13 ms·

What are the alternatives to Wikipedia?

by wereHamster 13y ago

ycitm 13y ago
http://www.conservapedia.com/ http://www.conservapedia.com/
- adamnemecek 13y ago
  For anyone not familiar with conservapedia, keep in mind that half of the site is supposedly written as satire that the original creator is unable to recognize. It's debatable whether at that point it's still satire though.
  - ninjin 13y ago
    Well, if anyone wants a very practical lesson on bias I can highly recommend: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_proven_right http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_proven_right http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_proven_wrong http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_proven_wrong I sometimes wonder if someone would end up with a better world view by reading http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com
- camus 13y ago
  sounds like a republican think tank with a web 2.0 twist...
pella 13y ago
federated wiki http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/07/wiki-inventor/ http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/07/wiki-inventor/ HN : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4199260 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4199260 from the Wired article: "The federated wiki is an attempt to solve these problems. As a starting point, he has built a new piece of software — dubbed The Smallest Federated Wiki — to demonstrate the concept. The radical idea of the wiki was to put an edit button on every page. The radical idea of the federated wiki is to put a “fork” button on every page." "The similarities between the federated wiki and GitHub are not coincidental. “The radical code sharing that’s implicit to GitHub was an inspiration,” Cunningham says."
praptak 13y ago
The best alternative to Wikipedia is Wikipedia plus a dose of healthy distrust for the content therein. Look up the edit history, check page discussions, verify the references. Do the homework and you should be safe.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  I think that depends on the subject. If I look up, say, resistor colour codes, a car or TV show, the the info Im looking of is as good as fact. The colour codes are correct, the car specs should be pretty much correct, and the general TV info is correct. If I know Im delving in to something opinion based, for example, political or general history, I treat it as a starting point. Problem comes when the subject falls in tot he middle, for example looking up a person. Some of I I assume to be correct like date of birth, home town, etc. Or at least its probably as correct as anywhere else. But often trivial type thing turn out to be little more than folk lore. But, if that matters, its very wise to look for something the person's own pages, if they exist. Or at least google the claim to see if its likely to have weight. So, I think its fair to think some subject are likely to be acceptable as fact, other not so much. Part of me thinks there should be a separation between things that can be seen as fact, and things that are likely to contain some sort of bias. No idea how that can reasonably be achieved though.
- Livven 13y ago
  I used to check page discussions too but noticed that it's usually just a few people arguing back and forth over the same few points, leading you to believe an issue is controversial when in fact it is not – often it's just one person who keeps repeating junk in order to pollute the talk page, and if you don't know enough about the subject these things are hard, if not impossible, to spot because of the fake politeness, rationality and sources employed. The linked article also mentions this tactic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ravpapa/Tilt#Use_the_talk_page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ravpapa/Tilt#Use_the_talk_...
spion 13y ago
My alternative is Wikipedia minus humanities topics. Much cleaner.
- tommorris 13y ago
  Not all humanities topics are badly covered. You just need to apply common sense.
Mikeb85 13y ago
Critical thinking. Read both sides of every discussion. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
- tommorris 13y ago
  Sometimes things are multidimensional. And sometimes the truth isn't in the middle.

What are the alternatives to Wikipedia?

ycitm 13y ago

http://www.conservapedia.com/ http://www.conservapedia.com/

adamnemecek 13y ago
For anyone not familiar with conservapedia, keep in mind that half of the site is supposedly written as satire that the original creator is unable to recognize. It's debatable whether at that point it's still satire though.
- ninjin 13y ago
  Well, if anyone wants a very practical lesson on bias I can highly recommend: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_proven_right http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_proven_right http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_proven_wrong http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_proven_wrong I sometimes wonder if someone would end up with a better world view by reading http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com
camus 13y ago
sounds like a republican think tank with a web 2.0 twist...

pella 13y ago

federated wiki http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/07/wiki-inventor/ http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/07/wiki-inventor/ HN : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4199260 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4199260 from the Wired article: "The federated wiki is an attempt to solve these problems. As a starting point, he has built a new piece of software — dubbed The Smallest Federated Wiki — to demonstrate the concept. The radical idea of the wiki was to put an edit button on every page. The radical idea of the federated wiki is to put a “fork” button on every page." "The similarities between the federated wiki and GitHub are not coincidental. “The radical code sharing that’s implicit to GitHub was an inspiration,” Cunningham says."

praptak 13y ago

The best alternative to Wikipedia is Wikipedia plus a dose of healthy distrust for the content therein. Look up the edit history, check page discussions, verify the references. Do the homework and you should be safe.

alan_cx 13y ago
I think that depends on the subject. If I look up, say, resistor colour codes, a car or TV show, the the info Im looking of is as good as fact. The colour codes are correct, the car specs should be pretty much correct, and the general TV info is correct. If I know Im delving in to something opinion based, for example, political or general history, I treat it as a starting point. Problem comes when the subject falls in tot he middle, for example looking up a person. Some of I I assume to be correct like date of birth, home town, etc. Or at least its probably as correct as anywhere else. But often trivial type thing turn out to be little more than folk lore. But, if that matters, its very wise to look for something the person's own pages, if they exist. Or at least google the claim to see if its likely to have weight. So, I think its fair to think some subject are likely to be acceptable as fact, other not so much. Part of me thinks there should be a separation between things that can be seen as fact, and things that are likely to contain some sort of bias. No idea how that can reasonably be achieved though.
Livven 13y ago
I used to check page discussions too but noticed that it's usually just a few people arguing back and forth over the same few points, leading you to believe an issue is controversial when in fact it is not – often it's just one person who keeps repeating junk in order to pollute the talk page, and if you don't know enough about the subject these things are hard, if not impossible, to spot because of the fake politeness, rationality and sources employed. The linked article also mentions this tactic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ravpapa/Tilt#Use_the_talk_page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ravpapa/Tilt#Use_the_talk_...

spion 13y ago

My alternative is Wikipedia minus humanities topics. Much cleaner.

tommorris 13y ago
Not all humanities topics are badly covered. You just need to apply common sense.

Mikeb85 13y ago

Critical thinking. Read both sides of every discussion. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

tommorris 13y ago
Sometimes things are multidimensional. And sometimes the truth isn't in the middle.