SUPPORT THE WORK

GetWiki

Forum:Wikinfo

ARTICLE SUBJECTS
aesthetics  →
being  →
complexity  →
database  →
enterprise  →
ethics  →
fiction  →
history  →
internet  →
knowledge  →
language  →
licensing  →
linux  →
logic  →
method  →
news  →
perception  →
philosophy  →
policy  →
purpose  →
religion  →
science  →
sociology  →
software  →
truth  →
unix  →
wiki  →
ARTICLE TYPES
essay  →
feed  →
help  →
system  →
wiki  →
ARTICLE ORIGINS
critical  →
discussion  →
forked  →
imported  →
original  →
edit index Forum:Wikinfo

is wikinfo dead?

Wow, Fred has made some radical changes very quickly over there! Besides his unethical, unwarranted freak out on me (Proteus, the one person who kept Wikinfo running smoothly for 3 years), he totally botched a questionable regrade back to MediaWiki (thus solidifying his ties to Jimbo's Borg, and killing the importing which made Wikinfo what it was). By making all the mistakes one would normally avoid (1. delete the working wiki, 2. install the non-working new software, and only then, 3. work out the bugs under public traffic and lost search engine indexes), it seems the whole thing was based in anger or confusion - who knows what the causes were for Fred's very strange behaviours - but it surely wasn't in the best interests of Wikinfo (all that ill will just to get "cite"-ations and "taxoboxes" - are they really that important or significant?).

The result is that Wikinfo might very well die, and quickly. Why would anyone edit over there anymore, I wonder? No more importing, and Borgapedia enforcement: Given how few contributors have returned so far, perhaps others are wondering this as well? I know that my only concern in watching that train wreck is to get all of my hard work copied over here - see, he's now talking about starting over with a blank database, thus removing so much work many editors have done (he also seems to think he "owns" Wikinfo's GNU FDL database, so beware, folks). It's sad when people get all irrational like that. So long, Wikinfo: I sure learned a lot over there, both what to do, and what not to do, in running a public wiki... Any thoughts?? -proteus 02:41, 23 Mar 2007 (EDT)

JA: About all I know is to try and learn from other people's mistakes, including one's own former selves of course. Wikipedia is increasingly falling prey and under the sway of SlimVirgin-Sarah McEwan's Very Adamant Philosophy Of Research (VAPOR), and I don't think even Jimbo Wales has much control of it anymore. I think we all know where Larry Sanger is taking his crew, but that will waste a whole lot of good people's time and energy for another 3 to 5 years before they see it. I see Fred's name a lot on the Wikening List, and that can't be good for anybody's equanimity. Maybe there is just something about a medium that's almost too flexible and mutable that gives people illusions of galactic domination. On jugera ... Jon Awbrey 13:30, 23 Mar 2007 (EDT)


Galactic? Why stop there, a WikiAnt might think. Why not try to control all knowledge at the source, and take over the whole Universe? The WikiFaithful have no bounds of desiring power, and they generally do so by using Newspeak techniques. This is one of the problems we'll deal with here, in that we're trying to attract people (like a friend of mine who has a great paper to post here) who don't know or care about all this WikiReligion junk.


You know, I don't care, either. I think that, despite how "dated" the Wiki approach is to generating content, there's not much better a platform for cross-linking, say, an entry on Ontology with a detailed paper touching on the subject, providing discussion about it, an author entry, and also allowing peer-review on it all at the same time. It's also a fun format to work in, most of the time. But, on any internet forum I've ever participated in, except probably for Usenet, there are always the tin-horn dictators, power-hungry faithful, and the mindless followers of them - just like in life, huh? -proteus 00:50, 24 Mar 2007 (EDT)


past talk

Wikinfo in many ways is Wikipedia turned on its head. While Wikinfo has not adopted the obverse of all Wikipedia policies in many cases it has. For example, rather than trying to achieve a neutral point of view in each article, Wikinfo seeks exploration of multiple points view regarding any subject, with certain exceptions. (No attempt is contemplated to craft favorable articles about universally detested subjects). FJB 15:04, 22 Oct 2004 (EDT)

I agree, of course, and this is what attracted me to Wikinfo in the first place. Multiple points of view, as well as other changes, make what is in effect, a HUGE difference between the two encyclopedias. One is hampered by its own ideologically-driven policies, and the other is free and open in a way rarely seen these days, even on the internet. I started GetMeta for similar reasons, and while it makes no attempt to become an encylopedia, I do hope it and Wikinfo will continue to grow in free directions... -proteus 01:37, 23 Oct 2004 (EDT)


I just found Wikinfo, and this contains some new ideas to think about. -StephenW 21:52, 21 Mar 2005 (EST)


to both sites :) Feedback and contribution is appreciated here and there. -proteus 22:58, 21 Mar 2005 (EST)
edit index
[ last updated: 5:50am EDT - Sat, Mar 24 2007 ]
LATEST EDITS [ see all ]
GETWIKI 09 MAY 2016
GETWIKI 18 OCT 2015
M.R.M. Parrott
Biographies
GETWIKI 20 AUG 2014
GETWIKI 19 AUG 2014
GETWIKI 18 AUG 2014
Wikinfo
Culture
CONNECT