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

Monday, October 10, 2016

Project Big Fork: Infogalactic

INFOGALACTIC: an online encyclopedia without bias or thought police

Zürich, Switzerland. All around the world, thousands of users are accessing and editing the new online encyclopedia for the 21st Century, Infogalactic, which styles itself the Planetary Knowledge Core™. Conceived as a next-generation replacement for Wikipedia, the troubled online encyclopedia, Infogalactic is a dynamic fork of Wikipedia that is designed to supplant its predecessor by addressing the problems of bias, vandalism, harassment, abuse, and inaccuracy that have plagued the Wikimedia Foundation’s flagship project for years.

“Every notable public figure who has a page devoted to them knows very well what an inaccurate nightmare Wikipedia is,” said Vox Day, Lead Designer of Infogalactic, a computer game designer and bestselling philosopher. “The page about me there has had everything from my place of birth to the number of times I’ve been married wrong. And that’s not even counting the outright abuse, such as when Wikipedians replaced the entire page with a definition of a sexually-transmitted disease or with a string of obscenities.”

Infogalactic plans to solve the structural problems of a community-edited online encyclopedia through objectivity, proven game design principles, and a sophisticated series of algorithms. Currently in an operational Phase One, the Planetary Knowledge Core has a five-phase Roadmap that its founders claim will eliminate edit warring, significantly improve accuracy, neutralize vandalism and other forms of griefing, and render all forms of political bias on the part of administrators and editors irrelevant.

“The primary challenge facing any online wiki is the individual editor’s incentive to impose his perspective on everyone else,” said Renegade, the Operations Director of Infogalactic, who, as per the organization’s pro-anonymity policy, is known only by his handle. “Most people who contribute to an online knowledge base do so because they want to have their say, but in the end there can be only one perspective that is enforced by the site’s administrators. Infogalactic has solved that problem by embracing true objectivity and eliminating the enforcement incentive by moving from a centralized, vertically-stacked orientation to a decentralized, horizontally-distributed model.”

Infogalactic’s anti-bias architecture will permit users to select their preferred perspective and automatically see the version of the subject page that is closest to it based on a series of algorithms utilizing three variables, Relativity, Reliability, and Notability. This means a supporter of Hillary Clinton will see a different version of the current Donald Trump page than a Donald Trump supporter will, as both users will see the version of the page that was most recently edited by editors with perspective ratings similar to his own.

Read the rest of the press release at Infogalactic.

Thanks to the 172 Original Galaxians who made this possible. Special thanks to Rifleman and Renegade, who have both put in an incredible amount of time and effort. Thanks to Crew and Veritas, who did not hesitate to throw down and take responsibility for two vital areas moving forward. Thanks to Robert, the first Techstar, who provided invaluable advice. Thanks to the scores of early supporters, who have demonstrated that this is going to be a viable community effort.

And as for everyone else, now you know. Get on board, spread the word, and take back the cultural high ground of social media!

Labels:

49 Comments:

Blogger #7139 October 10, 2016 12:07 PM  

It is now official. Fantastic.

Blogger The Kurgan October 10, 2016 12:12 PM  

Finally. I'll be doing my bit.

Blogger Rantor October 10, 2016 12:15 PM  

Oh frabjous day!

Blogger Salt October 10, 2016 12:28 PM  

Thumbs up!

Blogger Lovekraft October 10, 2016 12:31 PM  

Was impressed how the criteria for submissions is clear and designed to make it very difficult to slip in distortion. The language makes it clear that IG is aware of entryism.

Blogger Phelps October 10, 2016 12:37 PM  

Now we need an option in Brave to automatically convert any wikipedia links to infogalactic links.

Blogger VD October 10, 2016 12:38 PM  

Was impressed how the criteria for submissions is clear and designed to make it very difficult to slip in distortion.

This applies to those on the Right as well as the usual suspects. The point is not to play the game their way, but to play the game correctly. If you're a Galaxian creating or editing a page, play it straight every single time. Don't shade things. Don't omit things. Don't play defense lawyer in the criticism section.

Just the facts, man. Just the facts.

Blogger VD October 10, 2016 12:40 PM  

Now we need an option in Brave to automatically convert any wikipedia links to infogalactic links.

Note the Roadmap. We'll be working on browser extensions soon, and Brave integration is already underway. Typing "i:SEARCH" will automatically search Infogalactic for SEARCH and take you there.

Blogger JACIII October 10, 2016 12:42 PM  

Great work guys!

Blogger Johnny October 10, 2016 12:52 PM  

The information base I would like to see replaced is Snopes.

Anonymous VFM #6306 October 10, 2016 12:55 PM  

Johnny wrote:The information base I would like to see replaced is Snopes.

Snopes goes out in a puff of sulphuric smoke against Infogalactic. "Urban Legends" will be included.

Blogger VD October 10, 2016 12:57 PM  

The information base I would like to see replaced is Snopes.

So do it. Create a page called LIST OF URBAN LEGENDS. Then create a page for each urban legend you want to address, and link to them.

Anonymous Somme Bodet October 10, 2016 1:06 PM  

I'll start trusting it the instant the GamerGate entry is unlocked. Right now it still defines Gamergate as a harassment campaign.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Gamergate_Controversy

Like I said last time, I realize it's a low priority. But Gamergate is the what taught about wiki's bias in the first place, and made me want a replacement.

Anonymous Somme Bodet October 10, 2016 1:11 PM  

Somme Bodet wrote: But Gamergate is the what taught about wiki's bias in the first place

Oops, I meant Gamergate is how I first learned about Wikipedia's bias. My fault for not proof reading it before posting.

Anonymous Anonymous October 10, 2016 1:12 PM  

@ Vox

Wikipedia Editing Courses Launched by Zionist Propaganda Machine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIYhE-hei2Y&feature=youtu.be

Blogger Reinhard Lohengramm October 10, 2016 1:15 PM  

I remember Moldbug put forward an idea similar to this in UR, which shows just how long this has been needed for!

Blogger Dave October 10, 2016 1:18 PM  

Kudos to the core team and the OGs for their vision and tenacity to see the Big Fork to its current level.

Now comes the street brawl with the Wikimedia Foundation that will fight tooth and nail to keep rolling that sweet $75 million a year in donations.

Blogger VD October 10, 2016 1:35 PM  

I'll start trusting it the instant the GamerGate entry is unlocked. Right now it still defines Gamergate as a harassment campaign.

So send us a more accurate rewrite. We can't do every single thing ourselves.

Blogger RobertT October 10, 2016 1:42 PM  

"...as both users will see the version of the page that was most recently edited by editors with perspective ratings similar to his own."

This is a bigger quagmire than the mess Wikipedia is dealing with. You can't satisfy everyone, and it's useless to try. Slicing and dicing the data to come up with three versions of the truth is leading us farther down the Wikipedia rabbit hole.

Blogger VD October 10, 2016 1:48 PM  

This is a bigger quagmire than the mess Wikipedia is dealing with.

No, it's not. My designs always work. See: multibutton mice.

Slicing and dicing the data to come up with three versions of the truth is leading us farther down the Wikipedia rabbit hole.

It's doing the precise opposite. You clearly don't understand how it is going to work.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 10, 2016 1:51 PM  

This is going to be mostly useful for topics with high human interest, which is precisely the opposite of what Wikipedia is still good for.

Blogger VD October 10, 2016 1:51 PM  

Lots more work remains to do, but GG is no longer falsely described as a harassment campaign:

GamerGate is the name given to an ongoing “movement” that began in August 2014 with concerns about the corruption of video game journalism after a series of coordinated attacks on the gaming community by game journalists. In a period of two weeks,4chan purged the majority of its 45 moderators for being sympathetic to gamers, a dozen simultaneous “Gamers are Dead” articles were published on the same day by Ars Technica, Gamasutra, The Guardian, The Financial Post, Jezebel, and other sites. The #gamergate hash tag was popularized by actor Adam Baldwin and was adopted as a title for the loosely affiliated group by adherents as well as opponents.

Anonymous Hilllary's Fly October 10, 2016 2:01 PM  

VD wrote:Lots more work remains to do, but GG is no longer falsely described as a harassment campaign:

GamerGate is the name given to an ongoing “movement” that began in August 2014 with concerns about the corruption of video game journalism


Say, that was fast. If the commenters post their desired content here on the VP blog as OT, might it find its way to Infogalactic? Bad idea, or save a bottleneck step?

Blogger VD October 10, 2016 2:17 PM  

If the commenters post their desired content here on the VP blog as OT, might it find its way to Infogalactic? Bad idea, or save a bottleneck step?

Do it here: https://infogalactic.blogspot.com/2016/10/page-content.html

Blogger José Luis Vidal October 10, 2016 2:31 PM  

> "Infogalactic’s anti-bias architecture will permit users to select their preferred perspective and automatically see the version of the subject page that is closest to it"

Yay, Internet safe spaces for everyone!
I can't wait for the neocon manchildren to enter their own information bubble. Google, Facebook and Twitter are so good at this that an Internet encyclopedia equivalent was sorely needed.
/sarcasm

Blogger JudgeMontrose October 10, 2016 2:31 PM  

Anyone else having trouble logging in? I access the site via the link in my invitation email, then after entering my temporary password and setting my new password, I get
"Database error
A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software."

Anonymous Hillary's Fly October 10, 2016 2:36 PM  

VD wrote:If the commenters post their desired content... might it find its way to Infogalactic?

Do it here


Cool! So that means that anybody in the world- or at least anybody who reads VP- can suggest and write new content, even if they aren't editors themselves. It might not become incorporated but at least it will be considered. Trolls of course would have to get the highly-refined VP treatment. Hi Wikipedia, bye Wikipedia.

Anonymous Passinthough October 10, 2016 2:40 PM  

Signed up. Great job on the pages I have looked at.

Blogger Fenris Wulf October 10, 2016 2:52 PM  

The "preferred perspective" concept is interesting. It's kind of a judo move. If you allow lefties to do whatever they want as long as it's labeled as such, they'll get bored and leave.

Blogger pyrrhus October 10, 2016 3:19 PM  

I really like the name, Infogalactic has a great ring to it. I might consider capitalizing the G... InfoGalactic.

Blogger Alexander October 10, 2016 3:26 PM  

...and bestselling philosopher

The best shivs hurt because they are true. You just know that SJWs are reading this, furious at what Infogalactic implies... and then get triggered-within-a-trigger, inception style, when they read that.

Anonymous Difster October 10, 2016 3:30 PM  

Go forth and conquer!

Anonymous Shut up rabbit October 10, 2016 3:43 PM  

Nice to see an informative bio of Vox rather than a bunch of SJW snarking and shitting the bed over our hosts many achievements on Wikipedo.

Blogger dc.sunsets October 10, 2016 3:55 PM  

This is exactly the fragmenting of "news" I've expected. Soon, different people will choose fundamentally different foundations for use in populating their gestalt. Confirmation bias will be everything.

Don't get me wrong. This is a good thing, and a natural consequence of the postmodernism of the Dominant Left, who rejected any and all reality in favor of theit monotonous delusion.

OpenID randkoch October 10, 2016 4:22 PM  

VD,

I don't yet know how this is going to work, but if you can pull it off, this would be worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.

That is, if the Nobel itself hadn't been corrupted.

Blogger Lucas October 10, 2016 7:48 PM  

Fantastic! There is also Metapedia and Conservapedia (whose Evolution section is very good). The more alternatives, the better.

Great job, VD and all the rest. God bless you all.

Blogger VD October 10, 2016 7:57 PM  

Conservapedia is the exact opposite of what Infogalactic is intended to be. We don't want to be the reverse image of Wikipedia, we intend to contain multitudes.

Anonymous Somme Bodet October 10, 2016 10:31 PM  

VD wrote:Lots more work remains to do, but GG is no longer falsely described as a harassment campaign:

Thanks. Much better.

VD wrote:So send us a more accurate rewrite. We can't do every single thing ourselves.

Fair enough. Probably should have done that to begin with. Here is one possible take, (though I admit this one flawed too, as it was created by the community: http://thisisvideogames.com/gamergatewiki/index.php?title=GamerGate

The GG article alone will probably be a good example for the perspective filters once they are implemented given the wide range of opinions and divisions over it.

Anonymous Helton Strom October 11, 2016 1:36 AM  

@36 - I dunno.... InfoGalactic, spawned by the Dark Lord, working with the Evil Legion of Evil, and containing Multitudes....

Sounds downright (hushed and spookly tone).... Biblical

(echo, echo, /echo)

Anonymous witscribbler October 11, 2016 6:51 AM  

This is “objectivity” as algorithmically appeasing subjectivity. Only individuals can be objective--logically focus on relevant facts without allowing irrelevancies to skew judgment. Linking one biased perspective to another ain’t it. The project may be fine; the description is false.

Blogger VD October 11, 2016 7:33 AM  

The project may be fine; the description is false.

Objectivity is the philosophical principle and the goal. You're confusing the desired destination with the vehicle.

Playing the pedantic here is unwise.

Anonymous witscribbler October 11, 2016 1:19 PM  

You can't reach a goal of "objectivity" by an algorithm that matches non-objective, false perspective with non-objective, false perspective; judging only by the blogger's own description, it's a way of skirting the requirements of objectivity. Nor is what is the nature and means of objectivity a trivial or minor question. Insults about how "unwise" or "pedantic" I am for raising the issue don't answer me.

Anonymous Jeff Duntemann October 11, 2016 3:53 PM  

Hoo-boy, this is big. I've always wanted an All-Volunteer Virtual Encyclopedia of Absolutely Everything, and predicted it (under that name) in 1994. Wikipedia seemed like just the thing, until its lefty peccadilloes started making me nuts. I've wondered for years now if somebody would ever fork it. I've never bothered to write for Wikipedia because I don't want some fool just nuking my contribution because it made him itch somewhere. Several of my friends had their bios disappeared for not being sufficiently notable, despite most of them having significant (if sometimes highly vertical) fame.

I still can't get into IG half the time (traffic!) but the impression I've gotten after my first few visits is: **This needs a book.** Maybe it's too early, but something of modest size that explained in detail what it is, why it's being created, and how to contribute would be spectacularly useful.

Good luck with it, and *illigitimati non carborundum.* The *carborundum* has gotten pretty rough online in recent years.

Blogger Zeke OF Confettii October 11, 2016 7:54 PM  

As one of the 172, I say YOU'RE WELCOME.
Now go. Inform. Enjoy.

Blogger Dwain Dibley October 12, 2016 12:05 PM  

I see no point to INFOGALACTIC if it's just gonna repeat the monetary disinformation and myths promulgated by wikipedia.

Blogger Brandon Phelps October 12, 2016 2:47 PM  

So I've had this idea for a while, really for about 6 years or so. After joining Infogalactic yesterday, it looks like the roadmap in phase two starts to head in the direction I was thinking of with it's "fact", "context" and "opinion" sections. I wrote the following years ago, and think there may be a kernel of an idea here you might consider adding to the roadmap. Without further ado:

Whykipedia
Have a wiki that allows people to say why things are (instead of what they are).
Wikipedia and every other encyclopedia focuses on what a thing is. The reason for this is obvious: encyclopedias are supposed to be repositories of knowledge. Given a commonly accepted definition of knowledge being "justified true belief," describing why something is is often subject to speculation and mere ideas.

Having a wiki that focuses on the why is within the realm of the possible. There would often often be competing mutually exclusive ideas about the why, so the wiki would have to allow for that.

I imagine for each subject that the page would be mostly text-based information, like Wikipedia is today. But there would also be an interactive map showing in a branch-like format all the reasons why. Every map would take the form of a chain of reasons. Substantiation of reasons would play a big role, and type of substantiation would be indicated. Each node in the branch would be a summary of a reason but would be clickable and would expand to show detailed substantiation (an essay, a formula, a poll, or a claim of any of these, etc)

For ease of reading, reasons can be marked with certain properties. For example: subjective, objective, substantiated by: {reason, empirical evidence, individual experience, math, etc}, strong or weak, valid or invalid, type of statement: {well known argument, doctrine, theory, hypothesis, law of nature, law of man, equation}

Subjects are theoretically unlimited, but things like restaurant reviews are really outside the scope of the project.

Problems
Reasons and substantiations across all subjects are certainly redundant and it seems best to reduce double input by sharing these things amongst subjects. Two problems with this: 1) how to find the reason and/or substantiation and 2) what if someone changes a substantiation that is linked to multiple reasons, and this change makes it invalid with respect to some of the linked reasons.

Subjects branch/leaf out from a general subject, how is this done without rewriting an encyclopedia? For example the subject the blueness of the sky is a leaf off the general subject of sky. Definition and searchability are to be considered.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit October 13, 2016 3:47 AM  

Bravo. Bravo. Narcissism.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit October 13, 2016 3:49 AM  

Gah. Stupid dumb as a sack of rocks AutoCorrect dictionary.

Bravissimo.

Blogger technovelist October 15, 2016 10:54 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts