Talk:Wikinfo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination: No Consensus, 08 Feb 2007, see discussion. Keep, September 16, 2006, see discussion. Keep, 23 July 2006, see discussion.

Contents 1 Missing Infomation 2 Move this page to the "Wikipedia:" namespace? 3 Changes to the URL of the site 4 Discussion of Nazis on Wikinfo 5 Should wikipedians abuse wikinfoids? 6 What's the history of the fork? 7 A mere humble question: Is this whole thing... stupid? 8 Still in operation? 9 Aaargh, self-reference! 10 Chunk of text removed - userpage controversy

[edit] Missing Infomation

this practice is actively discouraged, however, on the Wikinfo account creation page.

Is it just me, or is this article missing infomation? Maby due to edits on behalf of Wikinfo -- Anonymous Coward) 19:35, Feb 2, 2006 (GMT+1200DST)

[edit] Move this page to the "Wikipedia:" namespace?

Shouldn't this page be moved to the wikipedia-namespace, to some page about sister/spin-off projects. Or does it really deserve an own encyclopedia entry on itself? -- till we *) 12:37, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

I like it having its own entry of course, but perhaps some of the other projects should have pages too. I see the future of the wiki encyclopedia being rather diverse over the long term, however much some of the folks here would like to see "one big thing", kind of like the IWW. Fred Bauder 18:52, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to the URL of the site

http://www.internet-encyclopedia.info is up again at least temporarily. Anyone wishing to save an article should move it to http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org Fred Bauder 00:55, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Nazis on Wikinfo

No attempt is made to adopt a sympathetic point of view about Nazism or Hitler or similar subjects on Internet-Encyclopedia. Everything has commonsense limits. Fred Bauder 13:20, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why not? If the idea is to allow arguments to be posited from specified points of view, why would some points of view be taboo? For that matter, Wikipedia is willing to describe the argument in favor of taboo ideologies as long as it's from a neutral point of view. -- Mike Simpson 08:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I despise totalitarianism. There is plenty of opportunity here at Wikipedia and policy which theoretically supports the right to set forth the wonders of concentration camps and bullets in the back of the head for folks who once owned a farm. (but I note the Red Faction is kind of shy about this). Presenting nightmares as dreams will get you banned from Wikinfo. The problem is basically that no encyclopedia should present false information, especially under a cloak of being neutral. Fred Bauder 22:36, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, the sole reason those points of view are disallowed there is that you despise them? False information is bad, but the whole /point/ of Wikinfo, as I understand it, is to let viewpoints that differ exist peacefully without infinite battles over the same space. Also, I don't see the problem with presenting false information (determined by consensus, or majority) written from the NPOV as long as those who posit such claims are identified (and, in that case, as long as they are also marked as non-consensus/non-majority views). Mike Simpson 11:53, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Mike Simpson. While I think the Nazi regime was despicable, it seems a rational and consistent extension of the SPOV to allow pro-Nazi and pro-KKK articles on wikinfo. Presumably intelligent people would look at a "holocost denial" SPOV article and be able to observe that it is rubbish.

What would really improve the SPOV system would be combining it with some sort of rating system. Articles could be rated on a variety of different axes. Articles that purport to be scientific could be rated along a scientific accuracy scale. There could also be public ratings (i.e. ratings by the public readership at large) as well as expert ratings by experts in various fields. The idea here is to let everyone, including the loonies, have their say but to add a peer review system that includes an accountability component.

An example of a wikipedia article that would greatly benefit from being broken into several SPOV articles and then rated is the Age of the Earth. Let the propeller heads have their article, the creationist theirs and have the public and experts rate the articles to provide the young and naive an idea of what the world at large things of the quality of the article.

[edit] Should wikipedians abuse wikinfoids?

Do we have a meta page for making fun of Wikinfo? I have some things i would like to add to it if we do. Perl 23:58, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't believe we do, and I'm not sure it's an appropriate thing to have anyway. Angela. 03:30, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, because we have a page like that for Britannica. Perl 03:31, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The purpose of that page is to emphasise the benefits of wikipedia over the EB. Do you think the WP has benefits over WI? How about visa versa? Mr. Jones 14:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On the surface of things, Wikinfo allows multiple opposing views to be expressed without resulting in an edit war, but to achive a semblance of a NPOV from reading Wikinfo, you would need to read all articles on a subject. It could be suggested that edit wars should be moved to Wikinfo where multiple SPOV articles could be written, then summarised back to Wikipedia. --Martin Rudat(T|@|C) 11:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If a page has been copied from Wikipedia to Wikinfo that means the software must no longer access Wikipedia to get the article. While we don't want all the Wikipedia articles, we do want to copy the most used ones so that the load is going to Wikinfo's database most of the time. Fred Bauder 16:33, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

As to benefits of Wikinfo over Wikipedia, the difference is in a much more relaxed editorial policy which allows a number of options which would be unacceptable on Wikipedia for various reasons, some better than others. Editors who contemplate editing on Wikinfo should carefully examine those options to ensure they can live with them. Fred Bauder 16:33, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What's the history of the fork?

What events lead up to, and eventually inspired the fork? Was it argued about and agreed-upon that this fork needed to happen or was it a rude and merciless fork? -- Mike Simpson 08:02, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fred Bauder set up Wikinfo but he is also currently chairman of the English Wikipedia arbitration committee.. so things are pretty amicable between the two sites! He had a fair few battles on political ideology articles at Wikipedia though, which may well have been the inspiration for seeing if SPOV works better than NPOV. Perhaps he can tell you more. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mike, you might get a quicker answer if you ask on User talk:Fred Bauder. Pete, the Arbitration Committee doesn't have a chairman. Angela. 17:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oops, please excuse my terrible memory and also my even worse powers of deduction. Mike, Fred is an active memeber of the chairless arbitration committee. (Does that make it a standing committee?) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:51, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikinfo was started as the result of edit wars with User:RK, User:Larry Sanger, and User:172 and similar editors, each of those mentioned presents in a different way, RK's thing is scientism, Larry Sanger is, in my opinion, a half-cocked academic, and 172, together with a few colleagues, consistently spins leftist totalitarianism trying to present it in the most favorable positive light. I was damn mad, mad enough to pay for my own website, although now it is hosted at Ibiblio. Another element was the Wikipedia prohibition against original work which I had done in several areas and been put under pressure on that account. See (on Wikinfo, basic process). Fred Bauder 22:46, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Can you provide a representative list of articles where this contention is well illustrated? Mike Simpson 09:51, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Which contention? Fred Bauder 11:55, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

This contention? ":Wikinfo was started as the result of edit wars with User:RK, User:Larry Sanger, and User:172 and similar editors, each of those mentioned presents in a different way, RK's thing is scientism, Larry Sanger is, in my opinion, a half-cocked academic, and 172, together with a few colleagues, consistently spins leftist totalitarianism trying to present it in the most favorable positive light. " 9:18, Jun 4, 2004 (GMT +5)

The edit war with RK was at chiropractic medicine, with Larry Sanger at Reality, with 172 at Communist state. Fred Bauder 17:35, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

What an honor. Will I get a dedication on Wikifo, perhaps on the main page? 172 06:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reading over this article and having no prior knowledge of what Wikinfo is, what is immediately unclear to me is this: What is the relationship between Wikinfo and Wikipedia? From the point of view of someone wandering in, the idea of a fork conjures the imagine of a splinter group; is there a conflict, or isn't there? Is it a civil one? Is this a sister project? I don't understand :( Jaz Mcdougall 01:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A mere humble question: Is this whole thing... stupid?

Mind you, I might not be the most illuminated person around or quite familiar with all of your pesky bussiness. But let me get this straight. So you're telling me that this whole thing started off your own self-righteous disagreement 'cause some people have different points of view?

Am I wrong in assuming that seeking biased commentary or definitions is by default... a vibrant sign of mental decay? I mean, mind you, when I read an article on *whatever*, I want facts. If I want interpretations, I'll ask for them or have them as a side tab. A definition of something that's based on the author's interpretation seems so... invalid by nature. Not to mention you actually encorage this. What's the point of editing anything (or actually caring about your project) if under said so everything anyone says can go, technically, as long as they get the main point straight.

Then you go on to say that you're not gonna have things you disagree with being used. Where are you going to draw the line? You might've deemed Communism as a politics that leads to totalitarianism and therefore invalidated all positive writings of the manifesto on your site.

Finally, you import definitions from Wikipedia and incorporated them into your own. I mean, double you tea effe. You didn't even have the decency to change the layout - it's a clear cut copy. In a world where there are myriads of sites out there that just copy wikipedia's definition then make money off ads - check [1] (wikipedia isn't even on the top 10, tho its clear every article there is a copy of the previous) - are you sure you just aren't being redundant, petty and somewhat blind and contributing at large to dilute even more any useful usage of google? (I mean, the article is not even good. It's rather short and incomplete - however all those sites have copied it and litter google's highest rated searches). Phill 11.00 pm GMT -5

We are doing our best. When we can we improve on what is in Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 03:58, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

That the other mirrors have gamed the Google algorithm better than us is hardly a reason to take a potshot at Fred's project! I'd much prefer to see a project like Fred's - using and modifying and deriving content as the GFDL allows rather than the dull re-use by all the other mirrors. Pcb21| Pete 08:59, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I sounded like that solely 'cause he mirrors most of wiki's content he's redundant; I said that he's being redundant because his philosophy of positive points is amazingly flawed imho.

Phill 1:35 am GMT -5

I disagree the premise that trying to come up with a better system than Wikipedia's is stupid. Yes, wikipedia is revolutionary. Yes, wikipedia is great. Is it impossible to create a new wiki-encyclopedia that is better than wikipedia (choose your own favorite set of metrics)? I don't think so.

Perhaps wikinfo has not succeeded in being better than wikipedia but that doesn't mean Fred and others should not try. The whole point of the open content license is to allow people like Fred to have a go at improving things.

For example, some experts in their fields give up on editing wikipedia articles because they grow tired of having their excellent contributions reverted or removed by zealous loonies. If another wiki-encyclopedia can find a way to make the experts feel comfortable contributing while allowing the loonies to participate without being able to harass the experts I wish them all the success in the world! Funkyj 22:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've looked around a little on the web and found other wikis. I believe the foundational policies of a wiki dictate its usefulness and popularity. Our NPOV (previously published, reputable sources) which denies personal websites as secondary sources is the cornerstone which makes wikipedia useful to readers, but popular. If a Wiki is going to succeed, I believe its base policies need to be cleanly written to avoid confusion by its editors. Terryeo 15:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that Wikipedia could be improved in two areas. First, registration could be required. This would greatly slow vandalism. It would also reduce the amount of hot debate that sometimes happen. A second level of improvement could be done also. An editor could be required give proof of identity and in general then, most editors would have a single identity. Both of these steps would increase the attributional value of edits made. Attributed information is of higher quality than unattributed information, our policies say so. The second area in which Wikipedia could change policy and increase the quality of articles would be in what attributions are allowable as secondary sources. The bar presently lies just barely above "personal opinion on personal websites" but could be raised. However, quality articles is not the only force motivating Wikipedia, obviously. Popularity of editing, popularity on the web are probably more compelling motivations than "quality of articles" alone. Terryeo 09:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And in Terryeo's case, the "quality" of an article is from his POV, not anyone else's. And for Terryeo's edification, Wikipedia is already succeeding. There is no "if".--Fahrenheit451 02:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, Fahrenheit451, I sure appreciate the personal attention. Might I direct your attention back to the subject at hand? Terryeo 11:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Myself, I like the idea. A NPOV is real easy when it comes to subjects like modern technology, cell phone technology, creating new, high quality steels, and such subjects. But when it comes to the subjects which have been around since Roman times, subjects like how to govern, religion, who should be allowed to vote, should military service be compulsary? These sorts of questions will never be completely settled, the idea of presenting each side with a sympathetic point of view has some real value. Terryeo 11:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess, in NPOV, you can still represent these points of view, as long as you're not making one viewpoint seem like it's what the smart people thing, while painting another one as being largely held by idiots, or the unenlightened. Thats why it really needs a community to do this, as with SPOV - very few people can argue well against their own beliefs, but find it easy to argue well against others. Jaz Mcdougall 20:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Stupid, I don't know ... it has some interesting philosophical implications on the nature of objectivity, on dialectic, and so on. However, "asinine" seems to really sum up what it is in practice -- virtually every forum is stuffed with incessant axe-grinding against Wikipedia, some of it downright kookish, bandying about terms like "mind control". What could have been an interesting experiment instead looks a lot like the "Even Cooler Kids" club that one might found because they aren't welcome at the original Cool Kids Club. 64.121.2.59 19:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still in operation?

The Wikinfo site appears to be down. Anyone know how long this has been the case? The Singing Badger 18:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

ibiblio is migrating to new servers. According to their front page: "NOTICE: ibiblio.org is migrating to its new datacenter beginning Friday, September 8, 2006, at 8:00 p.m. EDT. Some of our services (audio/video.ibiblio.org, lyceum.ibiblio.org, distro.ibiblio.org and torrent.ibiblio.org) will remain unaffacted. The ibiblio web site and its virtually-hosted sites, login, e-mail and mailing list access will unfortunately be down for several hours while the machines are in transit. We apologize for the trouble, but will be excited to be in our new home!" Wikinfo should have returned to normal operation by now, but it could be a database problem or something else having gone wrong. RenegadeWisdom 23:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It is in operation and being edited, discussions are taking place. Terryeo 18:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Still operating end of January, 2007.--69.87.199.128 12:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is currently March and wikinfo is still up and running. Looks like it won't be ending anytime soon. 72.4.81.5 22:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aaargh, self-reference!

Is it just me, or is this whole article full of self-reference to the wiki universe? User page? What the hell is that? What is Wikipedia's neutral point of view? Maybe it should be layman-ized, I'd like to violently overlay the prose but wanted to gauge community opinion first, the last time I tried this it resulted in massive drama and forced me to delay myself significantly. Milto LOL pia 15:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well, I'm doing it now. Milto LOL pia 16:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chunk of text removed - userpage controversy

I removed this text:

Some controversy has arisen from the fact that Wikinfo can fetch Wikipedia personal "user pages",[2] where users of Wikipedia put information about themselves and the reasons they contribute to Wikipedia. Such user pages are displayed like any article would be, and some Wikipedia editors feel that this creates the false impression that they contribute to Wikinfo.

...and here's why: the link reffing it is an archived Wikipedia policy conversation - this seems extremely self-referential, and it's clear that any controversy is solely among a few contributors to Wikipedia. Very much a minority viewpoint and self-reference IMO, an d not even really a controversy, just an (all-too-typical) "something on the internet is bothering me and I want Wikipedia admins to be the internet police and fix it somehow" complaint. So, any dissent? Milto LOL pia 16:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)