Alternatives to Wikipedia, Competitors to the beast Options Rating

[Straightforward]

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

Well Milton, we seem to agree far more than we disagree! I hope that we can continue to discuss things in a civilised manner.


This post has been edited by Straightforward: Sun 28th March 2010, 8:49pm

[anthony]

It is true that Britannica doesn't reference every statement like a research paper would. We're supposed to trust the experts who write the articles to write them like that, then remove the reference notes so we don't have to look at them (some further reading is given at the ends of articles if you want more). Ironically, this is part of what makes an "encyclopedia" different from a review paper in a refereed journal. WP wants to be an "encyclopedia" but due to its lack of expert identifiable authorship, it's forced to have the semi-look-and-feel of a journal review article. Strangely, this hasn't been pointed out very much (I don't remember anybody commenting on it, at least).

That's an awesome observation. I wish someone had pointed that out when Wikinews decided not to include inline references ("because that's not how traditional news articles are written").

[thekohser]

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.

Straightforward, hear hear!

Now, could you please guide us on whether this person is a vandal or a silly editor?

Or, are you of the opinion that he wasn't "damaging" the article?

You didn't answer my simple question, Straightforward. Once you can demonstrate your ability to engage on the simple questions, I will proceed on to the more complex questions.

Bumping this. I may have missed it, but Straightforward still hasn't answered this. Is because he's Poetlister? By the way, I got a couple of e-mails from Poetlister this weekend. It seems he's sad that I haven't supported him more.

[Somey]

Bumping this. I may have missed it, but Straightforward still hasn't answered this. Is because he's Poetlister?

He is, indeed, Poetlister. However, it's conceivable that he could have other reasons for not answering, like adenoids or painful genital warts.

Anyway, just because you were right this time doesn't mean we wouldn't prefer it if you'd bring these suspicions of yours to us more privately in future...

By the way, I got a couple of e-mails from Poetlister this weekend. It seems he's sad that I haven't supported him more.

Well, it's not his fault, is it? (Whatever it is.)

[thekohser]

Bumping this. I may have missed it, but Straightforward still hasn't answered this. Is because he's Poetlister?

He is, indeed, Poetlister. However, it's conceivable that he could have other reasons for not answering, like adenoids or painful genital warts.

Anyway, just because you were right this time doesn't mean we wouldn't prefer it if you'd bring these suspicions of yours to us more privately in future...

By the way, I got a couple of e-mails from Poetlister this weekend. It seems he's sad that I haven't supported him more.

Well, it's not his fault, is it? (Whatever it is.)

Somey, could you remind me again why we don't want to publicly embarrass MB as he continues to manipulate this board and waste our time? Is it that you want to be able to monitor his activity, so that you might get more skilled at understanding his IP techniques? If that's the case, I can probably comply with that. However, I have to say it did feel good to finally nail one on the head.

Dark chocolate bunnies are on me today!

[Somey]

Somey, could you remind me again why we don't want to publicly embarrass MB as he continues to manipulate this board and waste our time?

Personally, I see no need to embarrass him any more than he has been already, but to be honest, I hadn't been reading this thread until recently. I keep getting caught up in... other stuff.

I'll have to set up a search in the ACP for this pattern of behavior (i.e., recently joined, lots of posts, few discrete threads). That, or write my own IP checker, though I'd obviously rather not have to go to that extent.

However, I have to say it did feel good to finally nail one on the head.

I figure you'll probably be right about 40 percent of the time based on the specific attitude towards you (and MWB, etc.) alone, and if you make the effort to be more discerning you'll be right anywhere from 60 to 80 percent of the time. But it should never reach that point, and you're right in that it's a waste of your time and everyone else's (though I do think this particular thread has a lot of useful/insightful stuff in it, at least).

Anyway, I just have to be more on top of things.

[A User]

But it should never reach that point, and you're right in that it's a waste of your time and everyone else's (though I do think this particular thread has a lot of useful/insightful stuff in it, at least).

Anyway, I just have to be more on top of things.

I'd like to see the discussion return to the original post - alternatives to wikipedia. List alternatives to wikipedia with their pros and cons.

[timbo]

I'd like to see the discussion return to the original post - alternatives to wikipedia. List alternatives to wikipedia with their pros and cons.

I like Wikipedia. That works for me.

t

[Moulton]

WikiCulture doesn't work for me.

Then again, I also find Mafia Wars boring, too.

[Text]

I'd like to see the discussion return to the original post - alternatives to wikipedia. List alternatives to wikipedia with their pros and cons.

Wikipedia
Has all of the search engine reach
Posters can't control their things
Everyone is anonymous or pseudonymous
The president of the site tends to lie a lot

Wikipedia Review
Has a decent search engine reach
Posters have very good control on their things
People generally use their real name, and the founder is known and has good credentials for the project
The founder looks honest so far

Everything2
Has a decent search engine reach because it has been online since 1999
Posters control what they write, and can only modify their own stuff
Everyone can be anonymous or pseudonymous, and the founder's name and credentials are known
No comments on the founder

Encyc
Has poor search engine reach so far
Posters can control their things somewhat
Most contributors are anonymous or pseudonymous, including the founder
No comments on the founder

[Emperor]

I'd like to see the discussion return to the original post - alternatives to wikipedia. List alternatives to wikipedia with their pros and cons.

Wikipedia
Has all of the search engine reach
Posters can't control their things
Everyone is anonymous or pseudonymous
The president of the site tends to lie a lot

Wikipedia Review
Has a decent search engine reach
Posters have very good control on their things
People generally use their real name, and the founder is known and has good credentials for the project
The founder looks honest so far

Everything2
Has a decent search engine reach because it has been online since 1999
Posters control what they write, and can only modify their own stuff
Everyone can be anonymous or pseudonymous, and the founder's name and credentials are known
No comments on the founder

Encyc
Has poor search engine reach so far
Posters can control their things somewhat
Most contributors are anonymous or pseudonymous, including the founder
No comments on the founder

Thank you for including Encyc in the Big Four. One correction about Wikipedia, though. Some people there are using their real names.

I'd also add Citizendium (complicated rules), Wikinfo (not sure how it's doing), and Conservapedia (active but ideologically narrow).

A good Wikiversity alternative is Wikademia.

[Text]

Thank you for including Encyc in the Big Four. One correction about Wikipedia, though. Some people there are using their real names.

I'd also add Citizendium (complicated rules), Wikinfo (not sure how it's doing), and Conservapedia (active but ideologically narrow).

A good Wikiversity alternative is Wikademia.

Any blog or forum could also be a very good alternative. They're all instruments for communication, first and foremost.

[Text]

Adding coal to the bonfire: there should be more people here telling their stories about Usenet, Compuserve and similar services which were in use between 1985 and 2000. Few people here, and around the planet in general, can share their experiences about those systems.

[gomi]

Adding coal to the bonfire: there should be more people here telling their stories about Usenet, Compuserve and similar services which were in use between 1985 and 2000.

Try this.

[Text]

That means that in substance, Wikipedia has only cast a large shadow on those forgotten sites, but they're still there, just largely unpopulated.

There's a similarity with "boom towns" of the Old West. Little villages which prospered for some time as long as gold and silver were mined out of near hills. After the gold ended, the villaged ceased to exist almost immediately as everyone went away.

And of course, the longer and the more popular the village became, the more the possibilities for exploitation from big companies from the East.

Jimmy has an the interest in keeping the boom town flourishing, and the gold is being fabricated by volunteers, in a process of self-feeding...

[A User]

That means that in substance, Wikipedia has only cast a large shadow on those forgotten sites, but they're still there, just largely unpopulated.

There's a similarity with "boom towns" of the Old West. Little villages which prospered for some time as long as gold and silver were mined out of near hills. After the gold ended, the villaged ceased to exist almost immediately as everyone went away.

And of course, the longer and the more popular the village became, the more the possibilities for exploitation from big companies from the East.

Jimmy has an the interest in keeping the boom town flourishing, and the gold is being fabricated by volunteers, in a process of self-feeding...

With wikipedia it's more iron pyrites than actual gold being produced

[thekohser]

Adding coal to the bonfire: there should be more people here telling their stories about Usenet, Compuserve and similar services which were in use between 1985 and 2000. Few people here, and around the planet in general, can share their experiences about those systems.

I was a subscriber to Prodigy in 1992, I believe was the year. Compuserve, also, for a shorter time. Then I got addicted to AOL. Ran up a couple of $100+ monthly bills on that service. Volunteering for the Homework Help forum was a boon -- you got two minutes of free AOL time for every minute you documented as working for Homework Help.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Jimmy has an the interest in keeping the boom town flourishing, and the gold is being fabricated by volunteers, in a process of self-feeding...

Yah, the gold diggers always follow the gold diggers and either Jimbo has elected himself mayor ... or he owns the most popular whorehouse on the www.

I guess that is why Wikipedia turned to hard core pornography and prostituting the idea of an encyclopedia ... and where it locates itself in the social order.

More analysis required.

[lilburne]

I dug out an old CD copy of Britannica (1999) the other day. Interesting that it installed on a win7 machine, it had previously barfed on XP.

Surprisingly refreshing and got to the essence of the information I was looking up without the incoherent blather.

[Emperor]

I dug out an old CD copy of Britannica (1999) the other day. Interesting that it installed on a win7 machine, it had previously barfed on XP.

Surprisingly refreshing and got to the essence of the information I was looking up without the incoherent blather.

If you actually have a professionally-written book or CD sitting on the shelf within arms reach, it's almost always faster and easier than dealing with Web 2.0.

It's sad for the kids who don't learn how to use both anymore.