Alternatives to Wikipedia, Competitors to the beast Options Rating

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

If I had any idea how to do anything with websites, I'd make something like that myself.

You could do so quick easily using the Open Source project called "Sphider", its is a php website spider and search engine.

It is pretty damned simple to set up. You could offer a simple single page search option and add sites as you find them. Stick a few adsense ads on it and it would pay for itself, no problem.

The Encyclopedia of the Earth has an impressive policy as far as contributors go:

http://www.eoearth.org/eoe/contribute

Something like this would go a long way to fix the Pee-dia ... and then they could use some of those multi-millions to pay for proper editorial staff.

[thekohser]

Gregory, I'm not sure how to answer your question about who I am because I'm not sure what it is you're asking exactly. I'm well past my teens. And I'm not interested in drama.

The problem is that I've chosen not to share my valuable professional time and advice with people who approach me on the street with a dark hood over their head and one of those "60 Minutes"-style voice modulators to disguise their voice.

Same goes for anonymous new guys here on Wikipedia Review.

You very well may deserve my effort, but before you just rob me of it, don't you think introductions are in order, first? It's what human beings have been doing for at least 4,000 years.

[DawnofMan]

Who wants to put up with the bullshit on Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ActiveUsers

A list of people who have made an edit in the last 30 days is not the same as a list of people who are happy with Wikipedia and it doesn't give any indication of the number of editors who would like to participate in an alternative. Obviously there are very big advantages right now to doing work there because of how well plugged in it is to search engines. But that doesn't mean a competitor can't be whipped into shape. Remember Atari? IBM computers? Zenith? The World Book encyclopedia? Someone stepped up and offered something better or adapted better to new technologies.

[Moulton]

In terms of alternatives to WP, don't overlook Google Knol, which provides a substantially different architectural model for supporting articles of an encyclopedic nature.

[NotARepublican55]

Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of Wikipedia's content to another Wiki site and starting with a clean batch of editors? I heard that Citizendum thought about doing that, but they oped to create original articles instead.

This post has been edited by NotARepublican55: Thu 18th March 2010, 12:52am

[anthony]

Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of Wikipedia's content to another Wiki site and starting with a clean batch of editors?

Yes.

[NotARepublican55]

Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of Wikipedia's content to another Wiki site and starting with a clean batch of editors?

Yes.

And it didn't work out?

[anthony]

Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of Wikipedia's content to another Wiki site and starting with a clean batch of editors?

Yes.

And it didn't work out?

I'd say "it didn't work out" is probably an understatement .

If you're serious about your interest in this topic send me a PM. I have my own experiences in trying to create a fork of Wikipedia (circa 2004), and am somewhat familiar with the experiences of a few others. But I have a feeling I'd be wasting my time going over them with you. If you think you can convince me otherwise, send me a PM, and maybe we can have an email conversation.

This post has been edited by anthony: Thu 18th March 2010, 1:24am

[John Limey]

Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of Wikipedia's content to another Wiki site and starting with a clean batch of editors?

If the content on Wikipedia is good enough to justify forking to another site, then what's the problem? Either Wikipedia produces good content in which case it is a success and the dysfunction of the community is just a pointless sidenote or Wikipedia doesn't produce good content in which case there's no point in starting with bad content and new editors - they'd be better off just writing from scratch. The theory that Wikipedia has good content but bad editors is entirely incoherent.

[anthony]

Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of Wikipedia's content to another Wiki site and starting with a clean batch of editors?

If the content on Wikipedia is good enough to justify forking to another site, then what's the problem?

Exactly. To clean up a fork, you have to do almost as much work as just starting from scratch yourself.

Plus, as was discovered early on by Citizendium, the whole Wikipedia template system makes it incredibly hard to fork individual articles. You're really much better off starting from scratch. At the most you could use Wikipedia as a reference, to find other sources, but IMO even that isn't a great idea, because one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia articles is what's *not* there.

See also: How To Read Wikipedia

[Jon Awbrey]

Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of Wikipedia's content to another Wiki site and starting with a clean batch of editors?

That was the initial plan for Citizendium. Think about it. Try to imagine a group of reasonably adult editors looking at a Big Dump of stuff from Wikipedia. A few weeks of trying to stomach that was enough to send them running away screaming and deciding to start from scratch.

If the content on Wikipedia is good enough to justify forking to another site, then what's the problem? Either Wikipedia produces good content in which case it is a success and the dysfunction of the community is just a pointless sidenote or Wikipedia doesn't produce good content in which case there's no point in starting with bad content and new editors — they'd be better off just writing from scratch. The theory that Wikipedia has good content but bad editors is entirely incoherent.

What you say here represents the single biggest misconception about the nature of knowledge that the popular imagination has ever misconceived. Generations of educators and researchers have gone to bat trying to combat it. That naturally guarantees it a place of honor in the cornerstone of Wikipediot Fundamentalism, but I'm a little surprised to see otherwise educated people toeing its misbegotten line.

Jon Awbrey

[GlassBeadGame]

Has anyone thought of doing a complete import of Wikipedia's content to another Wiki site and starting with a clean batch of editors?

That was the initial plan for Citizendium. Think about it. Try to imagine a group of reasonably adult editors looking at a Big Dump of stuff from Wikipedia. A few weeks of trying to stomach that was enough to send them running away screaming and deciding to start from scratch.

If the content on Wikipedia is good enough to justify forking to another site, then what's the problem? Either Wikipedia produces good content in which case it is a success and the dysfunction of the community is just a pointless sidenote or Wikipedia doesn't produce good content in which case there's no point in starting with bad content and new editors — they'd be better off just writing from scratch. The theory that Wikipedia has good content but bad editors is entirely incoherent.

What you say here represents the single biggest misconception about the nature of knowledge that the popular imagination has ever misconceived. Generations of educators and researchers have gone to bat trying to combat it. That naturally guarantees it a place of honor in the cornerstone of Wikipediot Fundamentalism, but I'm a little surprised to see otherwise educated people toeing its misbegotten line.

Jon Awbrey

Right, anyone who is willing to do the task is exactly the wrong kind of person needed to do it right. People willing to spend countless amounts of time "building an encyclopedia" are in some sense aberrant and deformed.

[A User]

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.

[Moulton]

The articles in traditional encyclopedias are written by specialists in their respective fields. The job of the editors is to find those specialists and then ensure that all the articles achieve a standard level of quality.

[A User]

You're really much better off starting from scratch. At the most you could use Wikipedia as a reference, to find other sources, but IMO even that isn't a great idea, because one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia articles is what's *not* there.

If you want to start from scratch, you need good editors. People who are loyal to the idea and commited. If there are barriers and no incentives for experts to join and contribute, they simply wont bother. That's what happened with Citizendium. They had the right idea but the way it was implemented and managed was flawed.

[John Limey]

If the content on Wikipedia is good enough to justify forking to another site, then what's the problem? Either Wikipedia produces good content in which case it is a success and the dysfunction of the community is just a pointless sidenote or Wikipedia doesn't produce good content in which case there's no point in starting with bad content and new editors — they'd be better off just writing from scratch. The theory that Wikipedia has good content but bad editors is entirely incoherent.

What you say here represents the single biggest misconception about the nature of knowledge that the popular imagination has ever misconceived. Generations of educators and researchers have gone to bat trying to combat it. That naturally guarantees it a place of honor in the cornerstone of Wikipediot Fundamentalism, but I'm a little surprised to see otherwise educated people toeing its misbegotten line.

Jon Awbrey

What exactly is the misconception?

[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.

[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: Thu 18th March 2010, 4:51pm

[thekohser]

They are experts who work as part of the general enterprise of academia or to spread knowledge or to advance their careers.

WP:COI!

[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.

They do not make tens of thousands of edits, nor play MMORPG games. Nor are they participating in a mere simulation of an encyclopedia. They write concise articles on a limited number of topics without undue interference, and reasonable editorial support. Whatever credit there is to had is achieved under their real names, using real credentials and not crowd shared. Even there writing an encyclopedia article is not going to generate much in the way academic creditability.

You are completely clueless of just how wack Wikipedians are and attempt to normalize their weirdness. This simple and basic fact (their weirdness) becomes a growing burden in interacting with Wikipedians, on there site and here as well. Be good and I'll assign you some extra homework.