What does to have many different competing online encyclopedias with equal numbers of readers? I know that in OTL there's already many online encyclopedias but they're nowhere nearly as popular as Wikipedia.
Last edited:
Multiple online encyclopedias with equal number of reads
- Thread starter joeyanonymous
- Start date
Spanish-language Enciclopedia Libre was, at some point, growing faster than Spanish Wikipedia, but the latter took over in 2004.
Maybe you can try Citizendium with a less convoluted signing-up process?
Maybe you can try Citizendium with a less convoluted signing-up process?
The problem is, wikipedia pretty much covers it all, and if there is a topic or viewpoint that you don't see covered there, you can add it. Sure, there is the issue of accuracy, but if you're really concerned about that, you can just follow the links from wikipedia itself to get a better handle on what is being said about the facts of any given topic.
So, there really is not much of an incentive to go elsewhere. One thing that might get competitive sites up and running is if wikipedia were to impose more stricter controls on what sort of things can be posted. I'm guessing that restrictions against racism and hate-speech on wikipedia might be part of what prompted the development of Metapedia, a "white-nationalist" open source. But the market for that viewpoint is obviously pretty limited.
So, there really is not much of an incentive to go elsewhere. One thing that might get competitive sites up and running is if wikipedia were to impose more stricter controls on what sort of things can be posted. I'm guessing that restrictions against racism and hate-speech on wikipedia might be part of what prompted the development of Metapedia, a "white-nationalist" open source. But the market for that viewpoint is obviously pretty limited.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I really encourage people to take the wiki test. Pick a subject you already know a lot about and see how the wikipedia article does, especially check if there are any glaring omissions.
WI different on-line encyclopedias specialize on different subjects, with censors, security, etc. limiting who can access them?
For example, the old DARPA net would still be limited to scientists and engineers working on government contracts.
NATO net would only be available to military officers of NATO nations.
Maybe seperate nets limited to enlisted servicemen and limits to that army's ideology and equipment.
Pop culture nets would be open to the public.
Maybe teenager-only nets.
Maybe specialized nets only available to registered students and faculty of Ivy League Universities.
Maybe a specialized fascist/alt-right/neo-Nazi net.
For example, the old DARPA net would still be limited to scientists and engineers working on government contracts.
NATO net would only be available to military officers of NATO nations.
Maybe seperate nets limited to enlisted servicemen and limits to that army's ideology and equipment.
Pop culture nets would be open to the public.
Maybe teenager-only nets.
Maybe specialized nets only available to registered students and faculty of Ivy League Universities.
Maybe a specialized fascist/alt-right/neo-Nazi net.
This is OTL with Baidu Baike and Baike.com, both of which are comparable to Wikipedia's reach and scope although Chinese only.
another point against Wikipedia--though a minor one, in my opinion--is that it also has notability requirements, meaning that if they judge something as not being notable then it won't be kept. i think alot of "un-notable" stuff flies under the radar (i myself added long, detailed episode summaries to this page which have since been amended by others a bit, mainly breaking them into paragraphs and adding body counts) but the point remains--you'll notice that TV Tropes, in contrast, explicitly says that they don't have a notability rule like Wikipedia does.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Yes, I have found a fair number of my fellow wikipedians seemingly love to quote one policy or another.
I have also contributed and edited on Wikipedia, with some successes and some not-so-much, I guess pretty much like anything.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I think a clear contrast with wikipedia would be a group project which tried to put information in everyday language.
