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: Mon 15th March 2010, 9:28pm

[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.