Wikipedia competitors, was 'What is Encyc?' Options

[powercorrupts]

The thing that makes Wikipedia is being listed high on Google. This will also be what breaks it.

I agree with the "makes it" part.

It's hard to visualize how that will change though. Nor should it.


tim

Google, Amazon... all these huge companies are trying to compete with each other on whatever ground they can. They'll be seen as techno brands like Apple, Sony etc - if they are not already. Jimbo will never make the transition into a singular entity because the thing underneath him is too shit to support him. It's hard to visualize for sure, but something (ie progress) will happen in the wiki market. You look at Wikipedia and what do you see. I don't see progress or even stability myself.

[Ottava]

For some reason, a gentleman from Scholarpedia made his way into the IRC Wiki room. I had a long discussion basically on the same topic. It appears that Scholarpedia is finally going to expand.

However, I never liked their model. I explained that I felt that it was better for both students and researchers to have an encyclopedia with constant footnoting so people can find out what each sentence is relying on so that the secondary sources (i.e. the criticism/scholarship) can be directly looked up if necessary. It is hard to find out what is the original thought and what is the scholarship in the old "Britannica" model (i.e. occasional references but the scholar basically giving something that could be off the top of their head.

He did say that there would be on expert in charge of each page. I don't know how I feel about it. Yes, I think that editing should be limited but mostly to preserve a standard "great" version of the page instead of having drive by non-experts randomly alter things. However, there seems to be some problems in just having one person, as they tend to put their own views above a summation of the scholarship.





But lets be honest, I pretty much believe that a perfect encyclopedia would be me and people copy editing for me on demand. ;/

[Detective]

I agree with the "makes it" part.

It's hard to visualize how that will change though. Nor should it.


tim

Why shouldn't it change? It's down to the way WP manipulates the Google search algorithm. Many articles have huge numbers of inward links (providing Google juice) which are just internal links within WP or cross-WMF. If Google could find a way to discount such links, it would make a big difference. And Google also favours articles that get amended frequently, which is the exact opposite of what you want in most types of reference articles. Get an edit war over some idiotic point in an obscure article and - up it shoots in the Google rankings.

But lets be honest, I pretty much believe that a perfect encyclopedia would be me and people copy editing for me on demand. ;/

Apart from the missing apostrophe, I think that deserves full marks.

[Michaeldsuarez]

I'm posting this in the general area because I want some thoughts. What are the other Wikis like Encyc, Citizendium, Wikipedia Review, etc? I don't want to know "____ was created in ____" but more of the general views. What are the positives? The negatives? We talk about these competitors in piecemeal, but never anything as a whole.

I would like a mixture of responses from personal experience on the different ones. Is there an actual "rival" to Wikipedia? Are they all isolated and too small to amount to much? Or are they fringe, angry people like Conservapedia? Can any be trusted? Do they have the same problems as Wikipedia?

http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Ottava

Ottava, what's your opinion of Conservapedia so far?

[Ottava]

I'm posting this in the general area because I want some thoughts. What are the other Wikis like Encyc, Citizendium, Wikipedia Review, etc? I don't want to know "____ was created in ____" but more of the general views. What are the positives? The negatives? We talk about these competitors in piecemeal, but never anything as a whole.

I would like a mixture of responses from personal experience on the different ones. Is there an actual "rival" to Wikipedia? Are they all isolated and too small to amount to much? Or are they fringe, angry people like Conservapedia? Can any be trusted? Do they have the same problems as Wikipedia?

http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Ottava

Ottava, what's your opinion of Conservapedia so far?

I'm not sure yet. I'm waiting for when I get banned over defending an allegorical interpretation of the Bible.

[Emperor]

Hello Ottava and thanks for your interest. I tried to respond by PM but it seems you have it disabled.

I'm trying not to post anymore to WR, but if you have any questions I'd be glad to answer them anywhere else.

[Ottava]

Hello Ottava and thanks for your interest. I tried to respond by PM but it seems you have it disabled.

I'm trying not to post anymore to WR, but if you have any questions I'd be glad to answer them anywhere else.

I don't have it disabled. Somey has it disabled. It is part of my caged animal treatment.


My email should be easy enough to find if you look for my name or ask about. You can always feel free.

[communicat]

There will never be the potential for any actual "rival" to Wikipedia, except in the unlikely event of Google dropping the key Google algorithm that currently elevates Wikipedia to the highest stature in search visibility. Without Google, Wikipedia would achieve only a fraction of its reach; and the rapid ascent of WP would be vastly less "impressive".

[gomi]

There will never be the potential for any actual "rival" to Wikipedia, ...

I disagree. We would have said the same thing about Alta Vista before Google appeared. We might have said the same thing about MySpace before Facebook appeared.

[Jagärdu]

There will never be the potential for any actual "rival" to Wikipedia, ...

I disagree. We would have said the same thing about Alta Vista before Google appeared. We might have said the same thing about MySpace before Facebook appeared.

The difference here is 10 years of building content. For a viable competitor to even have a fighting chance they would have to innovate significantly and convince people that their innovation makes them better than the established alternative. Now I know you're thinking, duh ... but the point is that it's not all that easy to do, especially when we're talking about an encyclopedia. No amount of computer programming genius or social relations savvy is going to enable such innovation. So where would it come from? How do you improve on the Wikipedia model in a way that will actually get people to work for you, for free?

This post has been edited by Jagärdu: Mon 19th September 2011, 12:15pm

[thekohser]

How do you improve on the Wikipedia model in a way that will actually get people to work for you, for free?

By paying the 100 best editors about $8,000 per year?

[EricBarbour]

How do you improve on the Wikipedia model in a way that will actually get people to work for you, for free?

By paying the 100 best editors about $8,000 per year?

By letting them write 1,361 articles about the Transformers franchise?

[Guido den Broeder]

How do you improve on the Wikipedia model in a way that will actually get people to work for you, for free?

Like so?

[GlassBeadGame]

How do you improve on the Wikipedia model in a way that will actually get people to work for you, for free?

Like so?

I have always noticed that wikis seem much improved whenever they are in a language I cannot understand. Then I realized why not have a wiki in a language nobody understands? Have the text hashed upon submitting. Mask the content. Name the contributor. Wikipedia would still be that big refrigerator your mom puts your "valuable creaton" on with big colorful magnets. Nobody could fight about anything anymmore. I don't suppose anyone has actually used Wikipedia as information source in years. It's all good.

[Detective]

Then I realized why not have a wiki in a language nobody understands?

They're working on it. Large parts of Wikipedia, especially the non-article spaces, are already in a language that not many people can understand. (Consensus and civility, anyone?)

And of course there's always the hilarious Volapuk Wikipedia, which I'm sure that even Father Schleyer, the inventor of the language, couldn't follow, as they seem to make up the vocabulary as they go along.