ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Compare and contrast

The example of Mike Cernovich illustrates the fundamental difference between Infogalactic and Wikipedia. As one Gab commenter, @sak, observed this morning:
Infogalactic gives me facts that helps me to understand who Cernovich is and what he has achieved. Wikipedia makes sure I know he is a thought criminal against sjw orthodoxy. I know which one I will choose in future.
Don't take his word for it. Don't take my word for it. See the current versions for yourself.
In favor of Wikipedia, it must be said that this actually represents a big step forward for the Wikipedians. At least they're admitting that the bestselling author of Gorilla Mindset, who has more than 133,000 followers on Twitter, exists. Between 16 July 2015 and 13 October, 2016, Wikipedians denied his notability, having previously deleted the page about him there.
  • "Subject matter isn't notable for anything other than their involvement in the Gamergate controversy."
  • "Not only is this your typical case of BLP1E pretty much all reliable sources written about him are extremely negative. Absolutely no good can come from keeping this as an article."
  • "It's unlikely based on events thus far that Cernovich will ever be notable for any other efforts."
One unintended consequence of Infogalactic's rise is likely to be a gradual reduction in Wikipedia's shameless left-wing bias. That won't be enough to save its preeminence, but it will still be an improvement.

Speaking of contrasts, an important note on the different speeds you'll see on the two sites. Wikipedia utilizes an incredibly inefficient and outmoded approach that solves for its design inefficiencies by utilizing a tremendous amount of servers and storage to cover for them. We could do that, or we can use the resources it would require to fix the design inefficiencies and do it right.

For better or for worse, we have chosen the latter approach as we are more concerned about being competitive in the long haul than in the short run. That being said, a page should only take a really long time to load once, the first time it is accessed. After that, it's in the cache and it will pop up much more quickly. The bigger the page, the more links, the more database queries, and therefore the inefficiencies will affect the load time.

Anyhow, don't worry about it. We're very aware of the problem, and fixing it is one of our top priorities, but we're going to fix it correctly and in a manner that doesn't create more problems down the road.

Labels:

91 Comments:

Anonymous It's 2015+1 October 16, 2016 9:12 AM  

The wikipedia entry for Mike is shameful

OT but sort of not: CNN was just going on about how viewing wikileaks is illegal and that they, as journalists, are thankfully allowed to tell us what we need to know about it.

(Vox: Brave browser is still not allowing me to comment on VP...not sure if it's just me, or if this is a widespread issue)

Blogger Gordon October 16, 2016 9:30 AM  

Nah, they`ll just appoint an ombudsthing. Zhe will investigate and determine that what Wikipedia needs is more censors, er, editors of the proper frame of mind.

Blogger #7139 October 16, 2016 9:32 AM  

There is quite the contrast between the Infogalactic and Wikipedia entries.

Blogger James Jones October 16, 2016 9:33 AM  

The Wikipedia article reeks of immature lashing out and a disgustingly dismissive attitude.

The infogalactic reference is professional and factual - not based upon perceived butthurt.

Anonymous Dave October 16, 2016 9:50 AM  

In favor of Wikipedia, it must be said that this actually represents a big step forward for the Wikipedians.

It is a step forward and it is a sign they have no integrity. They can change their mind like the wind.

"Not only is this your typical case of BLP1E pretty much all reliable sources written about him are extremely negative. Absolutely no good can come from keeping this as an article."

What changed about this statement before Oct 13 to after Oct 13?

Blogger VD October 16, 2016 9:53 AM  

Brave browser is still not allowing me to comment on VP...not sure if it's just me, or if this is a widespread issue

Turn off your shields for this site and turn cookies on. It's connected to those two things. Experiment with them, you'll sort it out.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 16, 2016 9:54 AM  

Wikipedia is too political, it's crap.

Alt-right is upstream of politics, though on occasion it floats downstream like Norsemen of yore to pillage and plunder.

Blogger JeffHansen October 16, 2016 10:07 AM  

Love this, donated for phase 2 already.
I'm not on the brainstorm but:
The only time I use Wikipedia is when google has it as the top source on something.
If duck duck go or some other search engine put infogalactic there I would definitely use the other search engine as my primary.
If the search engines or a browser gave me control of sites I want to see or don't want to see, it would quickly become my main choice

Blogger SteveK October 16, 2016 10:08 AM  

I've tried IG a few times and every time (so far) it takes at least 30 seconds to produce a search result or a page to load after clicking a link (using Chrome). Anyone else having the same experience?

Anonymous SAK October 16, 2016 10:14 AM  

@1 "viewing wikileaks is illegal and that they [CNN]...tell us what we need to know about it"

They must be viewing them to tell us about them.

So, it is interesting that CNN would confess to what they claim to be a crime.

Blogger VD October 16, 2016 10:16 AM  

If duck duck go or some other search engine put infogalactic there I would definitely use the other search engine as my primary. If the search engines or a browser gave me control of sites I want to see or don't want to see, it would quickly become my main choice

I'll pass this on to the appropriate people.

Blogger VD October 16, 2016 10:16 AM  

I've tried IG a few times and every time (so far) it takes at least 30 seconds to produce a search result or a page to load after clicking a link (using Chrome).

Even the Cernovich link here? I mean, we KNOW that page is cached.

Anonymous Galactic Starfleets of Deplorable Spartacus October 16, 2016 10:26 AM  

And for an extra helping of lutz, check out the history page- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Cernovich&action=history

The page was deleted back in July, 2015. It was put back up on Oct 13, 2016. Seven minutes later someone deleted it and lied about the deletion, calling it a "fixed typo". And so on etc. through the fast & furious edit history of the past 3 days at Wiki.

Do SJWs always lie because it stimulates their pleasure centers? Are they like government-trained rats?

Anonymous Type 5 October 16, 2016 10:26 AM  

Even the Cernovich link here?

I just tried it. About a 20 second delay and this message at the bottom of the page:

Lua error in Module:Authority_control at line 346: attempt to indexfield 'wikibase' (a nil value).

Blogger S1AL October 16, 2016 10:29 AM  

12 second response time for me, consistently after the first load. First time was way higher - closer to 30 or 40.

Blogger VD October 16, 2016 10:30 AM  

Strange. The error message is no big deal, it's on the bug list.

Anyhow, Rifleman has an idea for an interim speed up that only involves some minor tweaks to the Wiki engine code that we can do a lot sooner than planned. It won't be as elegant as we'd like, but it will be preferable.

Blogger Blaster October 16, 2016 10:32 AM  

Minor thing: I believe the 7-figure divorce settlement is a honeypot rumor that Cernovich started himself.

http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/04/13/mike-cernovichs-alimony/

Anonymous Dave October 16, 2016 10:33 AM  

No, nothing close to 30 seconds. Sometimes a few seconds on a search but have already noticed an improvement since last week. Using Brave on Win10.

Maybe something with your ISP?

Anonymous Dave October 16, 2016 10:38 AM  

Does the speed have something to do with location? I'm in the US and have never had more than a few seconds delay.

Blogger Robert What? October 16, 2016 10:38 AM  

Vox, how will you dissuade SJW entryism from Infogalactic? Let's say an SJW wants to edit Mike's page to reflect his opinion of Mike. Is someone monitoring all edits? Seems like a herculean task.

Blogger SteveK October 16, 2016 10:41 AM  

The Cernovich page linked from here loaded right away. Occasionally I do get a normally fast response but overall IG is mostly very slow. Several times I waited over 60 seconds, clicked again, waited and then gave up. Just reporting my experience. Not sure what's going on.

Anonymous Dave October 16, 2016 10:43 AM  

@17 I thought that was odd to include that when I read it. I assumed it was some kind of dig at Cernovich. God help us if we decide to include everyone's divorce settlement details.

Anonymous Judd October 16, 2016 10:52 AM  

I used Brave and Google took over a minute to load Cernovich page in infogalactic.
Switched to DuckDuckGo it was instant.

Anonymous Galactic Starfleets of Deplorable Spartacus October 16, 2016 10:57 AM  

It's 2015+1 wrote:he wikipedia entry for Mike is shameful

OT but sort of not: CNN was just going on about how viewing wikileaks is illegal


That first read as "CNN was just going on about how viewing wikipedia is illegal". There oughta be a law.

Blogger Paul October 16, 2016 10:57 AM  

After that, it's in the cache and it will pop up much more quickly.

Which cache?

Blogger VD October 16, 2016 11:01 AM  

I believe the 7-figure divorce settlement is a honeypot rumor that Cernovich started himself.

Best to take it out then, without an confirming details.

Anonymous Heywood October 16, 2016 11:12 AM  

@1: Commenting with Brave works well here if you just allow all cookies on this site.

Loading the MC page took 4.11 sec in Brave and (subjectively) something like a second less in Pale Moon.

I like Brave, but it has a few issues that prevents it from being my daily driver. Pale Moon is still the champ as far as I'm concerned.

Anonymous MendoScot October 16, 2016 11:39 AM  

VD wrote:I've tried IG a few times and every time (so far) it takes at least 30 seconds to produce a search result or a page to load after clicking a link (using Chrome).

Even the Cernovich link here? I mean, we KNOW that page is cached.


Mike's IG page to 156 seconds to load on Brave. Wikipedia, 1.2s.

Blogger YIH October 16, 2016 11:41 AM  

SteveK wrote:I've tried IG a few times and every time (so far) it takes at least 30 seconds to produce a search result or a page to load after clicking a link (using Chrome). Anyone else having the same experience?
Yes (Pale Moon). At least now I know why, I was hesitating to recommend IG due to the lag (anywhere from 15-60 seconds per unique page).
At least now when I get the question ''Hey you, that thing sucks, why so long on the loads?'' I can at least answer that.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 16, 2016 11:59 AM  

So, it is interesting that CNN would confess to what they claim to be a crime.

Well, see, they're journalists, so they're above the law, being all noble and stuff. And they have professional training. When they break the law, it's for the betterment of the universe. Just like when their candidates do it. Laws are for badthinkers and little people.

The Wikipedia article reeks of immature lashing out and a disgustingly dismissive attitude.

The part about Red Eye regretting inviting him on, that's great. Maybe say why? Give some facts? Nah, just take the cheap shot.

Load times

About 5 seconds for me to load the MC page in Brave (and I have the Lua error too). Wikipedia was under 2 seconds.

Anonymous Were-Puppy October 16, 2016 11:59 AM  

Trump entry looks like some sjw is in it.

Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false.

During the primary, Trump called for a temporary ban on all Muslim immigration to the United States,

I am unable to do much on a phone, if someone wants to check

Anonymous Jack Amok October 16, 2016 12:01 PM  

And to comment via Brave, I had to allow cookies for this site.

For those still learning Brave, left-click the hamburger menu in the upper right on the tab bar (the thing with three horizontal lines), then select Bravery and "Bravery site settings".

Blogger oero nolem October 16, 2016 12:07 PM  

Building The Foundation using ruins of The Empire as foundations can result in subsidence.

Blogger Twisted Root October 16, 2016 12:14 PM  

Cernovich page loaded fine for me with Chrome and Adblock.

Blogger guest October 16, 2016 12:24 PM  

Intelligent Design. Another article that Infogalactic demonstrates complete and shameless bias against. Instead of allowing for the debate and evidence of Intelligent Design, it makes the argument for consensus of science. It doesn't even address the fact that evolutionists themselves have publicly expressed their consternation that the theory doesn't add up. There is nothing unbiased or honest about Infogalactic. In fact, I intend to boycott it from the get-go, just to save time. I wouldn't trust Info if they informed me that grass was green at this particular moment.

Blogger Lovekraft October 16, 2016 12:27 PM  

VD: "One unintended consequence of Infogalactic's rise is likely to be a gradual reduction in Wikipedia's shameless left-wing bias."

This should be reworded to say something along the lines of "Wikipedia will attempt to deceive future visitors as to their complicity in spreading cultural marxism."

And I would add that wikipedia and similar organizations should not be given a simple 'you're sorry, it's ok now' pass. Same with mainstream media. I would be extremely reticent to ever consider trusting them again, no matter what their current policy is. Fool me once and all that.

Blogger VD October 16, 2016 12:29 PM  

Intelligent Design. Another article that Infogalactic demonstrates complete and shameless bias against. Instead of allowing for the debate and evidence of Intelligent Design, it makes the argument for consensus of science.

You're an utter moron. I absolutely forbid you to use Infogalactic or read this blog, now or in the future.

Sweet Jimmy Wales, but there are some prodigiously stupid people out there. Apparently the concept of a "fork" is completely beyond them. If it was practical to require an IQ test to access this blog, I would absolutely utilize one.

Mike's IG page to 156 seconds to load on Brave. Wikipedia, 1.2s.

Give us $58.7 million to spend on servers and we'll cut that 1.2s figure IN HALF! That's not their revenue, that's their planned SPENDING versus $74 million in donations.

Seriously, though, just be patient. Our performance is only going to improve.

Blogger Lovekraft October 16, 2016 12:34 PM  

Brave browser is still not allowing me to comment on VP...not sure if it's just me, or if this is a widespread issue

You can take shields down via the Lion icon on the top right.

Regarding IG's current and future problems: do people not realize that these efforts are made in a hostile environment, without major funding etc and the last thing we should do right now is be negative. Constructive criticism, yes, but in a supportive manner. Otherwise, f off and build your own platforms.

Blogger clk October 16, 2016 12:45 PM  

@39 "There is nothing unbiased or honest about Infogalactic. In fact, I intend to boycott it from the get-go ..."

You should take with a grain of salt much that is on wiki or will be in IG or any other site ... the problem of bias is very real... it really cant be eliminated... what IG is calling unbiased is really just the information biased in a different direction.

But .. the important point to remember is that by having another point of view you have a greater chances of finding out the real truth ... it will be normally somewhere in the middle.

I think this is an excellent idea and when its up to speed I will gladly contribute material...

Blogger VD October 16, 2016 12:50 PM  

You should take with a grain of salt much that is on wiki or will be in IG or any other site

You're missing the point. If the idiot even had the sense to look at the History, he'd know the current IG listing is the straight Wikipedia version.

Blogger Mike October 16, 2016 1:18 PM  

BLP1E

BLP2E

What on earth are they on about? Hamburgers? We truly are descended from the Golgafrichans.

Blogger VD October 16, 2016 1:33 PM  

What on earth are they on about?

Somehow, being semi-famous for a single event isn't enough render the "Leave Britney Alone!" guy not notable, despite BLP1E.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 16, 2016 1:48 PM  

Sound like the Roman catholic church before Martin Luther advocated the idea that Christiane should read the Bible themselves, rather than relying on the clergy, who all too often were corrupt.

Anonymous Wyrd October 16, 2016 1:51 PM  

Why Cultural Marxism Is Destroying America | Duke Pesta and Stefan Molyneux:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpzfdC8HGP4

Blogger The Other Robot October 16, 2016 2:04 PM  

On other topics, Steve Sailer mentions that Hillary's supporters are forcing white males to say: I’m proud that Bob Dylan and I are both white men

Anonymous Slammer64 October 16, 2016 2:13 PM  

Using Vivaldi and uBlock, Infogalactic loads Mike's page in 4.3 sec.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 16, 2016 2:29 PM  

The Real Ruth (TM) is on Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Blogger Nick S October 16, 2016 2:37 PM  

I'm looking forward to INN (Infogalactic News Network)or the In News (Infogalactic News) with its' crack editorial team and its' hierarchy of freelance investigative journalist submissions working in tandem with the bounty verification program for submissions of particular timely interest.

Anonymous Bagger Vance October 16, 2016 2:54 PM  

"subject matter isn't notable for anything other than the GG controversy"

And yet I note that both Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu have sizable hagiographic WP entries.

Anonymous Helton Strom October 16, 2016 2:56 PM  

@48 - Very interesting idea. Have an ongoing "this day in history" that curates the major news stories of the date, so it's easy to create a timeline for events. For each day, have a half-dozen threads: political news, tech news, sports news, earth/science/medical news, military news, whatever, so that the leading stories (left, center, right, and WTF?!) are all simply recorded without commentary, just headlines and links to archived stories. Sort of a "the fact is, these are the stories that are being reported, presented without verification, approval, censorship, or authenticating the veracity of the story." Have the context page simply identify whether the sources are generally considered politically left, right, center, apolitical, accurate, or whatever. Have the editorial level be opinions of the day (cannot be changed more than one week later, so opinions expressed are forced to be *current* opinions, not written in hind-sight) on the significance, accuracy, and relevance of the story.

Anonymous Bagger Vance October 16, 2016 2:57 PM  

Re: WP Cernovich--jfc, 11 citations for 21 words.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) October 16, 2016 3:02 PM  

You're an utter moron. I absolutely forbid you to use Infogalactic or read this blog, now or in the future.

Sweet Jimmy Wales, but there are some prodigiously stupid people out there. Apparently the concept of a "fork" is completely beyond them. If it was practical to require an IQ test to access this blog, I would absolutely utilize one.


If the moron is correct about bias or inaccuracy, shouldn't he just edit the page to correct it?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 16, 2016 3:35 PM  

Vox said:
Wikipedia utilizes an incredibly inefficient and outmoded approach that solves for its design inefficiencies by utilizing a tremendous amount of servers and storage to cover for them. We could do that, or we can use the resources it would require to fix the design inefficiencies and do it right.

As my grandfather might have said: "I love my wife, but oh, you kid."


Not doing the fake-and-kluge hustle? What kind of radicals are you?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 16, 2016 3:37 PM  

Don't take his word for it. Don't take my word for it. See the current versions for yourself.

Fortunately, Brave is choking on wikipedia due to certificate errors. I couldn't check it out if I wanted to.

Blogger Nick S October 16, 2016 3:43 PM  

@50

Sounds like you are thinking along the lines of incorporating something like https://webhose.io/ into Infogalactic. Not a bad idea. Better than what I had in mind.

Blogger VD October 16, 2016 3:48 PM  

If the moron is correct about bias or inaccuracy, shouldn't he just edit the page to correct it?

One would think. But given his apparent limitations, it's probably to everyone's benefit that he simply whine and stomp off home.

Anonymous Galactic Starfleets of Deplorable Spartacus October 16, 2016 3:52 PM  

Bagger Vance wrote:Re: WP Cernovich--jfc, 11 citations for 21 words.

Yeah, like they're falling all over themselves to get to the defamatory articles. And the only section is "Controversy".

Anonymous Mr. Rational October 16, 2016 3:55 PM  

Josh (the gayest thing here) wrote:If the moron is correct about bias or inaccuracy, shouldn't he just edit the page to correct it?
Could be a long wait to be approved as an editor.

Blogger Stephen St. Onge October 16, 2016 4:04 PM  

"Very interesting", as Artie Johnson would have said.

I noticed that the WP article said Cernovich believed the Democratic Party would try to assassinate him. The 'reliable secondary source' is a Daily Beast article. But the article showed no such allegation that I could find.

I deleted the allegation at 19:31. Be interesting to see how long the edit lasts.

Blogger VD October 16, 2016 4:14 PM  

Could be a long wait to be approved as an editor.

It's not. We've approved over 400 editors, the most recent 2 minutes ago. There is no backlog.

Anonymous SAK October 16, 2016 4:29 PM  

I probably should not bother, but to play good cop to VD's bad cop:

@35 Nearly all content on infogalactic is directly copied from Wikipedia. The bias is from Wikipedia.

In time the editors, and people like you can become editors, will fix the bias.

Don't boycott, help. That is the path to victory.

You want to win don't you?

Anonymous SAK October 16, 2016 4:47 PM  

As to the performance issues:

IG is the one of those project you don't even attempt. A freaking planetary knowledge core that is aiming to replace Wikipedia.

I am guessing their data is in the 5-20 terabyte range, but would be unsurprised if it was more.

The Wikipedia software, they have to use at this stage, is crap and not helping.

This means that serving the content fast requires a cache. Which really means sticking it in RAM.

On their budget that is hard. Hopefully they can get the most out of uncached pages, via software tuning, and create a very intelligent caching strategy to help.

But this is hard. Their ambitions are absurd. But, amazingly, they are on the right track.

Keep the faith. If they don't lose heart they will get there.

We are early adopters. One day we will have the privilege of telling stories about the early days slowness to people who missed it entirely.

Anonymous Rolf October 16, 2016 5:19 PM  

@62 - if you only count the text of current "top of edit-war stack" pages and remove the graphics, it call all be compressed and put on a 16GB flash-drive, IIRC from a conversation of mine with a Microsoft researcher/neighbor of mine from a while back. It was FAR smaller than I suspected it would be.

Blogger VD October 16, 2016 5:25 PM  

But this is hard. Their ambitions are absurd. But, amazingly, they are on the right track. Keep the faith. If they don't lose heart they will get there.

This is nothing. We once wrote a non-Euclidean 3D engine with advanced AI without anyone supporting us or cheering for us. The Techstars on this project are almost overkill. It will take time, probably 6-9 months, and no one would believe the extent to which we plan to revamp this thing in that time frame. I don't blame anyone who is dubious, but it really is entirely doable.

We'll have one set of speed-ups within a month or so. Then a second set around two months after that. Within six months after that, we'll be in a completely new league.

We are early adopters

Precisely. This is life on the bleeding edge. It's the most interesting place to be.

Blogger VD October 16, 2016 5:26 PM  

if you only count the text of current "top of edit-war stack" pages and remove the graphics, it call all be compressed and put on a 16GB flash-drive, IIRC from a conversation of mine with a Microsoft researcher/neighbor of mine from a while back.

And therein lies the problem. The utterly idiotic way MediaWiki handles graphics.

Anonymous SAK October 16, 2016 5:41 PM  

@63 interesting.

I looked up the stats.

Uncompressed english Wikipedia with full edit history was 5.6tb in 2015.

But you are right: compressed article text is only 11.5gb.

Anonymous BGKB October 16, 2016 5:42 PM  

If it was practical to require an IQ test to access this blog, I would absolutely utilize one.

Make the captcha an equation to solve.

Sound like the Roman catholic church before Martin Luther advocated the idea that Christiane should read the Bible themselves

If IG lays his bad think out how will the stupid SJWs know its bad think in no one tells them?

Blogger guest October 16, 2016 6:09 PM  

@61 Sak. Okay, you got me there.

Anonymous SAK October 16, 2016 6:43 PM  

@68 cool. It would be a shame if simple misunderstanding could pit people against info galactic.

We're on the same side, so unity is best.

Blogger guest October 16, 2016 7:15 PM  

@69 Sak. Here is a novel concept. Why can't infogalactic ask uncommon descent or evolution news and views to write at least part of the paper on Intelligent Design. Sure, it might be accused of being biased, but it is biased anyway, and at least the leaders of the movement, Michael Behe, Douglas Axe, Michael Denton, Ann Gauger, William Dembski. and perhaps others might appreciate some say in how they are portrayed.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/category/news/

Blogger guest October 16, 2016 7:21 PM  

37 VD "Intelligent Design. Another article that Infogalactic demonstrates complete and shameless bias against. Instead of allowing for the debate and evidence of Intelligent Design, it makes the argument for consensus of science.

You're an utter moron. I absolutely forbid you to use Infogalactic or read this blog, now or in the future.

Adios.

Anonymous bagger vance October 16, 2016 8:28 PM  

Vox, so you have as much problem with the other language wikipedias? I had always heard good things about the German version in particular based on rigor, depth, and clarity; but i haven't looked to see if it's been converged.

Blogger VD October 16, 2016 8:37 PM  

Why can't infogalactic ask uncommon descent or evolution news and views to write at least part of the paper on Intelligent Design.

First, because we're objective. Second, because we don't give a quantum of a fornication about Intelligent Design or literally tens of thousands of other subjects available on Infogalactic.

And neither, apparently, do any of our nearly 500 editors. Since no one who wants to talk about it cares enough to actually sign up as an editor and do anything about it, why in the name of a Young Created Earth should we care?

I very strongly suggest that everyone who has a bright idea for somebody else to do something to instead shut up and do it themselves. If anyone wants to do something that fits within the parameters of truth and verifiability that we require, no one is stopping them.

Anonymous Jack Amok October 16, 2016 10:12 PM  

It's not. We've approved over 400 editors, the most recent 2 minutes ago. There is no backlog.

Huh. I must have screwed up my application, since I haven't gotten anything and I signed up about a week ago. I'll try again...

Anonymous Jack Amok October 16, 2016 10:17 PM  

It was FAR smaller than I suspected it would be.

Text is small. When someone says a picture is worth a thousand words, they're using far too high a compression. The average jpg or png floating around the internet is the size of 15 thousand words.

Blogger Crew October 16, 2016 10:20 PM  

@74: Jack, Don't try again, send me email with just the name you tried to sign up for and we will sort it out. Preferrably from the email address you used when you signed up.

Blogger Crew October 16, 2016 10:20 PM  

@74: Forgot to say: crew@infogalactic.com

Blogger Thucydides October 16, 2016 11:32 PM  

Wikipedia will gradually lose their left wing bias?

I find that improbable, especially given the second rule of SJW's: they aways double down.

My prediction: Wikipedia will be swarmed with "Red Guards" who will be memory holing vast swaths of content and locking everything else so only "approved" editors can make changes to ensure the Narrative is always fully supported (We have always been at war with Eastasia). I also suspect they will be in bed with converged search engines to push Wikipedia to the top and make Infogalactic invisible to browsers seeking it on these search engines. Hacking ISP's and carriers can also do the trick. Make sure there are work arounds available to Luddites (like me) who are not fully equipped to burrow through the Great Firewall the SJW's are likely to erect against free speech and shared information.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable October 17, 2016 12:32 AM  

VD wrote:I very strongly suggest that everyone who has a bright idea for somebody else to do something to instead shut up and do it themselves. If anyone wants to do something that fits within the parameters of truth and verifiability that we require, no one is stopping them.

To suggest something is to volunteer for it, as the TV Tropes Wiki would say.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable October 17, 2016 12:44 AM  

I actually ended up going through every single trope and recategorizing them, because I made the mistake of suggesting refactoring the wiki on a relational database. Silly me.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable October 17, 2016 12:58 AM  

(For those who understand the difference, when I started, it was on a flat file where a given trope could only be in one category.)

Blogger Engineer-Poet October 17, 2016 1:23 AM  

I did send in a signup to be an editor.  I got an apparent reply, with neither name nor e-mail address (routed to spam), saying that I looked like trouble.

I will admit that I'm no stranger to controversy, but I couldn't reply directly and just now got the crew@ address to follow up to.

Blogger Bob Loblaw October 17, 2016 3:24 AM  

Hah. This is the tenth source on the Wikipedia article: "From fringe to mainstream: Conspiracies, baseless accusations and lunacy is the new normal for Republicans"

Glad to see they're giving him a fair shake.

Blogger The Crumudgeon October 17, 2016 5:44 AM  

From Pretoria South Africa. Mike's Infogalactic page took 5 seconds to load. Wikipedia, about 3.

Blogger Crew October 17, 2016 10:10 AM  

@74: Jack, Don't try again, send me email with just the name you tried to sign up for and we will sort it out. Preferrably from the email address you used when you signed up.

Blogger James October 17, 2016 10:37 AM  

I was not in the habit of using Wikipaedia, but I have started using InfoGalactic. Although I must point out that telling the world that the Globalists think that Cernovich is a thought criminal is useful shorthand for letting us all know what a swell guy he his.

Blogger TM Lutas October 17, 2016 11:54 AM  

From my perspective, the political bias is annoying but irrelevant to my decision to quietly reduce my activity on Wikipedia.

I'm sitting on a data set that really needs to go on a popular wiki to extend it with crowd based data gathering, a comprehensive list of US governments. The world doesn't have one right now. Wikipedia has made clear that if I were to work up all their missing pages, I would have months of work defending the government stubs from deletionists who either don't understand the subject matter or simply don't like the fact that Indiana, or Colorodo made a definition of a government that they don't like and don't think should be real. So I've given up, even though my code internally generates wikipedia stub articles for every government and it should be trivial to insert all of the missing pages.

When my account over at InfoGalactic is approved, I'll enter them there and suddenly there will be a few thousand pages on that project that Wikipedia doesn't have.

I wonder how many other data sets are waiting for a sane wikimedia based project?

Blogger Cloudswrest October 17, 2016 5:05 PM  

Also noticed the article for John Derbyshire was not forked from the latest Wiki article, but from a better version from last December before the Wiki police gutted it. Somebody was on the ball! Great job.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit October 17, 2016 10:14 PM  

Google search "Nigerian dwarf goat" (don't ask)
Results: several articles, including a Wikipedia entry.

Google search: "Nigerian dwarf goat Infogalactic"
Results: several articles, but NO infogalactic entry.

Go to IG, and they've got your goats.

What games are Google playing? Or is there an IG bug.

Anonymous Mr. Rational October 17, 2016 10:58 PM  

Did you specify "site:infogalactic.com"?

If Google crawls IG, and never-read pages take half a minute each to generate, it's going to be indistinguishable from a DDOS attack.

This suggests to me that it would be a really good idea for IG to run a script which steps through all those pages and generates the static versions, one at a time.

Anonymous Mr. Rational October 18, 2016 1:38 AM  

Never mind, I checked.  Neither Google nor Bing know about that IG page.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts