Add it to https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
They started by forking wikipedia and have expanded the notability guidelines.
They started by forking wikipedia and have expanded the notability guidelines.
The Chicago Cubs haven't won a World Series since 1908: https://infogalactic.com/info/Chicago_Cubs
Without enough users, a snapshot of Wikipedia will quickly decay into unreliability. Most pages don't become inaccurate that fast, but you can't know if the page you're reading is one of them or not.
First of all is the perspectives filtering by relativity rating, which, while not yet implemented, is on the roadmap and seems to be an important future part of this encyclopedia. This idea seems to be an attempt to be more inclusive of people with various political views. This looks like a pretty big gamble to me, because it's not at all clear that this solution won't cause its own set of problems, or even work at solving the problem it purports to solve. The relativity ratings being on a one-dimensional political Left to political Right scale doesn't help my perspective on this, either.
There also seems to be some stuff about advertising in the info pages I read, which does not sound like a good thing. And the "Corelords" being corporate sponsors who oversee the editing of pages in their industry sounds pretty dangerous for an encyclopedia. But it's not clear how all this will work from what I've read, so it might be innocuous. Does anyone know more about this?
Then there are more cosmetic things, like the name being "Infogalactic", and the non-standard names for editors and admins, who are called "Galaxians" and "Starlords" respectively. These are harder to remember, and it's geeky in a sci-fi sort of way that's a bit off-putting to those of us who aren't big fans of sci-fi.
I do like that it's gamified a bit with a level system, though.
Anyone care to share their own perspective on this?
I think the way Infogalactic solves the problem it is trying to solve is that people no longer have to argue if a particular fact is worth including in an article and have an edit war. It opens up a third option of recognizing that including or not depends on the circumstances of what the reader is looking for. I'm not sure what potential new problems you are thinking of.
As for corporate sponsors, they are bound by the same rules as the rest. I don't think explicitly recognizing corporate interest in the topic would be worse than trying to have an objective page which would probably be subverted anyway.
As for terminology, I don't see how "Infogalactic" as a name is more confusing to new users than "Wikipedia". Most people didn't know what "wiki" meant before Wikipedia. And I don't think new contributors would really have a problem figuring out "Galaxians" and "Starlords" with the obvious context.
As I sometimes mention, informally studying the effects of code structure on community creation is a bit of a long-running hobby of mine, and I'd be intrigued to see any other extant examples of a wikipedia fork.