ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, February 02, 2018

We're #2

Things have been quiet at Infogalactic lately, and they will continue to be quiet even as we continue to improve performance, until DONTPANIC is ready to bring the noise, but you can bet that Wikipedia is aware that it exists now. This is #2 on Breitbart's list of the Best Examples of Left-wing Bias on Wikipedia in 2017:
2. Burying CNN’s Blackmail controversy and other scandals at the network

Shortly after CNN’s blackmail controversy, an editor created a page on the topic. Other editors promptly had the story buried by moving the content  into the bottom section of an article about CNN controversies. Roughly two dozen editors, mostly left-wing, supported this move citing a policy that says Wikipedia is not for news. Five of these editors showed a double standard, having previously voted to keep an article on Trump’s disclosure of intelligence about ISIS threats in a meeting with Russia where the same policy would apply.

A few editors went even further by cutting out critical information on the blackmail controversy from even the general CNN controversies article, as well as gutting nearly a third of the article’s content covering a variety of scandals that gripped the network, despite much of it being backed by sources considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. These removals included a section on CNN New Year’s Eve host Kathy Griffin’s firing from the network, which was justified by claiming it wasn’t a CNN controversy. The same argument was used to keep out mention of undercover journalist James O’Keefe’s video series on CNN, itself denied its own article by many of the same editors.

Only a small amount of the removed content had been restored after the flurry of deletions. When the situation was mentioned on the Vox Popoli blog of science fiction author Vox Day, the founder of Wikipedia alternative Infogalactic, an editor sought to restore noteworthy content about the blackmail controversy and was immediately reverted.
Scandalous! The mainstream media won't cover this, of course, but that's fine. More and more people are routing around them every day.

But this underlines the importance of Infogalactic. Do take the trouble to thank the Burn Unit, which make it run. And if you're using Infogalactic, consider joining it. The thing about foundational structures like Infogalactic is that they're neither sexy nor exciting. That's why people pay so little attention to them even when they rely upon them heavily. The thing is, they are absolutely vital. Which, of course, is why I prioritized it in the first place.

Note that only 561 of Wikipedia's 1,237 administrators are active now. We have a LONG way to go, but it is doable. And the more that Wikipedia is converged by its admins, the easier our long march becomes.

Labels:

22 Comments:

Blogger Harambe February 02, 2018 8:11 AM  

This revolution won't be televised either

Anonymous NH February 02, 2018 8:17 AM  

Does Infogalactic fork every new Wikipedia page and/or also create original pages?

Turning to Infogalactic more often now, but am never certain. Interesting to compare pages.

Anonymous Zophiel February 02, 2018 8:17 AM  

Burn unit is totally worth my (admittedly small) contributions. Also, the special tee-shirts really cool! I like wearing mine to the gym.

Blogger VD February 02, 2018 8:26 AM  

Does Infogalactic fork every new Wikipedia page and/or also create original pages?

Both.

Blogger YIH February 02, 2018 8:34 AM  

And yet, the other day I stumbled on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/All. It's a long (and alphabetized) list, in the ''I'' section it lists 16 entries beginning with ''info'', guess which one is missing?

Blogger James Dixon February 02, 2018 8:47 AM  

Speaking of the costs of convergence: http://archive.is/LmCPh

Yeah, Infogalactic is very important. Maybe in another year or so I'll be able to back it.

Anonymous Michael Maier February 02, 2018 8:59 AM  

I contributed and volunteered for/to IG a good while back. But I had no idea what to do to help.

Then I got swamped with my accounting courses.

I would like to contribute now that I have more free time but how to do so seemed so vague.

"Go edit!" doesn't help my brain conceptualize what there is to be done.

If someone can help turn on a lightbulb, I'd appreciate it.

Blogger Koanic February 02, 2018 9:38 AM  

> Do take the trouble to thank the Burn Unit, which make it run.

Thank you.

> Which, of course, is why I prioritized it in the first place.

Correctly.

> If someone can help turn on a lightbulb, I'd appreciate it.

Try looking at Wikipedia's volunteer orientation materials. I assume they're more developed.

Anonymous Killua February 02, 2018 9:50 AM  

The thing about foundational structures like Infogalactic is that they're neither sexy nor exciting

This reminds me a lot of the "foundation", by Isaac Asimov. In a time when the "mainstream" structures and institutions are failing, the non-biased preservation of knowledge becomes a critical task. You are doing awesome work Vox!

Blogger VD February 02, 2018 10:05 AM  

If someone can help turn on a lightbulb, I'd appreciate it.

Send me an email. I can send you to someone who wants assistance.

Anonymous NZT February 02, 2018 10:09 AM  

I tried to request accounts to be able to edit and contribute multiple times, but never got any confirmation emails. Is there some sort of intensive vetting process attached to membership?

Also, while the dynamic forking is nice in theory, I haven't really noticed it making a dent in practice. IME if you look at almost any article about politics, movies, sporting events, it is still ca. 2015 (or for newer stuff than that, pages just don't exist). When you look at the daily Forkbot import logs the vast majority of articles it's updating are obscure topics that probably haven't changed since IG was originally set up. Is there any way to change it to focus more of its attention on categories of article that are likely to change more frequently?

Anonymous B. Mattingly February 02, 2018 10:22 AM  

The technical foundation of Infogalactic is very good, but there may be 100,000 articles copied from Wikipedia that still have left-wing bias. They use politically correct language and style like a Marxist professor droning on. You can tell SJWs wrote them.

The solution is to make their viewpoints less left-wing by correcting sentences, without changing the true facts they contain, or to add other viewpoints to restore balance. Anyone willing to help could decide to fix just one article. If I understand correctly, the site's netiquette is not to remove improvements made by other Infogalactic editors, but existing Wikipedia text that is highly biased can be deleted. When in doubt just add corrections.

Millions of other articles are OK, with little or no communist propaganda, but even there alternative viewpoints that are rejected by Wikipedia's hidebound editors could be added..

Blogger kevmalone February 02, 2018 10:54 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger kevmalone February 02, 2018 10:59 AM  

@11
Your last sentence is a question on which I too would appreciate clarity.

Blogger Jack Amok February 02, 2018 11:21 AM  

Infogalactic is important and I feel bad I haven't been able to follow through on helping technically, but I do keep financial support.

Vox understands economics. There's an interesting question, how do we fund civilization? Things like IG and wikipedia, knowledge bases and shared points of reference, are critical parts of civilization. The Left engages in all sorts of funny-money fraud and racketeering to fund their version. How do we fund ours?

Blogger JJ from AZ February 02, 2018 11:26 AM  

"Five of these editors showed a double standard, having previously voted to keep an article on Trump’s disclosure of intelligence about ISIS threats in a meeting with Russia where the same policy would apply."

Except it isn't even news. The President has plenary power to declassify anything. Because he is the President and he said it, there was no disclosure of Classified Information. It's a ginned up fake claim of improper behavior by the deep state.

Anonymous WuMing February 02, 2018 11:35 AM  

When I use Infogalactic, I couldn't help but notice that Infogalactic omits the (((religion))) of certain people.

Is this intentional or it has to do with an earlier version of Wikipedia?

Blogger SirHamster February 02, 2018 2:27 PM  

WuMing wrote:When I use Infogalactic, I couldn't help but notice that Infogalactic omits the (((religion))) of certain people.

Is this intentional or it has to do with an earlier version of Wikipedia?


"Omits" implies that it was there in the first place.

IG starts with a fork of Wiki content, with all the biases built into it.

You want something different, start editing, within the IG guidelines.

Anonymous B. Mattingly February 02, 2018 2:30 PM  

@17: Those articles haven't been edited yet, which is why we need more editors. Even Ted Kennedy is now identified as Irish-American. Unlike Wikipedia, IG's policy is to identify ethnic identity when this may affect someone's social role.

Anonymous Looking Glass February 02, 2018 2:36 PM  

The funny part, I find, about InfoGalactic is my biggest issue with it is exactly why I'm supportive of the project. The Search function takes forever to work, and it only sort of does. Why is that funny? Because I've used a basic copy of the WikiMedia engine before and Search is utterly broken.

So, I just use DDG and search Infogalactic & what I need. Boom, a few millisecond find!

Blogger Michael Maier February 02, 2018 7:43 PM  

VD wrote:If someone can help turn on a lightbulb, I'd appreciate it.

Send me an email. I can send you to someone who wants assistance.


Sent, thanks.

Anonymous Post Alley Crackpot February 03, 2018 1:48 AM  

I'd like it very much if Infogalactic could build offline blobs that work with the Kiwix viewer in Android ...

It's a weird little world, BTW: it's still 2016 inside Kiwix's offline Wikipedia. If you have a spare 60 GB or so on your mobile's SD card, give it a spin and see for yourself.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts