
Straightforward |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 17
Joined:
Member No.: 18,049
|
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 1:01pm) QUOTE(Straightforward @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 6:54am) QUOTE(John Limey @ Thu 18th March 2010, 4:51pm) QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:14pm) QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Wed 17th March 2010, 8:47pm) QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:41pm) People willing to spend countless amounts of time "building an encyclopedia" are in some sense aberrant and deformed.
I'm sure the people behind Britannica, World Book, and Encarta might disagree. Then again they got paid. Emphasis added aboveThere you go. Then again, many projects have not paid their contributors. None of the contributors to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, a resource of unsurpassed quality, were paid. Generally speaking, contributors to various specialized Encyclopedia of X variants are not paid either. They are experts who work as part of the general enterprise of academia or to spread knowledge or to advance their careers. It is interesting to compare the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and its predecessor the Dictionary of National Biography, with Wikipedia. In both of them the articles on recently deceased people were frequently written by their relatives or friends. Even if not, there are often references to unpublished information obtained from relatives. This would of course not be allowed on Wikipedia under WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. I have heard the author of an article on ODNB, a professional historian, criticise the article on DNB that he replaced (written by a friend of the subject) as "a complete white-wash". I recently wrote to the ODNB pointing out differences between one of their articles and what was said in obituaries. They have referred it to the article author. I have no way of knowing what "the truth" is in this case or if it even exists, but the ODNB is not infallible. While I have no doubt that the great majority of articles on the ODNB are of high standard, it is at least possible that in a few cases WP will be better. If by better you mean they include drive by vandalism, baseless statements concerning the person's sexuality, images including genitalia "for comparison" and a detailed listing of any reference on Family Guy, The Simpsons and Futurmara I susppose. Come off it! I'm not an idiot and I'm well aware of the problems there are on WP and how even a good article can be damaged by vandals or silly editors. However, nor am I of the mindset that everything on WP is bad, even the good bits, and that anything else must be better. There are plenty of good biographies on WP, with no baseless statements concerning the person's sexuality, genitalia or Family Guy. Further, although ODNB is undoubtedly an excellent source it is far from perfect, especially for recently deceased people where often the article displays a distinct POV. Failure to recognise these points makes it difficult to criticise WP when it is bad, which is certainly fairly often. Also, WP has plenty of articles on people who are notable and interesting yet have no ODNB articles. Conversely, I am surprised how many people have ODNB articles but no WP ones. Not that I'd say that on WP or people will just shout {{sofixit}}. The old DNB was even worse; it didn't even have an article on Stan Laurel. The ODNB plugged a lot of the more obvious holes. It also added articles on many women. Some would say that's because the DNB editors were male chauvinists who overlooked these women; others would suggest the ODNB is bending over backwards to be politically correct and have as many women as possible. My belief is that both these statements are true. QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 2:11pm) QUOTE(Straightforward @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 7:54am) This would of course not be allowed on Wikipedia under WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V.
RFLMAO! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Surely if you are going to try to criticize Wikipedia you have to use these terms. They're pretty fundamental to the way the place works or at least is supposed to work. I should have added WP:COI of course.
|
|
|
|
GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(Straightforward @ Tue 23rd March 2010, 6:48am) QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 1:01pm) QUOTE(Straightforward @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 6:54am) QUOTE(John Limey @ Thu 18th March 2010, 4:51pm) QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:14pm) QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Wed 17th March 2010, 8:47pm) QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 18th March 2010, 1:41pm) People willing to spend countless amounts of time "building an encyclopedia" are in some sense aberrant and deformed.
I'm sure the people behind Britannica, World Book, and Encarta might disagree. Then again they got paid. Emphasis added aboveThere you go. Then again, many projects have not paid their contributors. None of the contributors to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, a resource of unsurpassed quality, were paid. Generally speaking, contributors to various specialized Encyclopedia of X variants are not paid either. They are experts who work as part of the general enterprise of academia or to spread knowledge or to advance their careers. It is interesting to compare the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and its predecessor the Dictionary of National Biography, with Wikipedia. In both of them the articles on recently deceased people were frequently written by their relatives or friends. Even if not, there are often references to unpublished information obtained from relatives. This would of course not be allowed on Wikipedia under WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. I have heard the author of an article on ODNB, a professional historian, criticise the article on DNB that he replaced (written by a friend of the subject) as "a complete white-wash". I recently wrote to the ODNB pointing out differences between one of their articles and what was said in obituaries. They have referred it to the article author. I have no way of knowing what "the truth" is in this case or if it even exists, but the ODNB is not infallible. While I have no doubt that the great majority of articles on the ODNB are of high standard, it is at least possible that in a few cases WP will be better. If by better you mean they include drive by vandalism, baseless statements concerning the person's sexuality, images including genitalia "for comparison" and a detailed listing of any reference on Family Guy, The Simpsons and Futurmara I susppose. Come off it! I'm not an idiot and I'm well aware of the problems there are on WP and how even a good article can be damaged by vandals or silly editors. However, nor am I of the mindset that everything on WP is bad, even the good bits, and that anything else must be better. There are plenty of good biographies on WP, with no baseless statements concerning the person's sexuality, genitalia or Family Guy. Further, although ODNB is undoubtedly an excellent source it is far from perfect, especially for recently deceased people where often the article displays a distinct POV. Failure to recognise these points makes it difficult to criticise WP when it is bad, which is certainly fairly often. Also, WP has plenty of articles on people who are notable and interesting yet have no ODNB articles. Conversely, I am surprised how many people have ODNB articles but no WP ones. Not that I'd say that on WP or people will just shout {{sofixit}}. The old DNB was even worse; it didn't even have an article on Stan Laurel. The ODNB plugged a lot of the more obvious holes. It also added articles on many women. Some would say that's because the DNB editors were male chauvinists who overlooked these women; others would suggest the ODNB is bending over backwards to be politically correct and have as many women as possible. My belief is that both these statements are true. QUOTE(NotARepublican55 @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 2:11pm) QUOTE(Straightforward @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 7:54am) This would of course not be allowed on Wikipedia under WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V.
RFLMAO! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Surely if you are going to try to criticize Wikipedia you have to use these terms. They're pretty fundamental to the way the place works or at least is supposed to work. I should have added WP:COI of course. In order to criticize Wikipedia you do not need to "use" those terms at all. You need only understand that the reason that WP uses watered down and tokenized TLAs is because it is helpful for the players to manipulate concepts they do not really understand. WP is not an encyclopedia but a simulation of an encyclopedia which permits people not capable of engaging in a sustained academic activity to pretend. That is why articles on serous writers have section son Futurama and the Simpsons. The same reason Sim City might have a nuclear reactor wedged between a casino and a hospital.
|
|
|
|
Straightforward |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 17
Joined:
Member No.: 18,049
|
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 25th March 2010, 9:02pm) In order to criticize Wikipedia you do not need to "use" those terms at all. You need only understand that the reason that WP uses watered down and tokenized TLAs is because it is helpful for the players to manipulate concepts they do not really understand. WP is not an encyclopedia but a simulation of an encyclopedia which permits people not capable of engaging in a sustained academic activity to pretend. That is why articles on serous writers have section son Futurama and the Simpsons. The same reason Sim City might have a nuclear reactor wedged between a casino and a hospital.
Of course anyone can say "Wikipedia is a pile of shit" or worse without even looking at the site still less understanding how it works. I don't call that criticism. If the intention of this site is to have sensible, mature criticism of what is wrong (quite a lot) while not being blind to what is not wrong, what is even good (quite a lot) then you need to understand how it works. You need to edit and get involved in controversies and edit wars. I know that many people who do that end up getting blocked. Sometimes they even deserve it. When they don't deserve it but the blocking admin is incompetent then of course that's a good example of what's wrong with the site. And of course many editors don't really understand the fundamental concepts like NPOV and RS (neither of which of course is a TLA). Some admins don't either and that's another example of what's wrong with the site. I have a theory that candidates for RfA should have to pass a theory and practical test like a driving test.
|
|
|
|
Straightforward |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 17
Joined:
Member No.: 18,049
|
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 27th March 2010, 1:08am) Your "sensible and mature"criticism accepts the manifest premises of WP hook-line-and-sinker. You're a moron who can't tell the difference between a simulation and reality. "You need to edit and get involved in controversies and edit wars" is probably the single worst piece of advice ever given to anyone on WR.
The most important characteristic of a game is to entertain the players. There are not going to be any competency exams anywhere around WP.
Which manifest premises of WP have I accepted hook-line-and-sinker? That Jimbo is infallible? That admins always have the good of WP uppermost? That errors on WP are always corrected quickly? I could go on and on. What I do accept is that it is wrong to have extremely biased articles, or to add information without having a good source to back you up. Who here disagrees with that? I have read a lot of debate about BLPs for example where people are saying that it is wrong that articles are biased or have unsourced information. Wouldn't thee BLP situation be a lot better (I don't say cured) if people stuck rigorously to NPOV and RS? QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 27th March 2010, 6:20am) No, it means more than that, for there's something twisted in asking for the use of "reliable sources" from a group of people whose education has not equipped them to tell what a reliable source is. That's like asking a bunch of blind soldiers with machine guns to shoot straight. There's nothing wrong with the principle of asking soldiers to shoot straight per se, but when you know your soldiers are blind and incapable of it, it becomes perverse.
Please distinguish between the principle of RS and how it is implemented. i quite agree that it is sometimes implemented badly. We should focus on that not try to deride the principle.
|
|
|
|
Straightforward |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 17
Joined:
Member No.: 18,049
|
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 28th March 2010, 1:18am) How unbelievably shallow. Spend some time reading the forum. Learn to filter out the Wikipedian noise then come back.
I repeat: which manifest premises of WP have I accepted hook-line-and-sinker? QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 28th March 2010, 1:27am) This statement indicates that you've accepted the remarkable assertion that such as thing as a "neutral point of view" exists, or that Wikipedia's concept of a "reliable source" has any meaning whatsoever.
This statement indicates that you've accepted the remarkable assertion that it is pointless to make any attempt to be neutral; it is impossible to be 100% neutral but you should make the effort; and that it is also pointless to try to find reliable sources, remembering that the principle of using such sources is a very different issue from the current state of the WP:RS page. So who's for an encyclopedia that is highly partisan and biased, whose editors don't care that it is, and that relies on no verifiable sources whatsoever?
|
|
|
|
Straightforward |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 17
Joined:
Member No.: 18,049
|
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 28th March 2010, 8:14pm) Ignore my advice at your own peril. You seem to have swallowed whole the idea that WP is an "encyclopedia." From that endless delusions and conceits follow.
I have said no such thing. I have said that it has good parts and that it is in principle a good idea to aim not to be overly biased and to rely on reliable sources. That's not the same thing at all. Is it the case that in the world of WR, anyone who does not dismiss WP contemptuously as a pile of shit is labelled a fanatical Jimbo-lover who believes WP can do no wrong? I cannot fathom how you can make useful, informed criticism of WP if you are in either of those camps. Surely it would make sense to encourage people who have actively engaged in the project and have become somewhat cynical, recognising both the good and the bad. GlassBeadGame seems determined not to allow such people on this site. QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 28th March 2010, 9:05pm) Information on Encyclopædia Britannica's authors and contributors Unfortunately, the authors of every article are not listed on Britannica.com or Britannica Online. However, this information is available in the Encyclopædia Britannica print set. We suggest that you visit your local school or public library if you require the author's name. Authors are generally referred to by their initials at the ends of the articles in these resources. For instance, "E.G." would stand for "Evel Gasparini," who wrote part of the "European Religions, Ancient" article. This information would be found in the Propaedia section of the print set.
Yes, the authors are known but Britannica does not publish "identified credentials, CVs and publication records", does it? QUOTE As for bias, that's also part and parcel of what you expect in an encyclopedia, due to the fact that the articles are written by only one (or at best) a few people, and are checked by a limited number of others. But that's usually okay, as the bias can't be removed anyway (it certainly hasn't been removed from Wikipedia) and the best way to deal with it is to know the author, so you can know something about his/her biases! And correct for them.
What ought to be Wikipedia's strength (and before people shout at me again, I know as well as anyone the difference between fact and theory here) is that many people with different viewpoints can contribute to and check articles hence avoid precisely this problem. Of course, on controversial areas that leads to a lot of fighting, but I have seen many such articles emerge from the process as fair-minded and representing both sides, so the process can work. And if you know the field well enough to know the ins and outs of the views of the authors (who are rarely the top international experts in their areas) and to correct for them, why are you bothering with reading that article?
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Straightforward @ Sun 28th March 2010, 1:22pm) Is it the case that in the world of WR, anyone who does not dismiss WP contemptuously as a pile of shit is labelled a fanatical Jimbo-lover who believes WP can do no wrong? I cannot fathom how you can make useful, informed criticism of WP if you are in either of those camps. Surely it would make sense to encourage people who have actively engaged in the project and have become somewhat cynical, recognising both the good and the bad. GlassBeadGame seems determined not to allow such people on this site.
There are others of us who are in your "engaged in WP but cynical" camp, and we're still on the site. Personally I still contribute to WP, believing that its content will outlast it, and be useful till it eventually is overwriten or superceeded by some entity I cannot now imagine. But I see the seeds of something potentially good here, even if some on this site do not. They see Kudzu and cancer. I have an Emersonian optimism: "...striving to be man, the worm/Mounts through all the spires of form.." And all that. Please see my skeptic's credo regarding editing Wikipedia: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18620
|
|
|
|
Posts in this topic
DawnofMan Alternatives to Wikipedia thekohser
What have others found?
I've found that you... MZMcBride Just who are you?
http://img715.imageshack.us/img7... DawnofMan Why have only one option for an online encyclopedi... thekohser
Why have only one option for an online encycloped... Sarcasticidealist Anti-social tendencies? How'd I get these 322... Eva Destruction
As far as Wikipedia Review, it's focused on a... GlassBeadGame
As far as Wikipedia Review, it's focused on ... NuclearWarfare Speaking of which, anyone seen the new Alice yet?
... Milton Roe
[quote name='MZMcBride' post='226316' date='Tue 1... GlassBeadGame
What have others found?
The alternative to Wik... Emperor It seems to me that Encyc functioned just fine in ... Eva Destruction I hear Wipipedia is very good. Lots of interesting... DawnofMan I'm not discouraged by the responses here :) a... thekohser
Gregory, I'm not sure how to answer your ques... anthony
What have others found?
Well, the first rule of... John Limey The alternative to Wikipedia is not one site but s... WikiWatch
Commercially, there are also several competitors ... GlassBeadGame
The alternative to Wikipedia is not one site but ... DawnofMan That's an interesting list Limey, and I know t... anthony
Who wants to put up with the bullshit on Wikipedi... DawnofMan
Who wants to put up with the bullshit on Wikiped... Cock-up-over-conspiracy If I had any idea how to do anything with websites... Moulton In terms of alternatives to WP, don't overlook... NotARepublican55 Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of W... anthony
Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of ... NotARepublican55
Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of... anthony
[quote name='anthony' post='226664' date='Wed 17t... John Limey
Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of ... anthony
[quote name='NotARepublican55' post='226662' date... WikiWatch
You're really much better off starting from s... Jon Awbrey
Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of ... GlassBeadGame
Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of... WikiWatch
People willing to spend countless amounts of time... GlassBeadGame
[quote name='GlassBeadGame' post='226680' date='T... Cock-up-over-conspiracy The theory that Wikipedia has good content but bad... GlassBeadGame
The theory that Wikipedia has good content but ba... Moulton The articles in traditional encyclopedias are writ... John Limey
If the content on Wikipedia is good enough to ju... thekohser
They are experts who work as part of the general ... GlassBeadGame
[quote name='GlassBeadGame' post='226728' date='T... thekohser
Come off it! I'm not an idiot and I... thekohser
Come off it! I'm not an idiot and I... thekohser
[quote name='thekohser' post='227710' date='Tue 2... thekohser
[quote name='thekohser' post='227710' date='Tue 2... Somey Bumping this. I may have missed it, but Straightf... thekohser
Bumping this. I may have missed it, but Straight... Somey Somey, could you remind me again why we don't ... WikiWatch
But it should never reach that point, and you... timbo
I'd like to see the discussion return to the ... Guido den Broeder
[quote name='Straightforward' post='227678' date=... Cock-up-over-conspiracy Of course anyone can say "Wikipedia is a pile... dogbiscuit
And of course many editors don't really under... Straightforward
[quote name='Straightforward' post='228486' date=... Milton Roe
No, surely the better approach is to insist that ... Cock-up-over-conspiracy No, it means more than that, for there's somet... WikiWatch
No, it means more than that, for there's some... Cock-up-over-conspiracy As long as Google has a relationship with wikipedi... dogbiscuit
Jimbo once opined that if a fact is true, it ough... Moulton Jimbo once opined that if a fact is true, it ought... CharlotteWebb
How many people shot JFK? How do you know?
htt... Straightforward
There are others of us who are in your "eng... Kelly Martin Wouldn't thee BLP situation be a lot better (I... Milton Roe
No, it means more than that, for there's som... Straightforward
The PRINCIPLE per se is the principle behind acad... CharlotteWebb
Hmm, lukewarm support for my position. But why o... Straightforward
Hmm, lukewarm support for my position. But why ... Milton Roe
[quote name='Milton Roe' post='228726' date='Sun ... anthony
It is true that Britannica doesn't reference ... NotARepublican55
This would of course not be allowed on Wikipedia ... John Limey
The theory that Wikipedia has good content but b... Tarc Wikipedia alternatives? There's always encyc.... Emperor
Wikipedia alternatives? There's always encyc... Moulton Well, I too had a silly notion that Wikipedians sh... Moulton My favorite alternative to Wikipedia is the monste... Moulton WikiCulture doesn't work for me.
Then again, ... Text
Wikipedia
Has all of the search engine reach
Pos... Emperor
Wikipedia
Has all of the search engine reach
Po... Text
Any blog or forum could also be a very good alte... Text Adding coal to the bonfire: there should be more p... gomi Adding coal to the bonfire: there should be more p... thekohser
Adding coal to the bonfire: there should be more ... Text That means that in substance, Wikipedia has only c... WikiWatch
That means that in substance, Wikipedia has only ... Cock-up-over-conspiracy Jimmy has an the interest in keeping the boom town... lilburne I dug out an old CD copy of Britannica (1999) the ... Emperor
I dug out an old CD copy of Britannica (1999) the...
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |