The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Setting up your own wiki encyclopaedia
anthony
post Sun 14th March 2010, 12:28am
Post #21


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DawnofMan
post Sun 14th March 2010, 12:53am
Post #22


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat 13th Mar 2010, 4:45am
Member No.: 17,885



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Sun 14th March 2010, 3:03am
Post #23


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,867
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



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
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BelovedFox
post Sun 14th March 2010, 3:44am
Post #24


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 214
Joined: Fri 15th Jan 2010, 6:54pm
Member No.: 16,616

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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 this. 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.)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Sun 14th March 2010, 4:02am
Post #25


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
KD Tries Again
post Sun 14th March 2010, 5:26am
Post #26


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun 10th May 2009, 2:45pm
Member No.: 11,730



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A User
post Sun 14th March 2010, 9:16am
Post #27


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Wed 23rd Apr 2008, 2:37am
Member No.: 5,813



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/10073/10424...m#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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eva Destruction
post Sun 14th March 2010, 9:21am
Post #28


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 7:22pm
Member No.: 3,301

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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 Boobpedia in both the worldwide and US traffic rankings, though.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Sun 14th March 2010, 3:01pm
Post #29


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,867
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



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 this. 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Sun 14th March 2010, 3:29pm
Post #30


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthony
post Sun 14th March 2010, 5:33pm
Post #31


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



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.

This post has been edited by anthony: Sun 14th March 2010, 5:40pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DawnofMan
post Sun 14th March 2010, 11:07pm
Post #32


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat 13th Mar 2010, 4:45am
Member No.: 17,885



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...?

This post has been edited by DawnofMan: Mon 15th March 2010, 12:04am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Sun 14th March 2010, 11:46pm
Post #33


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,867
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DawnofMan
post Mon 15th March 2010, 1:01am
Post #34


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat 13th Mar 2010, 4:45am
Member No.: 17,885



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?

This post has been edited by DawnofMan: Mon 15th March 2010, 1:18am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Mon 15th March 2010, 2:22am
Post #35


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Mon 15th March 2010, 2:52am
Post #36


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,867
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A User
post Sat 24th April 2010, 7:42am
Post #37


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Wed 23rd Apr 2008, 2:37am
Member No.: 5,813



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.


This post has been edited by WikiWatch: Sat 24th April 2010, 7:53am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A User
post Wed 5th May 2010, 3:34pm
Post #38


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Wed 23rd Apr 2008, 2:37am
Member No.: 5,813



Looks like Encyc has been swamped with vandals:

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

unhappy.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
4 User(s) are reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd 6 17, 3:42pm