• Donate and support Agora Road's Macintosh Cafe to keep the forum alive and make any necessary upgrades to have a more pleasant experience! Update: I configured the site with Brave Browser, so you can send tips to the site with BAT.

    - Upgrade now for supporter only awards! In Three Tiers

    -- Agora Gold

    -- Agora Silver

    -- Agora Bronze

    Upgrades like "moods" username customization, profile customization, custom backgrounds, banners and much more!

    It will be under Account Upgrades

    Submissions for Tales of Agora Road Issue #4 is OPEN! MAKE AGORA CHAN ART BY CLICKING HERE

Should we split Wikipedia?

レオタルドのフェティッシュ

Existence is but a diabolic deception
Joined
Jul 24, 2022
Messages
62
Reaction score
569
Awards
69
Website
mrwillhorlen.me
I will just keep this short. There have been concerns about alleged biases in Wikipedia articles, especially on those connected to sensitive matters. Even worse, attempts to correct them have often been met with resistance from the moderators. However Wikipedia itself still remains the only place on the internet where one can freely and conveniently access knowledge of any subject with relative ease. So my suggestion is that instead of getting rid of Wikipedia altogether, should we just grab a section and spin it off into another project or something?
 
Virtual Cafe Awards
there are many, but
I will just keep this short. There have been concerns about alleged biases in Wikipedia articles, especially on those connected to sensitive matters. Even worse, attempts to correct them have often been met with resistance from the moderators. However Wikipedia itself still remains the only place on the internet where one can freely and conveniently access knowledge of any subject with relative ease. So my suggestion is that instead of getting rid of Wikipedia altogether, should we just grab a section and spin it off into another project or something?
they are "alt" , marked by "current thing status quo" moderators of "this reality"
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Collision

Green Tea Ice Cream
Joined
Jun 5, 2022
Messages
381
Reaction score
1,413
Awards
126
Certainly, there's nothing wrong with creating your own wiki, but how are you going to make it better than Wikipedia? What concrete changes would you make to ensure that your fork won't exhibit problems similar to Wikipedia? Perhaps, it would be easier to just modulate your own expectations and research habits.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

SolidStateSurvivor

This is Extremely Dangerous to Our Democracy
Joined
Feb 15, 2022
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
5,207
Awards
245
Website
youtuube.neocities.org
The moment you make an alt/split of Wikipedia it'll just be labeled with all the buzzwords like "baseless" "alt-right" "conspiracy theorist" etc and carry with it little prestige or use to the legacy media outlets.
But there's still power in getting alternative information/perspectives out there to the masses even if the paid shills will lampoon such an effort, there are things I hear in day to day conversations now that a few years ago I never thought would go mainstream and be discussed as a truth.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

LostintheCycle

Formerly His Holelineß
Joined
Apr 4, 2022
Messages
923
Reaction score
3,652
Awards
240
However Wikipedia itself still remains the only place on the internet where one can freely and conveniently access knowledge of any subject with relative ease.
Discounting the many well known shadow libraries that can be accessed through the clearnet?
Besides, the issue really is that most people do not go further than Wikipedia when getting information, so creating a fork of it would not fix the issue anyway, even ignoring the image problems SolidStateSurvivor mentioned.
We've seen what happened with alternate social medias and this'd be no different. With an amount of volunteers writing for the project that would make it a usable encyclopedia, it would become difficult to manage. The sort of volunteers it would attract would probably love paying lip service to neutrality, but would still end up slanting the articles they write.
What can we do about Wikipedia instead? I simply do not use it, and when appropiate I encourage others to not use it and to seek out other sources.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

h00

message is what matters
Gold
Joined
Apr 15, 2022
Messages
585
Reaction score
2,709
Awards
213
Website
h00.neocities.org
Virtual Cafe Awards

Walk in the Rain

It ain't Jesus or the devil. It's Jesus or you.
Bronze
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
1,704
Reaction score
5,679
Awards
300
wasn't there like a library of hatefact or something to that extend, it discussed a lot of of 'facts' that would get you labeled as phobic tism. As for the OP, I don't think it's possible to develop a bias-free wiki alternative, what's silly about wikipedia is that they presume a standard of neutrality. If you really want to learn about a subject, go read a book. Perhaps the concern is that normies only know how to use wikipedia? Well, there will always be an agent that pushes stablished narratives for normies to swallow, either centralized or not. It's just a matter if you agree with those controlling the narratives. But I don't think we'll see normies doing careful research in a long, long time, so some sort of wikipedia with a control narrative will exist for a very long time...
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Fairykang

Cybernetic Esotericist
Joined
Dec 26, 2021
Messages
202
Reaction score
445
Awards
69
Don't rely on google, don't rely on wikipedia, simple as. Wikipedia was built on the principle of good faith. It worked until editors took advantage of that principle. Any other volunteer wiki project is going to fall prey to the same subversion unless some kind of administrative control is implemented that is going to stifle production and be accused of innate bias anyways.

Edit: If you look at the precursor to wikipedia that required you to be a published researcher in a field to post an article and how little they accomplished, you can kind of see how quality control is doomed to fail.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Walk in the Rain

It ain't Jesus or the devil. It's Jesus or you.
Bronze
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
1,704
Reaction score
5,679
Awards
300
Virtual Cafe Awards

№56

Self-Hating Bureaucrat
Gold
Joined
Mar 27, 2022
Messages
834
Reaction score
4,997
Awards
250
Website
no56.neocities.org
I think a meta-search tool for pre-digital encyclopedias and other reference works that are now in the public domain would be really cool and probably not too hard to put together. The first 13 editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, are all in the public domain. It wouldn't be a Wikipedia replacement and it would be fairly useless for anything that's changed in the past 100 years, but I still think it's a project worth pursuing. In some cases seeing a dozen different articles from old sources would be just as valuable as one new article written by a dozen different anonymous contributors.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

eve

Professional Loser
Bronze
Joined
Feb 16, 2022
Messages
232
Reaction score
1,016
Awards
107
Website
evvv.org
I will just keep this short. There have been concerns about alleged biases in Wikipedia articles, especially on those connected to sensitive matters. Even worse, attempts to correct them have often been met with resistance from the moderators. However Wikipedia itself still remains the only place on the internet where one can freely and conveniently access knowledge of any subject with relative ease. So my suggestion is that instead of getting rid of Wikipedia altogether, should we just grab a section and spin it off into another project or something?
As a very frequent editor of english wikipedia, i would say honestly ur best bet izz2 just edit wikipedia if u feel there izz an issue with NPOV or bias in an article ... and if sum1 revertz it u can alwayz bring it up on the talkpage and evnn havv a community vote on it .. (nothing sayz u cant Rfc editorz who u know will vote for u XDDD) but tha bottom lyne izz that although alt wikiz and other stuffz leik that are cool and important, 99% of ppl wont go out of their way 2 go on sum random altwiki and go there as opposed2 regular wikipedia :p which suxx, but eh :JahySmug: i mean evvn if wikipedia izz slightly biased (which i agree with in sum aspectz) tha majority of the topixx can b researched independently if u check out the citashuns >w< after all , wikipedia izznt suppoesd2b a main source of info ... it izz simply a gathering of information across a broad spectrum ( i wud also leik2add that topixx that literally cannot b covered without bias are often just voted on by the community, which izz y it often seemz like they appeal 2the masses ) hope this helpz ^w^
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Walk in the Rain

It ain't Jesus or the devil. It's Jesus or you.
Bronze
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
1,704
Reaction score
5,679
Awards
300
As a very frequent editor of english wikipedia, i would say honestly ur best bet izz2 just edit wikipedia if u feel there izz an issue with NPOV or bias in an article ...
People have tried this and gotten btfo'd, the gamergate article and the cultural marxism deleted page are the most infamous example. I think wikipedia is a good source as long as you're not researching anything controversial. Science seems to be pretty safe, as is most philosophy.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

SolidStateSurvivor

This is Extremely Dangerous to Our Democracy
Joined
Feb 15, 2022
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
5,207
Awards
245
Website
youtuube.neocities.org
For those out there expressing discontent with LLM bias, consider that they are all pretty much raised on Wikipedia as a main backing source of info
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Yabba

Ex Fed
Joined
Nov 11, 2022
Messages
338
Reaction score
888
Awards
103
Perhaps the concern is that normies only know how to use wikipedia?
You're assuming that normies even go onto the site, when a summary of the information on a page is displayed on Google.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

power gem

Bronze
Joined
Dec 8, 2022
Messages
107
Reaction score
603
Awards
69
no one should be relying on general purpose wikis (or encyclopedias) for any information more complex than a celebrity's birthday or what the capital of some country is. the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide surface level information on a topic, typically for schoolchildren - in paper encyclopedias most of the entries will not be longer than a paragraph or two. wikis provide a larger volume of information but there's the issue that the writer may have no idea what they're talking about and just make stuff up, twist sources to push their point of view, misunderstand sources or cite some shit source that's worse than nothing. there have been a few attempts to make a less biased version of Wikipedia but because of these issues it always ends up being the same surface level junk plus inane political cheerleading for whatever side the userbase is on (see Conservapedia and Metapedia on the right and RationalWiki on the left). the solution is to read actual books and scholarly articles, not some randos interpretation of them. most people won't do that... in fact most people don't even bother to read Wikipedia any more and just rely on ChatGPT or Bing's regurgitation of wikis and SEO spam blogs with added factual errors. but those people were never going to be engaging in deep political thought anyway.
 
Last edited:
Virtual Cafe Awards
still think it's a project worth pursuing. In some cases seeing a dozen different articles from old sources would be just as valuable as one new article written by a dozen different anonymous contributors.
also, discovering new-old things you didnt know that there were... unknown knowns and all that
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Similar threads