3 ms·

Encarta (1993-2009) was a big inspiration to start the Conzept encyclopedia project. Still much more to do to reach the audio-visual wow-factor and sheer fun th

by leoxv 6y ago

Encarta (1993-2009) was a big inspiration to start the Conzept encyclopedia project. Still much more to do to reach the audio-visual wow-factor and sheer fun that Encarta had, especially for children. Conzept is an attempt to create an encyclopedia for the 21st century. A modern topic-exploration tool based on Wikipedia, Wikidata, Open Library, GBIF and other information sources. Please check it out here: https://conze.pt https://conze.pt There are also various screenshots of the feature progress on Twitter which give a sense of what is already possible: https://twitter.com/conzept__ https://twitter.com/conzept__ For the future I am also looking into adding some WebXR enhancements (such as eg. for more immersive image viewing) and some form of social meetups around topics.

leoxv 6y ago
To add: There are also auto-generated quizzes for all kinds of topics, which brings back some of the game-oriented elements of Encarta (experimental): https://conze.pt/explore/art%20genre?l=en&t=link&s=true&i=743573&u=https%3A%2F%2Fconze.pt%2Fapp%2Fquiz%2F%3Fm%3Dlist%26q%3DQ3305213%26p%3DP135%26l%3Dena https://conze.pt/explore/art%20genre?l=en&t=link&s=true&i=74... https://conze.pt/explore/Fruit%20dove?l=en&t=link&s=true&i=743573&u=https%3A%2F%2Fconze.pt%2Fapp%2Fquiz%2F%3Fm%3Dlist%26q%3DQ743573%26p%3DP171%26%26o%3Dtrue%26d%3Dtrue%26n%3D1%26l%3Den https://conze.pt/explore/Fruit%20dove?l=en&t=link&s=true&i=7... https://conze.pt/explore/Temple?l=en&t=link&s=true&i=44539&u=https%3A%2F%2Fconze.pt%2Fapp%2Fquiz%2F%3Fm%3Dlocation%26q%3DQ44539%26p%3DP625%26l%3Den https://conze.pt/explore/Temple?l=en&t=link&s=true&i=44539&u...
dleslie 6y ago
> A modern topic-exploration tool based on Wikipedia, Wikidata, Open Library, GBIF and other information sources. I find Wikipedia is increasingly relying upon meta-circular authority. Ie, a Wiki article will cite an expert who cites another expert who cites Wikipedia, and so ultimately the Wikipedia article is using itself as an authoritative source. Or the authority is fragile. Ie, the wiki article will cite a trusted source who in turn cites some Tweets as their authoritative source. Or the authority is broken. Ie, the wiki article will cite a trusted source who cites sources that are no longer present on the Internet, and so Wikipedia's broken link discovery fails. Is it possible not to rely upon Wikipedia as a primary source for your articles?
- leoxv 6y ago
  The Wikipedia policy on this is clear: "Do NOT use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources." from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_use_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipe... However, this is an issue to be watchful of indeed, as Wikipedia grows ever larger and gets used more and more. See also http://wikicite.org http://wikicite.org (storing citations in Wikidata) which could help bring in better citation (quality) tools. Scholia is an interesting project using that citation data: https://scholia.toolforge.org/ https://scholia.toolforge.org/
  - dleslie 6y ago
    The problem is, as noted, the meta-circular sourcing where following a non-wiki source eventually leads back to wikipedia. Like dead link detecting, the Wiki policy on sources breaks down when the chain to the primary sources is longer than a single hop.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > I find Wikipedia is increasingly relying upon meta-circular authority. It also relies upon authority by fiat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspira... > The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations which assert that 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden engaged in corrupt activities while the former was Vice President of the United States and the latter worked for the Ukrainian gas company Burisma. The conspiracy theory centers around the allegation that then-Vice President Biden withheld loan guarantees to pressure Ukraine into firing a prosecutor so as to prevent a corruption investigation into Burisma and to protect his son. Although Biden did withhold government aid to pressure Ukraine into removing the prosecutor, this was the official foreign policy of the United States government as it believed the prosecutor to be too lenient in investigating corruption; this position was also supported by American allies. A New York Post article published in October 2020 brought renewed attention to the allegations; its veracity was strongly questioned elsewhere. These statements are "problematic" in a number of ways, and the whole situation (of which this is just one example) is that most people seem to believe that what is recorded on Wikipedia is necessarily factual. It's bad enough that we have this same problem with the media, but at least some people realize that the media is biased. Wikipedia on the other hand, is more of a "record of history" and is typically considered (despite "official" (unread) policies advising otherwise) to be an unbiased ~authoritative snapshot of the state of reality. The fact of the matter is, the complete truth of what has occurred here is unknown, and it's quite interesting from a psychological perspective how otherwise logical people are very uncomfortable with that truth. <NULL> in a database column is accepted by the mind with no resistance - <NULL> in the real world is very often rejected extremely strongly by the very same mind. It would be interesting to see what mankind might achieve if we were able to find a way to not turn our eyes (and minds) away from such phenomena when they manifest.

by leoxv 6y ago

leoxv 6y ago

To add: There are also auto-generated quizzes for all kinds of topics, which brings back some of the game-oriented elements of Encarta (experimental): https://conze.pt/explore/art%20genre?l=en&t=link&s=true&i=743573&u=https%3A%2F%2Fconze.pt%2Fapp%2Fquiz%2F%3Fm%3Dlist%26q%3DQ3305213%26p%3DP135%26l%3Dena https://conze.pt/explore/art%20genre?l=en&t=link&s=true&i=74... https://conze.pt/explore/Fruit%20dove?l=en&t=link&s=true&i=743573&u=https%3A%2F%2Fconze.pt%2Fapp%2Fquiz%2F%3Fm%3Dlist%26q%3DQ743573%26p%3DP171%26%26o%3Dtrue%26d%3Dtrue%26n%3D1%26l%3Den https://conze.pt/explore/Fruit%20dove?l=en&t=link&s=true&i=7... https://conze.pt/explore/Temple?l=en&t=link&s=true&i=44539&u=https%3A%2F%2Fconze.pt%2Fapp%2Fquiz%2F%3Fm%3Dlocation%26q%3DQ44539%26p%3DP625%26l%3Den https://conze.pt/explore/Temple?l=en&t=link&s=true&i=44539&u...

dleslie 6y ago

> A modern topic-exploration tool based on Wikipedia, Wikidata, Open Library, GBIF and other information sources. I find Wikipedia is increasingly relying upon meta-circular authority. Ie, a Wiki article will cite an expert who cites another expert who cites Wikipedia, and so ultimately the Wikipedia article is using itself as an authoritative source. Or the authority is fragile. Ie, the wiki article will cite a trusted source who in turn cites some Tweets as their authoritative source. Or the authority is broken. Ie, the wiki article will cite a trusted source who cites sources that are no longer present on the Internet, and so Wikipedia's broken link discovery fails. Is it possible not to rely upon Wikipedia as a primary source for your articles?

leoxv 6y ago
The Wikipedia policy on this is clear: "Do NOT use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources." from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_use_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipe... However, this is an issue to be watchful of indeed, as Wikipedia grows ever larger and gets used more and more. See also http://wikicite.org http://wikicite.org (storing citations in Wikidata) which could help bring in better citation (quality) tools. Scholia is an interesting project using that citation data: https://scholia.toolforge.org/ https://scholia.toolforge.org/
- dleslie 6y ago
  The problem is, as noted, the meta-circular sourcing where following a non-wiki source eventually leads back to wikipedia. Like dead link detecting, the Wiki policy on sources breaks down when the chain to the primary sources is longer than a single hop.
mistermann 6y ago
> I find Wikipedia is increasingly relying upon meta-circular authority. It also relies upon authority by fiat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspira... > The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations which assert that 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden engaged in corrupt activities while the former was Vice President of the United States and the latter worked for the Ukrainian gas company Burisma. The conspiracy theory centers around the allegation that then-Vice President Biden withheld loan guarantees to pressure Ukraine into firing a prosecutor so as to prevent a corruption investigation into Burisma and to protect his son. Although Biden did withhold government aid to pressure Ukraine into removing the prosecutor, this was the official foreign policy of the United States government as it believed the prosecutor to be too lenient in investigating corruption; this position was also supported by American allies. A New York Post article published in October 2020 brought renewed attention to the allegations; its veracity was strongly questioned elsewhere. These statements are "problematic" in a number of ways, and the whole situation (of which this is just one example) is that most people seem to believe that what is recorded on Wikipedia is necessarily factual. It's bad enough that we have this same problem with the media, but at least some people realize that the media is biased. Wikipedia on the other hand, is more of a "record of history" and is typically considered (despite "official" (unread) policies advising otherwise) to be an unbiased ~authoritative snapshot of the state of reality. The fact of the matter is, the complete truth of what has occurred here is unknown, and it's quite interesting from a psychological perspective how otherwise logical people are very uncomfortable with that truth. <NULL> in a database column is accepted by the mind with no resistance - <NULL> in the real world is very often rejected extremely strongly by the very same mind. It would be interesting to see what mankind might achieve if we were able to find a way to not turn our eyes (and minds) away from such phenomena when they manifest.