7 ms·

Justapedia, a Wikipedia alternative and aspiring replacement, has gone public

18 points by kurtreed 3y ago

raxxorraxor 3y ago
Wikipedia is a good source or at least points to good sources. The exception is political articles, which are often framed in a very one-sided way, especially if a topic has hit the news cycle. At least some articles are subjected to this, others might be fine. I wish this platform luck. It will be hard and might take ages to take up speed and maybe it will fare better here.
- betwills 3y ago
  SOME good sources - they downgrade sources that don't agree with their POV, and therein lies a big part of the problem. FACT: Many of the news sources they consider reliable got so much wrong during the Russian collusion conspiracy. Even the CJR pointed it out in a 4-part article. What WP has done to citing sources is a major embarrassment and why so many editors (left & right) have vacated the project.
troupo 3y ago
I'm getting certificate errors on iOS
- PostOnce 3y ago
  link is to www.justapedia.org , but the cert only is valid for justapedia.org (no www)
denkmoon 3y ago
They redirect to `www.justapedia.org` but don't have a SAN in their ssl cert for it. Doesn't seem like a good start.
- bawolff 3y ago
  I mean,its not their fault hn is using an incorrect link.
  - sebazzz 3y ago
    It is a common practice to have www as a SAN, even if it is just for a redirect. It costs nothing extra either as it is often included by default in my experience.
    - bawolff 3y ago
      They use lets encrypt so its all free. It just seems a weird thing to complain about for a site just starting out. Sure it could be more polished, but also people could just link to the correct url.
      - RamRodification 3y ago
        Not weird at all. If you are listening on www. then you should have a certificate for it. Super basic stuff.
        bawolff 3y ago
        They're listening on all subdomains. Its not like they explicitly enabled www. https://foo.justapedia.org/ https://foo.justapedia.org/ has the same problem. IDK, i just think this is all incredibly nitpicky and really doesn't matter
  - harshreality 3y ago
    No, but it is their fault for not caring that people will use www and no-www interchangeably, and not having a SAN and redirect for the secondary one. That's objectively a usability problem for the website.
fake-name 3y ago
So apparently this is basically conservapedia 2.0.
- fake-name 3y ago
  So, looking at the "about the foundation page" [1], we have conspiracy wingnuttery about: - Global warming - Covid lab-leak stuff - Jimmy Wales being mean to Elon Musk (Really?) On the valid side, we have: - Holocaust minimization (this is a valid complaint) - Systemic bias at wikipedia (even linking to [2]) So their solution to this is... copy wikipedia, but add more rightwing bent? Maybe the reason wikipedia seems left wing is something to do with the fact that a lot of right wing talking points fail apart under scrutiny. The fact that their "improved" fascism example claims (without citation) "Corporatism became one of the main tenets of fascism" makes it a farce. They also link to [3], which is (unintentionally) farcical site that makes the tired argument that fascism is left-wing as a useful source, which should tell you everything you need to know about this place. 1: https://justapedia.org/wiki/Justapedia_Foundation https://justapedia.org/wiki/Justapedia_Foundation 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias 3: https://c2cjournal.ca/2022/01/left-wing-fascism-and-its-war-against-conservatives/ https://c2cjournal.ca/2022/01/left-wing-fascism-and-its-war-...
  - tivert 3y ago
    > Maybe the reason wikipedia seems left wing is something to do with the fact that a lot of right wing talking points [fall] apart under scrutiny. I hear people say stuff like that a lot (e.g. reality has a X bias, where X is some identity of the speaker), but I'm convinced it's a flattering fiction. When someone disagrees with something, it often appears to "fall apart" to them when scrutinize it using their incompatible assumptions (e.g. the source of the disagreement). When someone agrees with something that's weak, they tend to avert their eyes from the problem. The end result is people feel they they couldn't be more righteously right, that their opinions are "objective truths," and that their opponents couldn't be more wrong, but the feeling is just a self-serving bias. That bias tends to go unchecked and unmoderated when the opponents are remote from one's day-to-day life and can be thoroughly othered.
TekMol 3y ago
It has a broken certificate for the www subdomain. It's now 2023 and certificates are still a pain in the butt. The web needs a better solution than Let's Encrypt. We need a certificate authority to which you can prove control over a domain by putting a file in: domain.com/.well-known/root_ownership And get a wildcard cert this way. Let's Encrypt's approach to require changing DNS entries for this is not the way to go. Their argument seems to be that user generated content might end up in a file. And therefore file authentification is only good for individual hostnames. But which website let's you put user generated content into /.well-kown/ on the root domain?
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  Let's encrypt is fine and a step into the correct direction. You would have the exact same problem with every classical CA, you just have to put the correct URLs into the subject alternative name. A convention browsers adopted for different reasons, which now leads to a less intuitive situation. The "identity" market with their dubious ideas would currently ensure that we end up with a worse solution than we have now. Wildcard certs for every subdomain can be a bad idea if we look at the numerous cloud services that provide subdomains to their clients.
alex-moon 3y ago
Presumably this is for conservatives, am I reading that right?
- betwills 3y ago
  Justapedia is not political, we state the facts, but keep in mind, we imported 6.5+ million articles from Wikipedia, so there is work to be done. As a new encyclopedia, it will take time to build our community of editors. It is quite clear that our mission is to eliminate the weaponization of encyclopedias, expose journalistic opinion for what it is, and make our focus pragmatic and factual, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be doing. Most of their edits are at the dramah boards, user talk pages and at their "unapproved" perennial sources noticeboard where they downgrade perfectly good sources because of their own systemic biases. Justapedia believes in "context matters", we support "truth", and the inclusion of all significant views (diversity). Our readers will be well-informed to make their own decisions. An encyclopedia is not supposed to make decisions for them. As for journalistic opinion and mainstream media, read CJR's 4-part review: https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-ed-note.php https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-p... Science even sees the politicization in mainstream: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190813130431.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190813130431.h...
runeks 3y ago
How is this different from Wikipedia?
parentheses 3y ago
Why was this made? Is there something un"just" about Wikipedia's articles? Or are they "just a[nother] pedia"?
- bawolff 3y ago
  https://justapedia.org/wiki/Justapedia:What_to_expect#Justapedia_vs._Wikipedia:_The_Core_Differences https://justapedia.org/wiki/Justapedia:What_to_expect#Justap... is what they say. But for the life of me i can't figure out how that differs from wikipedia's policies. It sounds a bit like they disagree that wikipedia is "neutral" and want to do their own thing with the exact same goal maybe filtered through their own unconcious biases instead. Regardless, this is how right to fork is supposed to work. If you think wikipedia is doing a bad job, then try and do a better one and see what happens.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    Hmm https://justapedia.org/wiki/Justapedia:Justapedia_Foundation#Community https://justapedia.org/wiki/Justapedia:Justapedia_Foundation... seems to be the biggest statement about what's different. It seems like they mostly want a different power structure to resolve disputes (Which reading between the lines, i guess they want to be the ones in power). I do get an implication that they think wikipedia is too woke or something like that.
hknmtt 3y ago
ok, so they forked wikipedia with the intent to make the content more unbiased. well, that is good idea(even as to avoid monopolization of information) but i fail to see how they plan to achieve that. not only they have miniscule amount of editors compared to wikipedia by default, but they also show no plans for safeguards against the manipulation. i would say this looks like a waste of time and people behind it should rather invest time in "fixing" wikipedia articles and potentially work with wiki foundation on some rules and techniques to prevent manipulation rather than start their own project, which will ultimately fail because running wikipedia is not as simple as it might look like. let alone cheap.
- dgb23 3y ago
  Whenever someone tells me they provide unbiased information I know that they don’t understand the words “bias” and “information”.
- tivert 3y ago
  > but i fail to see how they plan to achieve that. not only they have miniscule amount of editors compared to wikipedia by default That's an unfair criticism. Wikipedia itself started with a "miniscule amount of editors compared to" its competitors at the time. > i would say this looks like a waste of time and people behind it should rather invest time in "fixing" wikipedia articles and potentially work with wiki foundation on some rules and techniques to prevent manipulation rather than start their own project That idea obviously fails if the problem is a personal/social one (e.g. you fork because the maintainer keeps closing your bugs as WONTFIX). Wikipedia's culture is dysfunctional in many respects, and there are arguably many problems with it that it's maintainers are fine with and will not fix.
runeks 3y ago
Mods: please change the link to https://justapedia.org/ https://justapedia.org/ to avoid certificate issue (ie. removing the "www" prefix).
bawolff 3y ago
The fact they are using a fake einstein quote on the front page does not bode well for their reliability.
Svip 3y ago
Their feature showcase with fascism makes their version seem more biased than the Wikipedia version. I recognise we can debate whether Stalin was a true communist and not just a fascist in disguise, but leading your article with that (by virtue of having his picture before Hitler's in reading direction) seems very subjective.
- fake-name 3y ago
  Look at their citations. This is just right wing whitewashing with a veneer of "it's unbiased" (because it doesn't say bad things about us now).
  - bawolff 3y ago
    I agree that their version seems more sympathetic and biased imho, but it doesn't seem 100% whitewashed. For example "...[facism is] a fear-built society based on the “common will” of the people, the stifling of dissent and persecution of minority groups, and militarism and imperialism by conquering and ruling weak nations." doesn't exactly sound positive to me.
- timeon 3y ago
  They also removed all occurrences of term 'far-right' there...
sleepychu 3y ago
https://justapedia.org/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=2000021708&oldid=2000018546 https://justapedia.org/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=200002... Yikes. EDIT: https://justapedia.org/wiki/Category:Justapedia_controversial_topic https://justapedia.org/wiki/Category:Justapedia_controversia... Yikes yikes.
- bawolff 3y ago
  I'm not sure what to take away from that. They also tagged Blu-ray disk as controversial. Do they just think everything is controversial?
  - betwills 3y ago
    The article https://justapedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray https://justapedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray does not include the word "controversial" and there is nothing in Categories at the bottom of the page so what exactly are you referring to? No, Justapedians do not think everything is controversial. We forked 6.5+ million articles from Wikipedia, and editors are starting to create articles, and clean-up the controversial forked articles that reek of WP's systemic bias in an effort to make them representative of encyclopedic content; i.e., neutral and objective.
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  Evolution certainly is a controversial topic. What are you trying to imply?
  - fake-name 3y ago
    Evolution is completely uncontroversial. Teaching about evolution is controversial because it pokes holes in certain commonly held beliefs. That doesn't make any of the actual underlying facts controversial.
    - Y_Y 3y ago
      This sounds like semantics. Presumably GP means controversial in the sense that people argue about it, you mean non-controversial in the sense that it's well established scientifically. I think both of those takes are good.
nextaccountic 3y ago
In the feature showcase, Justapedia shows the article on fascism on both their site and Wikipedia. It reads > From Justapedia > Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarianism that first emerged in Italy under the leadership of Mussolini, who coined the term to describe his political movement in 1919 during World War I. > (...) > There have been attempts by media and some scholars to equate nationalism with fascism while discarding its Marxist "anti-capitalist economic, philosophical and political framework."[3] George Friedman opined that in 2016 a number of articles and statements asserted that "fascism is rising in Europe, and that Donald Trump is an American example of fascism." Friedman denounced such beliefs as "a misrepresentation of a very real phenomenon", and that the nation-state is once again becoming the most important part of politics. He went on to say that people simply don't consider multilateral trade treaties and international organizations like the European Union to be in the best interest of their respective countries, and that the idea that fascism is on the rise "derives from a profound misunderstanding of what fascism is." He views it as an attempt to "discredit the resurgence of nationalism and to defend the multinational systems that have dominated the West since World War II."[4] - > From Wikipedia > Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[14][15][16] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[15][16] So, that's Justapedia main selling point? Removing the "far-right" label on the goddamn article on Fascism, and associating it with Marxism?
- orwin 3y ago
  And Friedman? I mean, maybe add on Paxton if you want to be more detailed about fascism, but why listen to Friedman more than my uncle? I don't like the Wikipedia article either tbh, as in my opinion it doesn't go in details about what Paxton means (to avoid defacing I guess?), but Friedman as a source on fascism... I will stay polite, but this kind of stuff is why I'm becoming more and more elitist when it comes to discussing political ideologies. I can discuss with an edgy fascist who just read Nietzsch (or even internalized him) and historian's books on WW2. I actually did, multiple times (the same one). I can discuss with a priest who is a theology major (and minor in history). I feed from their knowledge and interpretation. What can I get from people this ignorant? 'je parle pas aux cons, ça les instruits' wrote Audiard, I thought it was just a funny line, now that I'm older I see what he meant.
benterix 3y ago
> "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." — Albert Einstein The point is, he never said that. So how can you place a fake quote on your main page of this kind of project?
- betwills 3y ago
  Published in the Harvard Business Review, Einstein is often quoted as saying ...https://hbr.org/2018/05/what-it-takes-to-think-deeply-about-complex-problems https://hbr.org/2018/05/what-it-takes-to-think-deeply-about-... Perhaps some authors quoted an English translation which caused the variation. All anyone can do is use what RS publish. Our Quote section changes frequently, so there is really not enough time to prepend or follow-up on the exactness of a quote, especially if it's not a recorded original, or it was not written by the speaker...which is why it's referred to as a quote. There is no way to possibly know if the author quoting a person actually got verbatim. WikiQuote delves into it in more detail: A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move toward higher levels. From "Atomic Education Urged by Einstein", New York Times (25 May 1946), and later quoted in the article "The Real Problem is in the Hearts of Man" by Michael Amrine, from the New York Times Magazine (23 June 1946). A slightly modified version of the 23 June article was reprinted in Einstein on Peace by Otto Nathan and Heinz Norden (1960), and it was also reprinted in Einstein on Politics by David E. Rowe and Robert Schulmann (2007), p. 383. In The New Quotable Einstein (2005), editor Alice Calaprice suggests that two quotes attributed to Einstein which she could not find sources for, "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them" and "The world we have created today as a result of our thinking thus far has problems which cannot be solved by thinking the way we thought when we created them," may both be paraphrases of the 1946 quote above. A similar unsourced variant is "The world we have created is a product of our thinking; it cannot be changed without changing our thinking." In the 23 June article Einstein expanded somewhat on the original quote from the 25 May article: Many persons have inquired concerning a recent message of mine that "a new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels." Often in evolutionary processes a species must adapt to new conditions in order to survive. Today the atomic bomb has altered profoundly the nature of the world as we knew it, and the human race consequently finds itself in a new habitat to which it must adapt its thinking. In the light of new knowledge, a world authority and an eventual world state are not just desirable in the name of brotherhood, they are necessary for survival. In previous ages a nation's life and culture could be protected to some extent by the growth of armies in national competition. Today we must abandon competition and secure cooperation. This must be the central fact in all our considerations of international affairs; otherwise we face certain disaster. Past thinking and methods did not prevent world wars. Future thinking must prevent wars.
Ch4rl3s 3y ago
[dead]

18 points by kurtreed 3y ago

Wikipedia is a good source or at least points to good sources. The exception is political articles, which are often framed in a very one-sided way, especially if a topic has hit the news cycle. At least some articles are subjected to this, others might be fine. I wish this platform luck. It will be hard and might take ages to take up speed and maybe it will fare better here.

betwills 3y ago
SOME good sources - they downgrade sources that don't agree with their POV, and therein lies a big part of the problem. FACT: Many of the news sources they consider reliable got so much wrong during the Russian collusion conspiracy. Even the CJR pointed it out in a 4-part article. What WP has done to citing sources is a major embarrassment and why so many editors (left & right) have vacated the project.

troupo 3y ago

I'm getting certificate errors on iOS

PostOnce 3y ago
link is to www.justapedia.org , but the cert only is valid for justapedia.org (no www)

denkmoon 3y ago

They redirect to `www.justapedia.org` but don't have a SAN in their ssl cert for it. Doesn't seem like a good start.

bawolff 3y ago
I mean,its not their fault hn is using an incorrect link.
- sebazzz 3y ago
  It is a common practice to have www as a SAN, even if it is just for a redirect. It costs nothing extra either as it is often included by default in my experience.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    They use lets encrypt so its all free. It just seems a weird thing to complain about for a site just starting out. Sure it could be more polished, but also people could just link to the correct url.
    - RamRodification 3y ago
      Not weird at all. If you are listening on www. then you should have a certificate for it. Super basic stuff.
      - bawolff 3y ago
        They're listening on all subdomains. Its not like they explicitly enabled www. https://foo.justapedia.org/ https://foo.justapedia.org/ has the same problem. IDK, i just think this is all incredibly nitpicky and really doesn't matter
- harshreality 3y ago
  No, but it is their fault for not caring that people will use www and no-www interchangeably, and not having a SAN and redirect for the secondary one. That's objectively a usability problem for the website.

fake-name 3y ago

So apparently this is basically conservapedia 2.0.

fake-name 3y ago
So, looking at the "about the foundation page" [1], we have conspiracy wingnuttery about: - Global warming - Covid lab-leak stuff - Jimmy Wales being mean to Elon Musk (Really?) On the valid side, we have: - Holocaust minimization (this is a valid complaint) - Systemic bias at wikipedia (even linking to [2]) So their solution to this is... copy wikipedia, but add more rightwing bent? Maybe the reason wikipedia seems left wing is something to do with the fact that a lot of right wing talking points fail apart under scrutiny. The fact that their "improved" fascism example claims (without citation) "Corporatism became one of the main tenets of fascism" makes it a farce. They also link to [3], which is (unintentionally) farcical site that makes the tired argument that fascism is left-wing as a useful source, which should tell you everything you need to know about this place. 1: https://justapedia.org/wiki/Justapedia_Foundation https://justapedia.org/wiki/Justapedia_Foundation 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias 3: https://c2cjournal.ca/2022/01/left-wing-fascism-and-its-war-against-conservatives/ https://c2cjournal.ca/2022/01/left-wing-fascism-and-its-war-...
- tivert 3y ago
  > Maybe the reason wikipedia seems left wing is something to do with the fact that a lot of right wing talking points [fall] apart under scrutiny. I hear people say stuff like that a lot (e.g. reality has a X bias, where X is some identity of the speaker), but I'm convinced it's a flattering fiction. When someone disagrees with something, it often appears to "fall apart" to them when scrutinize it using their incompatible assumptions (e.g. the source of the disagreement). When someone agrees with something that's weak, they tend to avert their eyes from the problem. The end result is people feel they they couldn't be more righteously right, that their opinions are "objective truths," and that their opponents couldn't be more wrong, but the feeling is just a self-serving bias. That bias tends to go unchecked and unmoderated when the opponents are remote from one's day-to-day life and can be thoroughly othered.

TekMol 3y ago

It has a broken certificate for the www subdomain. It's now 2023 and certificates are still a pain in the butt. The web needs a better solution than Let's Encrypt. We need a certificate authority to which you can prove control over a domain by putting a file in: domain.com/.well-known/root_ownership And get a wildcard cert this way. Let's Encrypt's approach to require changing DNS entries for this is not the way to go. Their argument seems to be that user generated content might end up in a file. And therefore file authentification is only good for individual hostnames. But which website let's you put user generated content into /.well-kown/ on the root domain?

raxxorraxor 3y ago
Let's encrypt is fine and a step into the correct direction. You would have the exact same problem with every classical CA, you just have to put the correct URLs into the subject alternative name. A convention browsers adopted for different reasons, which now leads to a less intuitive situation. The "identity" market with their dubious ideas would currently ensure that we end up with a worse solution than we have now. Wildcard certs for every subdomain can be a bad idea if we look at the numerous cloud services that provide subdomains to their clients.

alex-moon 3y ago

Presumably this is for conservatives, am I reading that right?

betwills 3y ago
Justapedia is not political, we state the facts, but keep in mind, we imported 6.5+ million articles from Wikipedia, so there is work to be done. As a new encyclopedia, it will take time to build our community of editors. It is quite clear that our mission is to eliminate the weaponization of encyclopedias, expose journalistic opinion for what it is, and make our focus pragmatic and factual, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be doing. Most of their edits are at the dramah boards, user talk pages and at their "unapproved" perennial sources noticeboard where they downgrade perfectly good sources because of their own systemic biases. Justapedia believes in "context matters", we support "truth", and the inclusion of all significant views (diversity). Our readers will be well-informed to make their own decisions. An encyclopedia is not supposed to make decisions for them. As for journalistic opinion and mainstream media, read CJR's 4-part review: https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-ed-note.php https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-p... Science even sees the politicization in mainstream: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190813130431.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190813130431.h...

runeks 3y ago

How is this different from Wikipedia?

parentheses 3y ago

Why was this made? Is there something un"just" about Wikipedia's articles? Or are they "just a[nother] pedia"?

bawolff 3y ago
https://justapedia.org/wiki/Justapedia:What_to_expect#Justapedia_vs._Wikipedia:_The_Core_Differences https://justapedia.org/wiki/Justapedia:What_to_expect#Justap... is what they say. But for the life of me i can't figure out how that differs from wikipedia's policies. It sounds a bit like they disagree that wikipedia is "neutral" and want to do their own thing with the exact same goal maybe filtered through their own unconcious biases instead. Regardless, this is how right to fork is supposed to work. If you think wikipedia is doing a bad job, then try and do a better one and see what happens.
- bawolff 3y ago
  Hmm https://justapedia.org/wiki/Justapedia:Justapedia_Foundation#Community https://justapedia.org/wiki/Justapedia:Justapedia_Foundation... seems to be the biggest statement about what's different. It seems like they mostly want a different power structure to resolve disputes (Which reading between the lines, i guess they want to be the ones in power). I do get an implication that they think wikipedia is too woke or something like that.

hknmtt 3y ago

ok, so they forked wikipedia with the intent to make the content more unbiased. well, that is good idea(even as to avoid monopolization of information) but i fail to see how they plan to achieve that. not only they have miniscule amount of editors compared to wikipedia by default, but they also show no plans for safeguards against the manipulation. i would say this looks like a waste of time and people behind it should rather invest time in "fixing" wikipedia articles and potentially work with wiki foundation on some rules and techniques to prevent manipulation rather than start their own project, which will ultimately fail because running wikipedia is not as simple as it might look like. let alone cheap.

dgb23 3y ago
Whenever someone tells me they provide unbiased information I know that they don’t understand the words “bias” and “information”.
tivert 3y ago
> but i fail to see how they plan to achieve that. not only they have miniscule amount of editors compared to wikipedia by default That's an unfair criticism. Wikipedia itself started with a "miniscule amount of editors compared to" its competitors at the time. > i would say this looks like a waste of time and people behind it should rather invest time in "fixing" wikipedia articles and potentially work with wiki foundation on some rules and techniques to prevent manipulation rather than start their own project That idea obviously fails if the problem is a personal/social one (e.g. you fork because the maintainer keeps closing your bugs as WONTFIX). Wikipedia's culture is dysfunctional in many respects, and there are arguably many problems with it that it's maintainers are fine with and will not fix.

runeks 3y ago

Mods: please change the link to https://justapedia.org/ https://justapedia.org/ to avoid certificate issue (ie. removing the "www" prefix).

bawolff 3y ago

The fact they are using a fake einstein quote on the front page does not bode well for their reliability.

Svip 3y ago

Their feature showcase with fascism makes their version seem more biased than the Wikipedia version. I recognise we can debate whether Stalin was a true communist and not just a fascist in disguise, but leading your article with that (by virtue of having his picture before Hitler's in reading direction) seems very subjective.

fake-name 3y ago
Look at their citations. This is just right wing whitewashing with a veneer of "it's unbiased" (because it doesn't say bad things about us now).
- bawolff 3y ago
  I agree that their version seems more sympathetic and biased imho, but it doesn't seem 100% whitewashed. For example "...[facism is] a fear-built society based on the “common will” of the people, the stifling of dissent and persecution of minority groups, and militarism and imperialism by conquering and ruling weak nations." doesn't exactly sound positive to me.
timeon 3y ago
They also removed all occurrences of term 'far-right' there...

sleepychu 3y ago

https://justapedia.org/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=2000021708&oldid=2000018546 https://justapedia.org/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=200002... Yikes. EDIT: https://justapedia.org/wiki/Category:Justapedia_controversial_topic https://justapedia.org/wiki/Category:Justapedia_controversia... Yikes yikes.

bawolff 3y ago
I'm not sure what to take away from that. They also tagged Blu-ray disk as controversial. Do they just think everything is controversial?
- betwills 3y ago
  The article https://justapedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray https://justapedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray does not include the word "controversial" and there is nothing in Categories at the bottom of the page so what exactly are you referring to? No, Justapedians do not think everything is controversial. We forked 6.5+ million articles from Wikipedia, and editors are starting to create articles, and clean-up the controversial forked articles that reek of WP's systemic bias in an effort to make them representative of encyclopedic content; i.e., neutral and objective.
raxxorraxor 3y ago
Evolution certainly is a controversial topic. What are you trying to imply?
- fake-name 3y ago
  Evolution is completely uncontroversial. Teaching about evolution is controversial because it pokes holes in certain commonly held beliefs. That doesn't make any of the actual underlying facts controversial.
  - Y_Y 3y ago
    This sounds like semantics. Presumably GP means controversial in the sense that people argue about it, you mean non-controversial in the sense that it's well established scientifically. I think both of those takes are good.

nextaccountic 3y ago

In the feature showcase, Justapedia shows the article on fascism on both their site and Wikipedia. It reads > From Justapedia > Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarianism that first emerged in Italy under the leadership of Mussolini, who coined the term to describe his political movement in 1919 during World War I. > (...) > There have been attempts by media and some scholars to equate nationalism with fascism while discarding its Marxist "anti-capitalist economic, philosophical and political framework."[3] George Friedman opined that in 2016 a number of articles and statements asserted that "fascism is rising in Europe, and that Donald Trump is an American example of fascism." Friedman denounced such beliefs as "a misrepresentation of a very real phenomenon", and that the nation-state is once again becoming the most important part of politics. He went on to say that people simply don't consider multilateral trade treaties and international organizations like the European Union to be in the best interest of their respective countries, and that the idea that fascism is on the rise "derives from a profound misunderstanding of what fascism is." He views it as an attempt to "discredit the resurgence of nationalism and to defend the multinational systems that have dominated the West since World War II."[4] - > From Wikipedia > Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[14][15][16] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[15][16] So, that's Justapedia main selling point? Removing the "far-right" label on the goddamn article on Fascism, and associating it with Marxism?

orwin 3y ago
And Friedman? I mean, maybe add on Paxton if you want to be more detailed about fascism, but why listen to Friedman more than my uncle? I don't like the Wikipedia article either tbh, as in my opinion it doesn't go in details about what Paxton means (to avoid defacing I guess?), but Friedman as a source on fascism... I will stay polite, but this kind of stuff is why I'm becoming more and more elitist when it comes to discussing political ideologies. I can discuss with an edgy fascist who just read Nietzsch (or even internalized him) and historian's books on WW2. I actually did, multiple times (the same one). I can discuss with a priest who is a theology major (and minor in history). I feed from their knowledge and interpretation. What can I get from people this ignorant? 'je parle pas aux cons, ça les instruits' wrote Audiard, I thought it was just a funny line, now that I'm older I see what he meant.

benterix 3y ago

> "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." — Albert Einstein The point is, he never said that. So how can you place a fake quote on your main page of this kind of project?

betwills 3y ago
Published in the Harvard Business Review, Einstein is often quoted as saying ...https://hbr.org/2018/05/what-it-takes-to-think-deeply-about-complex-problems https://hbr.org/2018/05/what-it-takes-to-think-deeply-about-... Perhaps some authors quoted an English translation which caused the variation. All anyone can do is use what RS publish. Our Quote section changes frequently, so there is really not enough time to prepend or follow-up on the exactness of a quote, especially if it's not a recorded original, or it was not written by the speaker...which is why it's referred to as a quote. There is no way to possibly know if the author quoting a person actually got verbatim. WikiQuote delves into it in more detail: A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move toward higher levels. From "Atomic Education Urged by Einstein", New York Times (25 May 1946), and later quoted in the article "The Real Problem is in the Hearts of Man" by Michael Amrine, from the New York Times Magazine (23 June 1946). A slightly modified version of the 23 June article was reprinted in Einstein on Peace by Otto Nathan and Heinz Norden (1960), and it was also reprinted in Einstein on Politics by David E. Rowe and Robert Schulmann (2007), p. 383. In The New Quotable Einstein (2005), editor Alice Calaprice suggests that two quotes attributed to Einstein which she could not find sources for, "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them" and "The world we have created today as a result of our thinking thus far has problems which cannot be solved by thinking the way we thought when we created them," may both be paraphrases of the 1946 quote above. A similar unsourced variant is "The world we have created is a product of our thinking; it cannot be changed without changing our thinking." In the 23 June article Einstein expanded somewhat on the original quote from the 25 May article: Many persons have inquired concerning a recent message of mine that "a new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels." Often in evolutionary processes a species must adapt to new conditions in order to survive. Today the atomic bomb has altered profoundly the nature of the world as we knew it, and the human race consequently finds itself in a new habitat to which it must adapt its thinking. In the light of new knowledge, a world authority and an eventual world state are not just desirable in the name of brotherhood, they are necessary for survival. In previous ages a nation's life and culture could be protected to some extent by the growth of armies in national competition. Today we must abandon competition and secure cooperation. This must be the central fact in all our considerations of international affairs; otherwise we face certain disaster. Past thinking and methods did not prevent world wars. Future thinking must prevent wars.

Ch4rl3s 3y ago

[dead]