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

Thursday, November 26, 2015

Wiki SJWs reject Breitbart

I thought it was interesting to see that Breitbart News is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. But Salon and Sam Harris's blog and every other two-bit SJW site is.
Day is the Lead Editor at Castalia House, a book publishing company, where he has published the novels of such writers as [[John C. Wright (author)|John C. Wright]], [[Tom Kratman]], and Rolf Nelson.{{cite web|work=[[Breitbart.com]]|first=Allum|last=Bokhari|date=April 4, 2015|title=Hugo Awards Nominations Swept by Anti-SJW, Anti-Authoritarian Authors|url=http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/04/hugo-awards-nominations-swept-by-anti-sjw-anti-authoritarian-authors/}}

  
Day is the Lead Editor at Castalia House, a book publishing company, where he has published the novels of such writers as [[John C. Wright (author)|John C. Wright]], [[Tom Kratman]], and Rolf Nelson.{{cn|date=November 2015}}
The funny thing is that they left the actual text completely unsourced. So, apparently no source at all is deemed more reliable than Breitbart.

Labels: ,

31 Comments:

Anonymous Mr. Rational November 26, 2015 7:01 PM  

The essence of totalitarianism:  unpersoning.

Blogger maniacprovost November 26, 2015 7:07 PM  

... You remember that they remove the source, and then one day later they remove the text for being unsourced, right? Memory hole 101.

Anonymous Lukas Brunnor November 26, 2015 7:14 PM  

One more reason to (eventually) create an alternative to these fascists. I for one will not forget when the pendulum swings the other way.

Anonymous Muppet November 26, 2015 7:21 PM  

Not everyone in the dissident right is tech savvy. So here's a suggestion to our other confederate netizens who may be: stop saying that we need another alternative to wiki and someone just bloody well do it already. Is it that difficult for some of the more internet/computer focused out there? For people like me who have zero background in the area and whose e-knowledge doesn't extend far beyond word processing and email, its not a viable project. But I'm sure there are people out there who could throw something together and it will gather a following and snowball... like wikipedia did in the first place. Come on chaps. Stop whining and start doing.

Blogger maniacprovost November 26, 2015 7:28 PM  

Muppet, it's not as simple as it sounds. The Wikipedia model has inherent weaknesses, just like Democracy and Free Markets. It would take a long weekend to create a basic clone of the site, but it would be overrun eventually unless the human factors are controlled.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 26, 2015 7:31 PM  

Muppet, take it from someone who does know the tech: it's not something you can just "throw together," not if you want to do it at all right. It's more of a human problem than a tech problem, though there are tech aspects to it. It'll happen, though, and I suspect that when it does there will be a need for non-technical help, so stay tuned.

Blogger IrishFarmer November 26, 2015 7:46 PM  

Making a Wikipedia clone that is non-sjw is pointless. If you want to replace Wikipedia find the next iteration, because everyone is just gonna shrug at "Wikipedia but for libertarians\neoreactionaries/conservatives". You need something that is as much of a step forward as Wikipedia was. The key is to arrive at the future before your opponents, everything else is just playing catch up.

Blogger LP999 November 26, 2015 7:55 PM  

Good, new lows for Wiki! Deception of this magnitude requires continued documentation. It is great to watch Wiki fail.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/11/25/when_trolls_attack__gamergate_is_scapegoated_128844.html

Blogger Jeff Y November 26, 2015 8:17 PM  

Marek has been taken to arbitration several times. Progressive organizations pay "volunteers" to Stasi-police Wikipedia.

We need some rich truth-talkers to fund counter-propaganda.

Anonymous taqiyyologist November 26, 2015 8:32 PM  

Castaliapedia?

Rolls off the tongue nicely.

Castapedia. Better. Shorter.

Anonymous Red Comet November 26, 2015 8:33 PM  

Over the past year or two I've seen SJWs and other shitlibs reject Breitbart like they reject Fox News. I've the most extreme among them reject any news source that doesn't fall in complete lock-step with their beliefs.

Pretty soon the political divide will make it so that if it wasn't reported on a Communist blog then it never happened for them.

Anonymous taqiyyologist November 26, 2015 8:33 PM  

Encyclopedia Castalia.

EC.

Anonymous taqiyyologist November 26, 2015 8:37 PM  

From what I understand, the entirety of Wikipedia is legally "forkable".

As in, stick a fork in it. It's done.

Take it, make it new, and guard against SJWs.

Easy, right? There's only about a few million subjects to monitor for entryists.

Piece 'a cake!

Anonymous 334 November 26, 2015 8:48 PM  

Easy, right? There's only about a few million subjects to monitor for entryists.

Now you see it.

Anonymous RandyBeck November 26, 2015 8:57 PM  

Although it's pretty close to impossible to create an alternative to Wikipedia, it is more than possible to create specialized wikis on the critical subjects. That's all you really need anyway.

Blogger Chent November 26, 2015 9:15 PM  

@ RandyBeck

You cold do a wiki that contained these specialized subjects and forward to Wikipedia for anything else

Anonymous Godfrey November 26, 2015 9:22 PM  

When your enemy is desperate, it is a sign you are winning.

The SJW is desperately repairing the cracks in the wall.

Keep hammering.

Blogger EM November 26, 2015 9:23 PM  

Not surprising. However, not sure I would lump Sam Harris in with the SJW's and Salon. In fact, I've seen a lot of hit pieces directed against Harris on salon. SJW's seem to despise him for his critiques on Islam.

Anonymous Takin' a Look November 26, 2015 10:07 PM  

Da joooooooooos!

Naw, the train is fine.

As for the Jews, well, I look at the "just a few rotten apples, most are embarrassed" in the same way I look at any other Moderates of whatever stripe who act as Sayanim for their extremists......

They are irrelevant

Keep it up cucks, of whatever strip, ignore the words of men such as Walther Rathenau again, whatever your spots or stripes.

Blogger Culture War Draftee November 26, 2015 10:29 PM  

Isn't Conservapedia an alternate to Wikipedia? Don't know much about it. I think one big obstacle is search rankings. If Google gives the average user Wikipedia each and every time, then who would even know about alternates?

Blogger Were-Puppy November 26, 2015 10:52 PM  

The SJW editors reaction on Wikipedia when they see a true statement.

Blogger Carl Philipp November 26, 2015 10:54 PM  

@18 "Not surprising. However, not sure I would lump Sam Harris in with the SJW's and Salon. In fact, I've seen a lot of hit pieces directed against Harris on salon. SJW's seem to despise him for his critiques on Islam."

That doesn't change anything. Leftists eat their own. Where have you been?

It is both a never-ending source of schaudenfreude, and an inevitable consequence of defining a movement on inherently contradictory goals and ideals.

Blogger IM2L844 November 26, 2015 11:43 PM  

#Castagate

Anonymous R Wilson November 27, 2015 12:21 AM  

This is a typical tactic of theirs.

They delete the source for something and leave it in the article, then afterwards they delete the info itself because it is unsourced. Often they delete the entire article after removing the citations.

Blogger Epimandes November 27, 2015 12:58 AM  

Scholarpedia

Anonymous Greg November 27, 2015 1:07 AM  

Installing mediawiki is simple. I've done it before many times. You can install other stuff, too, that will make a wiki function almost exactly like Wikipedia. The major issue I think will be hosting costs. If you can find a good webhost and put up a bitcoin address for donations, I think you'd be in a good position (expect the cost to be $100/month). The other issue is entryism. Personally, I'd go with the admin approval route for new accounts (no anonymous editing, no brand new accounts popping up every five minutes). Have a probation period of 6 months (and, say, 5000 edits), after which users are mostly free to edit as they wish. Be a lot less lenient than Wikipedia. Admins and up need to provide their real identities to the wiki owner. You could also require a $5 dollar (?) donation to get an account (via cryptocurrency). Basically, make sure you get money and make sure you make it difficult/unpleasant for entryists to get in. You're still going to get entryists (there's some really dedicated people out there) but they'll be in small enough numbers to be manageable.

Blogger joe winner November 27, 2015 1:55 AM  

I shall bear this in mind when considering another donation to wiki

Anonymous Shut up rabbit November 27, 2015 2:44 AM  

It's shocking to see the effort cucks like Marek have to do to keep the narrative pure. This sad sack has a word to say on every subject that exposes the lies of the left: immigration, terrorism, hbd etc, etc...

This sad specimen is spending a lifetime running around curating a bunch of overte lies while most normal people are getting on with life. SJW-ism attracts the lowest, dumbest most self-hating specimens on the planet. Normal people can never compete in terms of time available to waste protecting their narrative narrative of, "Why it's everybody else's fault I failed".

Identify SJW-ism and ignore it.

Blogger ncartist November 27, 2015 3:10 AM  

@ 20. Culture War Draftee
Wikipedia torpedoes Conservapedia via Google with the following result:: "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki encyclopedia project written from an American conservative, creationist, and Christian fundamentalist point of view."

Then right below Wikipedia there is the redundant Lierapedia also trashing Conservapedia: "Conservapedia The Right Hates
Science. The Young Turks-- The right hates science... "

But looking a Conservapedia's home page it mixes the subject listing with the conservative opinion of the news (as does Liberapedia.)

Blogger OneWingedShark November 27, 2015 11:47 PM  

@7 " If you want to replace Wikipedia find the next iteration,"

Hm, maybe something like Project Xanadu and researchgate.net/citeseer/.edu-hosting combined, perhaps with Attempto Controlled English [also here] synopses for searching?

Blogger Paul Widdecombe November 28, 2015 9:39 AM  

I have the answer. Chop up the content at any point of contention and branch rather than overwrite. This means that every reader is forced to become a contributor by selecting their own views based on what is out there, what is available. As you select preferences, it defaults the order in line with selections that others have made who have similar choices to you.

This does away with the professional SJW wiki editor class. They can still busy away if they like, but I will be able to very simply filter out their poison by selecting the "voxday" filter, or the "Breitbart" filter. (Each of these community filters would have to self regulate their membership)

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts