595:...and why its no substitute for wikipedia. Originally Everipedia mirrored (or forked from) wikipedia and consequently shared its hosting cost, but this has perhaps become less useful lately, when the Wikimedia Foundation's funding drives were more successful. Everipedia's potential value was perhaps in adding less notable topics, something wikipedia shouldn't strive for, but which some people would indeed like to see. In 2017, the "trickle of entries" however seemed to "relate almost exclusively to sensational topics". One may assume that many of the less sensational topics will not be updated, and the site may do better by limiting its scope. It has also been described as the "wikipedia for being wrong".
228:
559:, like google knol, allows more than one page per topic, and intends to link up and then rate these related pages in three categories (notability, relativity and reliability). The user defines his/her reality, which is rated afterwards. It is hoped to be free of censorship of content, bias, (left wing) thought police, bureaucracy, harassment, vandalism, outright abuse and inaccurate nightmares. This may be achieved through objectivity, proven game design principles and sophisticated algorithms, the implementation of which will follow a
26:
127:
52:
77:
676:
163:
658:. As importantly, it failed due to lack of focus. Its focus was neither on the topic or on cooperation. Consequently there was no need for authors to find consensus (agreement with co-authors), or if that failed, neutrality, which is part of the contribution ethic on wikipedia. The dynamic was lost. The result of consensus and neutrality is an article that self-corrects and achieves a measure of credibility.
242:
640:
Who will be keeping the virtual cash? For what purposes may that virtual cash be employed to give it economic value in solid currency? b) Someone buys "your block" directly? That means we're back to advertisements, proprietary content and copyright, the content is not free forever, as it always remains liable to be sold and resold. The end user is removed from the system.
563:. While it does not define reality, "facts are facts". "Objectivity" replaces "neutrality", "nice and fair play" rather than "respect and civility" is expected, and its "rules are guidelines, not chew toys for lawyers" while wikipedia has "no firm rules", as these can evolve or be ignored for special cases.
662:
makes the knol mistake again, and perhaps compounds it. As one topic is split into various articles, one can ask where the follow-up user will go to update the topic? And how will his/her update affect the ratings. Verdict: Probably unworkable as it dilutes rather than focuses, and the result will be
617:
Admittedly the latter rating process is only applied to a small percentage of articles, but how may this be extended to all articles? Who will do the work if few experts are contributing? And why would anyone reward someone else's work if the writer stands to be monetized or be awarded IQ tokens by a
613:
A rating system (of all articles) is proposed which will be curated "by experts and by the general public". Question: What exactly does this mean? How will the public be distinguished from the experts, or how will such a two-tier result be recombined? If an article is expertly rated, what weight will
643:
It is proposed that "governance will be determined by the owners of (IQ?) tokens / coins" / virtual currency. Question: Which governance, to govern what? So if there is value here the investors will run the show? An oligarchic voting system, or will investors be happy to be outvoted by anyone with a
621:
A decentralized system ("Greaterwiki," which would not constitute a community) is proposed that will "enable anyone to use the data about ratings (and raters) creatively." Question: So anyone will be able to take a rating (by anyone) and use that to improve an article? How will that be accomplished,
552:
does not require notability for subjects, only references. Anything or anyone in the news may receive a page, including a missing person, a criminal on the run, etc., which would likely not meet wikipedia's notability guidelines, and clog its AFD section. This perhaps relieves wikipedia from a large
639:
It is proposed that articles on the blockchain will be compensated. Question: Compensated by whom? A blockchain is not automatically a virtual currency, or a real currency, so who supplies the money? a) The reader or end user? Then we are moving away from a 💕. Or do we need digital miners as well?
601:
include the likes of: PieDAO, Connext, dex.blue, Lily Mma: VoteCoin cryptocurrency, xDai Chain, Totle Swap, Idle (DeFi), EOSREX.IO, Centrifuge (DeFi), DeBank, Ethereum Name
Service and P2P Validator. This doesn't resemble a general topic encyclopedia, but rather describes private ventures (and read
648:
The proposed features sound like something as general and decentralized as the internet itself, and the way that it would refocus all the forking of functions and authority to provide something like an encyclopedia is unclear. The end result of the above isn't called an encyclopedia anyway, but "a
270:
are still neglected. They are often too short or too long, and do not provide a summary of the article. Any new contributors may well dedicate themselves to these, and render a valuable service. The lead is a good place to describe the context of the subject, to give a perspective on how the topic
625:
A system is proposed that splits and weighs the ratings according to demographic, whether that be "experts with endorsements, French socialists, programmers, women, Christians, Muslims," or other. Question: So each rater/ranker will first have to identify as such? Will anyone care to give so much
644:
penny or two? And you loose governance when you sell your block (stock?), or do you get governance if your coins from sales stay in the bank? Either way you have to keep one eye on the value of this currency and the other on writing articles. And how are IQ tokens (or blocks) converted to coins?
530:
From time to time it is claimed that wikipedia's procedures and pillars inhibit the attainment of certain goals, and in response alternative wikis are started. Wales recommends that wikipedia wishes them well but not reposition itself, as wikipedia's passionate volunteers are not concerned with
279:
Similarly, insufficient thought is given to the application of headers to separate the information into meaningful sections, or to reduce unwieldy lead paragraphs. A dearth of headers also essentially conceals the lack of information in, or the poor treatment of certain subsections.
649:
peer-to-peer database", with share-holders. How a writer behaves outside a writer community, or whether he/she will receive any cooperation, is likewise unclear. One begins to see why the wikipedia model achieved its measure of success, namely by focusing its functions.
629:
It is proposed that the rating data must be "tied to carefully-verified real world identities and be open." Question: Then at least the verification will be centralized, and the raters/rankers will have to willingly give personal information to that centralized
681:
Knowledge exists thanks to donations – the edits and media uploads of registered and unregistered users, and financial contributions by the public. For more information on how donations may be made, see:
636:
It is proposed that "users and organizations will be enabled to rate each other’s expertise," and "rate sources." Question: Further forks in the rating scheme? Experts on experts? Public rating experts?
401:
346:
614:
the public rating carry? Why not rather use wikipedia's existing rating system which elevates some articles to featured status, based on "accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style"?
233:
A lead introduces you to the subject in a limited number of steps, and is accessible to as many as possible, whatever their angle of incidence. It stops short of specialist details.
605:
In 2018 Mr Larry Sanger proposed that
Everipedia be empowered by blockchain technology, seen as a new avenue for those who want to move beyond what wikipedia can offer.
569:
is implementing a completely automated, algorithmically generated and machine-learning based process that will produce a free science definition service. See also:
385:
546:
encourages contributors to state their identity and demonstrate a level of expertise. As of 2016 it is still active, and receives about 20 edits per day.
540:
allowed more than one article about a subject, and like citizendium, encouraged disclosed authorship. It was discontinued in 2012 after a 5 year run.
388:
408:
206:
655:
failed in 2011/2012 due to lack of organisation and maintenance, lack of ongoing support, product development or user-generated quality control.
606:
556:
489:
461:
418:
553:
section of subjects which are not the main concern of an encyclopedia. It is also a fork of wikipedia, and contains all wikipedia's articles.
491:
250:
453:
633:
It is proposed that there could be "competing rankings" of articles. Question: What is the value of a ranking if each person has his own?
498:
421:
292:, or articles for deletion, receives too little input. More votes should be cast to either keep or delete the articles nominated there.
331:
321:
609:
Many questions can be asked however, concerning its rating/ranking feature, monetary nature and governance structure, for instance:
511:
358:
570:
486:
175:
145:
482:
391:
256:
534:
Knowledge's contributors may well keep an eye on these alternatives to get an idea of what wikipedia may be doing wrong.
602:
like advertisements) where the writer is tightly involved with the topic – or is writing about him/herself essentially.
405:
700:
342:
310:
300:
A few articles from the web are referenced below, which may serve as indicators of wikipedia's successes or failings:
664:
432:
705:
599:
414:
379:
465:
424:
354:
314:
371:
247:
Some articles to the contrary exist only on a lofty, inaccessible platform that intimidates or excludes newcomers.
411:
289:
596:
397:
338:
375:
395:
often sparse, biased or just plain wrong, and focused on what preoccupies people. what are the alternatives?
350:
582:
428:
227:
622:
and why would a writer rely on the rating rather than his or her own prejudices when updating an article?
449:
566:
327:
324:
318:
134:
626:
information on themselves? And
Everipedia will be the centralized authority to keep all of that?
573:
382:
478:
104:
494:
394:
8:
194:
171:
560:
515:
457:
139:
519:
190:
186:
683:
198:
267:
25:
694:
578:
60:
656:
607:
Knowledge co-founder’s 8,000-word essay on how to build a better
Knowledge
126:
202:
51:
615:
162:
435:
167:
549:
543:
241:
537:
532:
376:
professor sees error, arrogance, obscurity, and nonsense
166:
User:JMK is very dissatisfied with the neglect of the
590:
174:, and that there are only 10 left as of March 2019
618:high rating, and not the adjudicator him/herself?
692:
266:While the articles have grown and matured, many
429:expert sees fundamental errors in Sarin article
355:14,000+ students created/edited 35,000 articles
389:not playing fair on alternative trauma therapy
663:abandonment and outdated articles. See also:
332:medical students identify gaps in information
85:18 years, 6 months and 7 days
315:...in bibliographies and college curricula
185:I contribute to several wikis, including
161:
512:nine reasons women don’t edit wikipedia
693:
398:misconstruing conservative scholarship
433:dictionary with wikipedia integration
670:
454:access to Royal Society of Chemistry
386:trusted source for ebola information
383:ratings of accuracy and completeness
212:
121:
95:
83:This user has been on Knowledge for
71:
46:
20:
15:
598:. In 2020 "best pages of the week",
380:dysfunction on homeopathic medicine
13:
591:Personal reflections on Everipedia
347:how reliable for medical students?
295:
217:
14:
717:
412:apartheid tag handed out unfairly
322:...acceptance on college campuses
674:
436:quicksilver could close the gaps
240:
226:
125:
75:
50:
24:
567:Elsevier's ScienceDirect Topics
359:advanced writing in disciplines
311:professors split on wiki debate
392:analysis of political subjects
351:sociology students adopt pages
328:openness to the wikipedia idea
271:fits into the larger picture.
180:
1:
583:List of online encyclopedias
499:Knowledge deserves our money
458:research library in practice
422:most scientists not involved
325:...a professor's best friend
7:
343:medical translation project
10:
722:
444:Access to academic sources
366:Perceived bias or accuracy
274:
701:South African Wikipedians
466:National Library of Wales
706:Knowledge autopatrollers
531:competitive maneuvering.
526:If wikipedia would fail
305:Students and wikipedia:
473:Donations to wikipedia
425:nominal GDP misleading
283:
177:
165:
450:access to De Gruyter
339:wikiproject medicine
57:This user comes from
406:covert paid editing
319:books vs. wikipedia
203:Contributions tally
103:This user has made
495:CC-by-SA donations
178:
172:Gulf of California
689:
688:
516:Adrianne Wadewitz
506:About wikipedians
402:Spanish academics
213:State of the wiki
160:
159:
155:
154:
140:English Knowledge
118:
117:
92:
91:
68:
67:
43:
42:
34:25 September 2024
713:
678:
677:
671:
520:Bassel Khartabil
378:9/10/11/12-2014
244:
230:
170:porpoise in the
151:
148:
129:
122:
114:
111:
96:
88:
79:
78:
72:
54:
47:
28:
21:
16:
721:
720:
716:
715:
714:
712:
711:
710:
691:
690:
675:
668:
593:
561:5 stage roadmap
298:
296:About wikipedia
286:
277:
268:lead paragraphs
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
245:
236:
235:
234:
231:
220:
218:Lead paragraphs
215:
183:
156:
146:
143:
119:
105:
102:
93:
82:
76:
69:
58:
44:
39:in South Africa
35:
12:
11:
5:
719:
709:
708:
703:
687:
686:
684:wikimedia:Home
679:
646:
645:
641:
637:
634:
631:
627:
623:
619:
592:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
575:
564:
554:
547:
541:
528:
523:
508:
503:
502:
501:
470:
469:
468:
441:
440:
439:
409:charged topics
363:
362:
361:
297:
294:
285:
282:
276:
273:
246:
239:
238:
237:
232:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
219:
216:
214:
211:
182:
179:
158:
157:
153:
152:
138:rights on the
132:This user has
130:
120:
116:
115:
100:
94:
90:
89:
80:
70:
66:
65:
55:
45:
41:
40:
29:
19:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
718:
707:
704:
702:
699:
698:
696:
685:
680:
673:
672:
669:
666:
665:
661:
657:
654:
650:
642:
638:
635:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
611:
610:
608:
603:
600:
597:
584:
580:
579:List of wikis
576:
574:
571:
568:
565:
562:
558:
555:
551:
548:
545:
542:
539:
536:
535:
533:
529:
527:
524:
521:
518:(1977–2014),
517:
513:
509:
507:
504:
500:
496:
492:
490:
488:
487:explaining it
484:
480:
476:
475:
474:
471:
467:
463:
462:closed access
459:
455:
451:
447:
446:
445:
442:
437:
434:
430:
426:
423:
420:
419:western slant
416:
413:
410:
407:
403:
399:
396:
393:
390:
387:
384:
381:
377:
373:
369:
368:
367:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
337:
333:
329:
326:
323:
320:
316:
312:
308:
307:
306:
303:
302:
301:
293:
291:
281:
272:
269:
259:
258:
253:
252:
243:
229:
210:
208:
207:pages started
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
176:
173:
169:
164:
149:
141:
137:
136:
135:autopatrolled
131:
128:
124:
123:
113:to Knowledge.
112:
110:contributions
109:
101:
98:
97:
86:
81:
74:
73:
63:
62:
56:
53:
49:
48:
38:
33:
30:
27:
23:
22:
18:
17:
667:
660:Infogalactic
659:
652:
651:
647:
630:institution?
604:
594:
557:infogalactic
525:
505:
472:
443:
372:undue weight
365:
335:
304:
299:
287:
278:
265:
255:
251:Timmer, 2015
248:
184:
133:
107:
84:
61:South Africa
59:
36:
31:
653:Google knol
544:citizendium
538:google knol
522:(1981–2015)
415:Chopra case
257:Byrne, 2017
195:wikispecies
181:Other wikis
695:Categories
577:See also:
550:everipedia
106:more than
479:to donate
199:wikiquote
191:Afrikaans
32:Wednesday
497:09-2017
485:12-2015
481:12-2014
477:10-2014
460:09-2015
452:12-2014
448:10-2014
438:, 8-2018
427:12-2015
374:10-2013
330:12-2014
317:10-2014
510:2-2011
493:8-2016
464:8-2017
456:3-2015
431:7-2017
417:9-2015
404:8-2015
400:3-2015
370:2-2012
357:8-2016
353:6-2016
349:4-2015
345:3-2005
313:6-2014
309:2-2007
275:Headers
187:Commons
168:Vaquita
99:27,000+
483:or not
147:verify
108:27,000
37:03:35
288:The
249:cf.
197:and
336:cf.
290:AFD
284:AFD
697::
581:,
572:,
514:,
341:,
334:,
254:,
209:.
205:,
201:.
193:,
189:,
150:)
144:(
142:.
87:.
64:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
