Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ MediaWiki Software _ Setting up your own wiki encyclopaedia

Posted by: WikiWatch

Can anyone recommend any sites that show step by step how to set up your own wiki encyclopaedia?

Posted by: wikademia.org

sure! great question!



http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Installation

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=24097



I am personally a bigger fan of the later link; but that is just me being narcissistic and vain. <3 smile.gif

Posted by: wikademia.org

you do know about Encyc.org, right?!

Posted by: WikiWatch

QUOTE(wikademia.org @ Fri 8th January 2010, 4:28pm) *

you do know about Encyc.org, right?!


Yes, thanks for the links. Just reading through it atm.

Posted by: WikiWatch

QUOTE(wikademia.org @ Fri 8th January 2010, 4:28pm) *

you do know about Encyc.org, right?!


I don't think Encyc.org will challenge wikipedia anytime soon. All their articles are basically one to two sentence stubs.

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Fri 8th January 2010, 4:14am) *

QUOTE(wikademia.org @ Fri 8th January 2010, 4:28pm) *

you do know about Encyc.org, right?!


I don't think Encyc.org will challenge wikipedia anytime soon. All their articles are basically one to two sentence stubs.


I disagree, but...

MediaWiki installation is not user-friendly at all. But don't be intimidated, it's not quite as bad as the documentation makes it seem. The key is to do as much as possible yourself, so when things go wrong you have a fighting chance to fix them and aren't relying on tech support.

My recommendation is to keep everything as similar to Wikipedia as possible. So if Wikipedia makes your pages look like http://encyc.org/wiki/Example, you make it that way. The same goes for encoding choices.

Once you're finished, you'll be wondering why you thought it was such a big deal the whole time.

Thanks to Wikipedia's ever increasingly complex code and template obsession, easily sharing free content is a thing of the past. Most imports have to have a good amount of human TLC before they'll look right. (Encyc is trying to fix this situation. Feel free to stop by and give us another chance.)

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(Emperor @ Fri 8th January 2010, 12:53pm) *
MediaWiki installation is not user-friendly at all.


Why use Mediawiki? It is too difficult to use for newcomers and non-technical users, and is fairly clunky for even medium-rate techs. It might perform great on multi-server installations but as a simple tools, it lacks polish and a good development community.

Have a look at Foswiki (http://foswiki.org), or some of the other more simple options.

What is the end result you are after ... what do you want to do?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Fri 8th January 2010, 4:14am) *

I don't think Encyc.org will challenge wikipedia anytime soon. All their articles are basically one to two sentence stubs.


WikiWatch, who are you? (If you're disclosing.)

What are you trying to accomplish? Trying to challenge Wikipedia with an alternate venue? Do you have at least $1,000,000? Because those are the bare minimum table stakes to create a site that will get into the Alexa 1000.

What is your unique proposition that will make your site a challenge to Wikipedia?

On my site, I dreamed optimistically that editors' "ownership" of articles about yourself or your business, plus transitory ownership of articles about other legal entities, coupled with the ability to earn AdSense revenues (keeping 100% of them for themselves), topped off with the wonders of Semantic Web architecture for search engine optimization and internal multi-layered search capabilities, would have me at 3% of Wikipedia's market share within two years.

Well, after two years, my site earns 0.000856% of the English Wikipedia's page traffic, as the 37,789th most visited site on the Internet, among Americans.

Although (according to Alexa), my site has a wider global reach than the web home of the Brazilian government (brasil.gov.br), as well as the home page of the 10th largest company in America (Valero.com).

So, while you're pooh-poohing Encyc.org, let me just say that your asking how to install wiki software suggests to me that you likewise don't have what it takes to "challenge Wikipedia anytime soon".

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Installation is fairly easy. Choosing a catchy domain name and a hosting plan that won't eat your lunch, deciding the ways in which your project should differ (favorably I'd hope) from Wikipedia, and enticing a critical mass of editors to jump ship and participate will be rather more difficult.

If you've got all that figured out, good for you. Next step is to get the neighbors' kid to install MediaWiki for you in exchange for an admin account and a pack of smokes.

Posted by: Emperor

I'm still quite fond of http://encyc.org/PmWiki. It's a nice system if you have a small group of trusted contributors. It's easily customizable, easy to install, and very fast.

Where it's weak is on account management, vandal-fighting, and how it handles images. Also the community is somewhat moribund. And I'm not crazy about how it shows revision histories.

Posted by: WikiWatch

Anyone recommend a decent web hosting service?

Posted by: dtobias

Dreamhost has built-in installations of MediaWiki among other programs.

I use it for my sites, including http://mpedia.dan.info/, the encyclopedia about Mensa.

Posted by: WikiWatch

QUOTE(dtobias @ Fri 12th March 2010, 3:08pm) *

Dreamhost has built-in installations of MediaWiki among other programs.

I use it for my sites, including http://mpedia.dan.info/, the encyclopedia about Mensa.


Not bad. What's your Mensa IQ score? smile.gif

Posted by: MZMcBride

There are a very large number of considerations to make in order to create a viable Wikipedia rival. I started on a list of questions to consider a few weeks ago, but got sidetracked. Perhaps I'll publish it at some point.

Posted by: WikiWatch

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Fri 12th March 2010, 3:56pm) *

There are a very large number of considerations to make in order to create a viable Wikipedia rival. I started on a list of questions to consider a few weeks ago, but got sidetracked. Perhaps I'll publish it at some point.


Yes please do.

Posted by: John Limey

QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Sat 13th March 2010, 12:26am) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Fri 12th March 2010, 3:56pm) *

There are a very large number of considerations to make in order to create a viable Wikipedia rival. I started on a list of questions to consider a few weeks ago, but got sidetracked. Perhaps I'll publish it at some point.


Yes please do.


I'd like to shamelessly promote my own thoughts, which are sort of connected to this (see http://onwikipedia.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-citizendium.html, which niftily is one of the top 10 google results for the search term "Citizendium"). Basically, I think that an effective Wikipedia rival is essentially impossible. In the post linked, I introduce the concept of the "paradox of Wikipedia" - that the same factors that make Wikipedia a successful web community and attract editors make it inherently unreliable and that the same things that make Wikipedia stronger as an encyclopedia weaken it as a web community.

I think that it's really impossible (without incredible financial backing) to beat Wikipedia by emphasizing the encyclopedia over the community. Citizendium tried to do that and has, well, failed. If you overemphasize the encyclopedia you lose the hordes of free labor that make Wikipedia work. I think it's also pretty much impossible to beat Wikipedia by going in the other direction - emphasizing the community aspects at the expense of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia already has enough problems as an encyclopedia, and (at least around here) no one wants an even less reliable version. If Interpedia were worth mentioning, it would be worth holding up as a failure that went too far towards community. That leaves the option of striking about the same balance as Wikipedia between encyclopedia and community (perhaps with some twists), but in this arena Wikipedia has all the power and momentum and (short of massive backing) your little project won't stand a chance.

You could always do something radically different - an entirely new paradigm, but then you probably wouldn't be asking about wikis.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(John Limey @ Fri 12th March 2010, 5:41pm) *

QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Sat 13th March 2010, 12:26am) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Fri 12th March 2010, 3:56pm) *

There are a very large number of considerations to make in order to create a viable Wikipedia rival. I started on a list of questions to consider a few weeks ago, but got sidetracked. Perhaps I'll publish it at some point.


Yes please do.


I'd like to shamelessly promote my own thoughts, which are sort of connected to this (see http://onwikipedia.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-citizendium.html, which niftily is one of the top 10 google results for the search term "Citizendium").


It's actually the top three, but the WP article on Citizendium is #4.

Here's an article on why Sanger is growing tired of Citizenium and wants to leave.


http://blogs.ft.com/techblog/2009/08/citizendium-founder-ready-to-jump-ship/


Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(John Limey @ Fri 12th March 2010, 7:41pm) *

QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Sat 13th March 2010, 12:26am) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Fri 12th March 2010, 3:56pm) *

There are a very large number of considerations to make in order to create a viable Wikipedia rival. I started on a list of questions to consider a few weeks ago, but got sidetracked. Perhaps I'll publish it at some point.


Yes please do.


I'd like to shamelessly promote my own thoughts, which are sort of connected to this (see http://onwikipedia.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-citizendium.html, which niftily is one of the top 10 google results for the search term "Citizendium"). Basically, I think that an effective Wikipedia rival is essentially impossible. In the post linked, I introduce the concept of the "paradox of Wikipedia" - that the same factors that make Wikipedia a successful web community and attract editors make it inherently unreliable and that the same things that make Wikipedia stronger as an encyclopedia weaken it as a web community.

I think that it's really impossible (without incredible financial backing) to beat Wikipedia by emphasizing the encyclopedia over the community. Citizendium tried to do that and has, well, failed. If you overemphasize the encyclopedia you lose the hordes of free labor that make Wikipedia work. I think it's also pretty much impossible to beat Wikipedia by going in the other direction - emphasizing the community aspects at the expense of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia already has enough problems as an encyclopedia, and (at least around here) no one wants an even less reliable version. If Interpedia were worth mentioning, it would be worth holding up as a failure that went too far towards community. That leaves the option of striking about the same balance as Wikipedia between encyclopedia and community (perhaps with some twists), but in this arena Wikipedia has all the power and momentum and (short of massive backing) your little project won't stand a chance.

You could always do something radically different - an entirely new paradigm, but then you probably wouldn't be asking about wikis.
I guess it depends what your goal is: to destroy Wikimedia or create something better. Both are possible and both will very likely happen, though the increased financial backing that the Wikimedia Foundation is receiving guarantees that projects like Wikipedia will linger, in some form, for a long time.

Eventually, a moderately successful rival to Wikipedia will emerge. The Chinese have Baidu Baike as a rival to the Chinese Wikipedia. Something like that to rival the English Wikipedia is possible. The issue, as you note, is finding a way to make money from the site or get outside financial support. I don't think the obstacles are insurmountable, though it certainly wouldn't be an easy feat.

I think an examination of the other Wikimedia projects would be interesting. Wikipedia has been successful, but look at Wikibooks or Wikiversity or Wikispecies or any of the other non-Wikipedia Wikimedia projects. Even looking at some of the Wikipedias outside the top ten would be interesting.

Now, if the goal is to simply destroy Wikimedia, well, there are plenty of ways to do that. In all honesty, I'm surprised some of the people who regularly post here haven't made any noteworthy efforts to do so. smile.gif

Posted by: WikiWatch

QUOTE(John Limey @ Sat 13th March 2010, 11:41am) *

I'd like to shamelessly promote my own thoughts, which are sort of connected to this (see http://onwikipedia.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-citizendium.html, which niftily is one of the top 10 google results for the search term "Citizendium"). Basically, I think that an effective Wikipedia rival is essentially impossible.


I think you are right - they have had such a huge head start in terms of time, articles and development, that everything when compared with WP afterwards, is just simply overwhelmed by the task at hand. Had there been a CZ or a Knol, in 2001, instead of years down the track, there may have been a viable rival, but it's too late now. Not that people will keep trying though.

The only way to create a wiki that will get noticed on the internet is perhaps to go into a speciality area first and expand out in that area, rather than starting as a broad-based compendium.

Posted by: John Limey

QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Sat 13th March 2010, 9:10am) *

QUOTE(John Limey @ Sat 13th March 2010, 11:41am) *

I'd like to shamelessly promote my own thoughts, which are sort of connected to this (see http://onwikipedia.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-citizendium.html, which niftily is one of the top 10 google results for the search term "Citizendium"). Basically, I think that an effective Wikipedia rival is essentially impossible.


The only way to create a wiki that will get noticed on the internet is perhaps to go into a speciality area first and expand out in that area, rather than starting as a broad-based compendium.


I think that's exactly on target.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 8th January 2010, 3:14pm) *

Well, after two years, my site earns 0.000856% of the English Wikipedia's page traffic, as the 37,789th most visited site on the Internet, among Americans.


Ha, did you know you're more popular than Citizendium?

Posted by: DawnofMan

Would someone just hurry up and create an alternate Wiki where I can start working on articles without having to deal with all of Wikipedia's trolls and tyrants (ie. admins and arbcons).

Kohs's site seems to be about self-promotion and Neutralpedia is so far only about climate issues. I don't like the citizendium model and am not prepared to give up my anonymity to work with a bunch of self-appointed "experts". One Willy Connelly is bad enough.

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(DawnofMan @ Sat 13th March 2010, 7:53pm) *

Would someone just hurry up and create an alternate Wiki where I can start working on articles without having to deal with all of Wikipedia's trolls and tyrants (ie. admins and arbcons).

Kohs's site seems to be about self-promotion and Neutralpedia is so far only about climate issues. I don't like the citizendium model and am not prepared to give up my anonymity to work with a bunch of self-appointed "experts". One Willy Connelly is bad enough.


Here is your engraved invitation. Please come to Encyc and start working on articles.

http://encyc.org/wiki

Posted by: BelovedFox

QUOTE(Emperor @ Sun 14th March 2010, 3:03am) *

QUOTE(DawnofMan @ Sat 13th March 2010, 7:53pm) *

Would someone just hurry up and create an alternate Wiki where I can start working on articles without having to deal with all of Wikipedia's trolls and tyrants (ie. admins and arbcons).

Kohs's site seems to be about self-promotion and Neutralpedia is so far only about climate issues. I don't like the citizendium model and am not prepared to give up my anonymity to work with a bunch of self-appointed "experts". One Willy Connelly is bad enough.


Here is your engraved invitation. Please come to Encyc and start working on articles.

http://encyc.org/wiki


Well, I did as the main page said, clicked Special:Random, and got http://encyc.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton. Work needs to be done, obviously tongue.gif

Limey brings up good points, but I think that there are certain "givens" in trying to replace Wikipedia, in that A) you can't expect to make money, and B) you can't replace Wikipedia. Not in that sense. Unless you migrate all of Wikipedia's content, you'll never have the scope of their articles nor the built-in editor base. Wikipedia scooped the wiki method of an encyclopedia, and the only way to attempt to beat it at its own game is essentially to play by its own rules; as uneven as they may be, they are for whatever reason the "lightning" caught in the jar.

I think if there was a good way to figure out exactly why editors were no longer drawn to Wikipedia, you could capitalize off that in some way or form, but I think that many wikis already do that in the obvious ways (Conservapedia for the people whose twisted view of "neutral" is rejected, Wikipedia Review for those whose PR pieces got deleted, Halopedia/Wookiepedia/Bulbapedia for those whose fan fiction and minutae got merged, et al.)

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(anthony @ Sat 13th March 2010, 7:28pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 8th January 2010, 3:14pm) *

Well, after two years, my site earns 0.000856% of the English Wikipedia's page traffic, as the 37,789th most visited site on the Internet, among Americans.


Ha, did you know you're more popular than Citizendium?


In the United States, and according to Alexa... wow, I guess that's true.

Posted by: KD Tries Again

QUOTE(Emperor @ Sun 14th March 2010, 3:03am) *

QUOTE(DawnofMan @ Sat 13th March 2010, 7:53pm) *

Would someone just hurry up and create an alternate Wiki where I can start working on articles without having to deal with all of Wikipedia's trolls and tyrants (ie. admins and arbcons).

Kohs's site seems to be about self-promotion and Neutralpedia is so far only about climate issues. I don't like the citizendium model and am not prepared to give up my anonymity to work with a bunch of self-appointed "experts". One Willy Connelly is bad enough.


Here is your engraved invitation. Please come to Encyc and start working on articles.

http://encyc.org/wiki


QUOTE
This encyclopedia is written entirely by volunteers, and is not reviewed by professional editors. Facts are not checked. There may be misleading or erroneous information here.


Oh yippee.

Posted by: WikiWatch

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sat 13th March 2010, 1:43pm) *

Eventually, a moderately successful rival to Wikipedia will emerge. The Chinese have Baidu Baike as a rival to the Chinese Wikipedia. Something like that to rival the English Wikipedia is possible. The issue, as you note, is finding a way to make money from the site or get outside financial support. I don't think the obstacles are insurmountable, though it certainly wouldn't be an easy feat.


This article by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, indicates a Chinese wiki called Hudong (hudong.com) already has over 4 million articles:

'TechMan: Wonky or wacky, wikis invite content contributors' (14 March 2010)

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10073/1042420-96.stm#ixzz0i8ksEHko

Your prediction will probably turn out to be correct. Both China and India are untapped in terms of web-based encyclopaedias and the labour to create one, and its probably just a matter of time they will eventually overtake Wikipedia by sheer weight of contributions.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 14th March 2010, 4:02am) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Sat 13th March 2010, 7:28pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 8th January 2010, 3:14pm) *

Well, after two years, my site earns 0.000856% of the English Wikipedia's page traffic, as the 37,789th most visited site on the Internet, among Americans.


Ha, did you know you're more popular than Citizendium?


In the United States, and according to Alexa... wow, I guess that's true.

You're still behind http://www.alexa.com/search?q=boobpedia.com&r=site_site&p=bigtop in both the worldwide and US traffic rankings, though.

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(BelovedFox @ Sat 13th March 2010, 11:44pm) *

QUOTE(Emperor @ Sun 14th March 2010, 3:03am) *

QUOTE(DawnofMan @ Sat 13th March 2010, 7:53pm) *

Would someone just hurry up and create an alternate Wiki where I can start working on articles without having to deal with all of Wikipedia's trolls and tyrants (ie. admins and arbcons).

Kohs's site seems to be about self-promotion and Neutralpedia is so far only about climate issues. I don't like the citizendium model and am not prepared to give up my anonymity to work with a bunch of self-appointed "experts". One Willy Connelly is bad enough.


Here is your engraved invitation. Please come to Encyc and start working on articles.

http://encyc.org/wiki


Well, I did as the main page said, clicked Special:Random, and got http://encyc.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton. Work needs to be done, obviously tongue.gif



I just checked over on Wikipedia's version, which is quite awful. The first paragraph spouts some mind-dump about Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, baby boomers, and Hillary. The next three are vague, biased, and should be way over the heads of typical encyclopedia users.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(DawnofMan @ Sat 13th March 2010, 8:53pm) *

I don't like the citizendium model and am not prepared to give up my anonymity to work with a bunch of self-appointed "experts". One Willy Connelly is bad enough.


I'm still curious what the motivation is for someone to want anonymity while writing an encyclopedia. For hundreds of years, encyclopedias have had named authors and editors. What's so different about your objectives from theirs? Also, the "self-appointed" experts on Citizendium provide their biographical background, so that you may fairly weigh whether they are indeed an expert or not. Or, are you one of those "newfangled" types who doesn't "believe" in advanced degrees and the teaching experience and publication history?

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 14th March 2010, 3:29pm) *

QUOTE(DawnofMan @ Sat 13th March 2010, 8:53pm) *

I don't like the citizendium model and am not prepared to give up my anonymity to work with a bunch of self-appointed "experts". One Willy Connelly is bad enough.


I'm still curious what the motivation is for someone to want anonymity while writing an encyclopedia. For hundreds of years, encyclopedias have had named authors and editors. What's so different about your objectives from theirs?


Hundreds of years of encyclopedia writing and the current methods of "writing an encyclopedia" using a wiki are pretty much completely incomparable. With the wiki model, there's no profit incentive, there's no real copyright protection, and every rough draft is accessible forever on the Internet.

I can see the motivation to want anonymity while writing an encyclopedia using a wiki. For hundreds of years, the building of an encyclopedia happened behind closed doors, and only the final product was distributed to the public. I'd say in many ways the wiki model itself (even ignoring the notion of "anyone can edit") is hostile to experts.

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 14th March 2010, 3:29pm) *

Also, the "self-appointed" experts on Citizendium provide their biographical background, so that you may fairly weigh whether they are indeed an expert or not. Or, are you one of those "newfangled" types who doesn't "believe" in advanced degrees and the teaching experience and publication history?


Take a look at some of the bios on Citizendium some time, though. It's pretty hard to distinguish the geniuses from the nutcases solely from their bio. There are lots of nutcases with advanced degrees, teaching experience, and even publication history.

I like Citizendium's idea of approved articles. While the fact that an article is approved does not indicate that it is reliable, I like the fact that you at least have a short list of whom to blame for the flaws therein. But even that doesn't require all editors to be named individuals, only the ones that approve the articles.

Of course, the biggest problem with Citizendium isn't the structure. But that's all I'm going to say about that.

Posted by: DawnofMan

Emperor,

Your Wiki seems to suffer from some of the same ills as Wikipedia: dweeb admins like Nathan running around pushing buttons willy nilly.

It also appears to be an experiment in social media rather than an earnest attempt at encyclopedia building...?

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(DawnofMan @ Sun 14th March 2010, 7:07pm) *

Emperor,

Your Wiki seems to suffer from some of the same ills as Wikipedia: dweeb admins like Nathan running around pushing buttons willy nilly.

It also appear to be an experiment in social media rather than an earnest attempt at encyclopedia building?


Nathan used to be a moderator here on Wikipedia Review. He's also a great administrator, and has donated significant amounts of time towards making Encyc a better place.

If your referring to his block and then unblock of ChildofMidnight, it looks like they're talking it out.

Posted by: DawnofMan

QUOTE(Emperor @ Sun 14th March 2010, 4:46pm) *

QUOTE(DawnofMan @ Sun 14th March 2010, 7:07pm) *

Emperor,

Your Wiki seems to suffer from some of the same ills as Wikipedia: dweeb admins like Nathan running around pushing buttons willy nilly.

It also appear to be an experiment in social media rather than an earnest attempt at encyclopedia building?


Nathan used to be a moderator here on Wikipedia Review. He's also a great administrator, and has donated significant amounts of time towards making Encyc a better place.

If your referring to his block and then unblock of ChildofMidnight, it looks like they're talking it out.


If your idea of a great admin is someone who blocks a new editor without any explanation or discussion and then improperly reverts a series of constructive changes, all I can say is: it's not too surprising that your Wiki isn't exactly prospering. I don't see any evidence that Nathan has made an effort to "talk out" anything. He certainly hasn't attempted to make an apology for behaving like a boob.

I do see that you're aware of the situation and have chosen to offer the proverbial tea instead of attempting to engage in adult communication or explanation. Perhaps respectful discussion among colleagues is too much to ask in this internet age? I'm not seeing any effort at real change, just more of the same. Why create a mirror Wikipedia?

Posted by: thekohser

Who the f*ck are you, "DawnOfMan"?

Look, why don't you go start an encyclopedia, then come back in 6 months and show us how awesome you are?

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(DawnofMan @ Sun 14th March 2010, 9:01pm) *

If your idea of a great admin is someone who blocks a new editor without any explanation or discussion and then improperly reverts a series of constructive changes, all I can say is: it's not too surprising that your Wiki isn't exactly prospering. I don't see any evidence that Nathan has made an effort to "talk out" anything. He certainly hasn't attempted to make an apology for behaving like a boob.

I do see that you're aware of the situation and have chosen to offer the proverbial tea instead of attempting to engage in adult communication or explanation. Perhaps respectful discussion among colleagues is too much to ask in this internet age? I'm not seeing any effort at real change, just more of the same. Why create a mirror Wikipedia?


Like I said on Encyc, I have some sympathy for your situation. I'm sure that Wikipedia kicked you around some. I think that you could be a good editor somewhere, and I hope that it works out. If not, I wish you the best of luck wherever you wind up.

Posted by: WikiWatch

I would like to thank Dan Tobias, Gregory Kohs, and Emperor for their advice. You guys will be mentioned on my credits page. My encyclopædia using mediawiki is up and running. Without any technical help, it wasn't as difficult as I first thought. The hardest part was finding a decent name - most of the good encyclopædia names were already taken long ago. I won't be making an announcement on its address until after I complete testing and upload some articles. Thanks everyone.

Posted by: WikiWatch

Looks like Encyc has been swamped with vandals:

http://encyc.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&limit=500

unhappy.gif