Alternatives to Wikipedia, Competitors to the beast Options Rating

[DawnofMan]

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:

[John Limey]

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 above

There 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]

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 above

There 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]

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 above

There 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]

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 above

There 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.

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]

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 above

There 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.

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]

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.

[dogbiscuit]

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.

Perhaps that sums up the problem: that people think that NPOV and RS are fundamental concepts. The fundamental concepts of an encyclopedia are surely far more basic, including trustworthiness and accuracy.

The interesting thing about Reliable Sourcest is how the policy has been distorted so that the Wikipedian version of reliable sources can be and has been moved far away from any real world definition - which rather suggests that it is not a fundamental concept.

It is an issue that has often been discussed: Wikipedians don't seem to realise that Wikipedian policies are not grounded in - for want of a better phrase - encyclopedia theory, but were evolved by interested parties who took control of policy statements to advance personal agendas on what encyclopedias should be about in their opinion. Take a look at policy discussions and you'll see a lot of evidence of how these policy discussions are not informed by the desire to evolve better articles, but are usually triggered by disputes.

If Wikipedia policy were grounded in real world concepts, then you might have a case, but trying to argue that you can only criticise Wikipedia from within its own distorted reality is fundamentally wrong.

[Straightforward]

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.

Perhaps that sums up the problem: that people think that NPOV and RS are fundamental concepts. The fundamental concepts of an encyclopedia are surely far more basic, including trustworthiness and accuracy.

The interesting thing about Reliable Sourcest is how the policy has been distorted so that the Wikipedian version of reliable sources can be and has been moved far away from any real world definition - which rather suggests that it is not a fundamental concept.

It is an issue that has often been discussed: Wikipedians don't seem to realise that Wikipedian policies are not grounded in - for want of a better phrase - encyclopedia theory, but were evolved by interested parties who took control of policy statements to advance personal agendas on what encyclopedias should be about in their opinion. Take a look at policy discussions and you'll see a lot of evidence of how these policy discussions are not informed by the desire to evolve better articles, but are usually triggered by disputes.

If Wikipedia policy were grounded in real world concepts, then you might have a case, but trying to argue that you can only criticise Wikipedia from within its own distorted reality is fundamentally wrong.

I quite agree that trustworthiness and accuracy are the things to aim for. But how do you achieve these targets? In writing a biography of a recently deceased and controversial figure do you get it by asking a close friend to write it and allow him to cite "personal information" (the Dictionary of National Biography approach)? Michael Foot will no doubt get an entry there in due course. Had his nephew Paul not unfortunately died already, would he have been asked? Maybe Tony Benn will write it.

No, surely the better approach is to insist that information is cited from trustworthy sources and from a range of sources to avoid the bias of citing only favourable or only unfavourable material. That is the essence of RS and NPOV. No, I don't like some of what is in WP:RS as it now stands. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the principle of asking for reliable sources. It means there is something wrong with the governance of the place that allows things to be twisted.

I don't believe that I am only seeing WP's twisted version of reality. Nobody could call me a Jimbo acolyte.

[Milton Roe]

No, surely the better approach is to insist that information is cited from trustworthy sources and from a range of sources to avoid the bias of citing only favourable or only unfavourable material. That is the essence of RS and NPOV. No, I don't like some of what is in WP:RS as it now stands. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the principle of asking for reliable sources. It means there is something wrong with the governance of the place that allows things to be twisted.

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.

The problem is that there's a lot of "folk knowledge" out there that is wrong. It gets repeated in newspapers and even textbooks, an expert in the field would be unlikely to pass it on. Your high school teacher might tell you that mass is converted to energy in nuclear reactions, but a physicist who specializes in relativity would not. You could read in a pop sci magazing that helium raises the pitch of your voice, and be given 3 reason why, all of them wrong (since it doesn't). A nutrition textbook might natter about how energy is "stored" in the chemical bonds of your food, but an actual chemist would tell you energy cannot be stored in chemical bonds; it always TAKES energy to break them (they store negative energy, like a credit card balance stores negative money). And so on. So where the hell is that energy stored? Your quiz for today.

Jimbo once opined that if a fact is true, it ought to be easy to find a citation for it. Alas, no good logic thereby supports the idea that if a factoid is false that it is hard to find a citation for it. On the contrary, myths are rampant and they multiply in proportion to how plausable they sound. And are repeated in publications the same way. Encyclopedias written by experts ignore this stuff. An encyclopedia written by the general public really has no way to do so. So they fight. Occassionally somebody has the bright idea to bring in an expert to settle a matter, but since everybody is anonymous, that doesn't work either. So they fight some more until one side is exhausted, and there it stays. Eventually some expert stumbles upon the matter again and the fight starts over. This goes on perpetually. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

How many people shot JFK? How do you know?

How much vitamin C do you need for optimal health? How do you know?

[dogbiscuit]

Jimbo once opined that if a fact is true, it ought to be easy to find a citation for it. Alas, no good logic thereby supports the idea that if a factoid is false that it is hard to find a citation for it. On the contrary, myths are rampant and they multiply in proportion to how plausable they sound.

I think that's a keeper.

[Moulton]

Jimbo once opined that if a fact is true, it ought to be easy to find a citation for it. Alas, no good logic thereby supports the idea that if a factoid is false that it is hard to find a citation for it. On the contrary, myths are rampant and they multiply in proportion to how plausible they sound.

I think that's a keeper.

So do I.

Milton went on to give some obscure examples of myths and misconceptions (mostly form the worlds of physics and chemistry), but I think it's more interesting to explore the large and more momentous myths and misconceptions that pervade our culture and which substantially distort our policies and practices from ethical best practices.

One of my favorite educational exercises is to challenge students to come up with their own list of the biggest and most important myths and misconceptions currently in wide circulation today, and elaborate on the importance each of them.