Vox Day’s vanity Wikipedia

The right has a reality problem and so a major source of angst has been the rise of Wikipedia. The ubiquitous encyclopaedia  has had a worrying trend of sticking to facts and reputable sources. It has its issues but it has largely avoided the ‘false balance’ problems of much of modern media. Coverage of topics such as evolution or global warming concentrate on the science rather than wacky alternatives or manufactured controversies.

One attempt to rectify Wikipedia’s annoying bias towards facts and verifiability has been Andrew Schlafly’s Conservapedia. This unintentionally hilarious site apparently has nearly 40 thousand entries but its most popular pages are primarily about pushing far-right Christian conservatism.

So what’s an Alt-right guy supposed to do when they need to look up something actually useful? Depend on Wikipedia which has become infested with terrible people who insist on stuff like ‘facts’ or ‘references’ or ‘not stuff you just made up one day’?

Now, I’m assuming this is a project of Vox Day’s for various reasons but I don’t know that for a fact [citation needed]. In a nutshell, it is this:

  • Make a big copy of Wikipedia.
  • Set up your own editorial policy.
  • Edit out the bits you don’t like.

So for example, one of the editors of the main title page [Also one of the ‘Council members’] has made these contributions: http://infogalactic.com/info/Special:Contributions/Fenris

Main topics: Vox Day, John Scalzi (but of course!), John C Wright, Castalia House. Yup, it is all the glory of Wikipedia but now with extra bits about how John Sclazi is a big old mean poopy head [citation needed]. The main edit to the John Scalzi page is a detailed critique of his use of extended metaphors….nah, I’m kidding. The main edit is a big long paragraph on “Feud with Vox Day” which explains how Vox Day was right all along. It is both very very sad and very funny.

The site also has a set of “Canons” that describe its editing philosophy: http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Seven_Canons

Canons 3,4,5,6 &  are mainly rules of behaviour but canons 1, & 2 sum up the epistemological confusion at the heart of the Alt-right


Infogalactic does not define reality.

Infogalactic’s Starlords are not the reality police. Infogalactic is not Wikipedia, it is a dynamic knowledge core designed to be a useful, up-to-date reference for the user consulting it. Only the user can define his perspective; no one else can define what is true for him or force him to accept their subjective interpretation of reality, no matter how reliable their sources might be.

Infogalactic is written from an objective point of view.

Since no human being on the planet is neutral, objectivity is the most for which we can reasonably strive. Infogalactic is non-ideological and the Starlords will ruthlessly eliminate all ideological spin, framing, narrative, and context from the Fact-level pages regardless of whether they agree with it or not.

It’s like every postmodernist trying to cope with somebody just flat out lying to them. An internal dialogue of: All perspectives are equal but facts are facts, but I won’t tell you what are facts because I’m not going to dictate your perspective but these are the facts and they go here labelled as facts but understand these are subjective interpretations of reality and you have your perspective on these facts which are definitely FACTS etc.

Anyway…cheap laughs available for anybody wanting to see practical solipsism in action.


16 thoughts on “Vox Day’s vanity Wikipedia

  1. Ohh, poor fellow. His unrequited devotion to John Scalzi is just embarrassing to see. Perhaps this project will keep some internet assholes happily and harmlessly occupied for a while.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Scalzi doesn’t even call it a “silly little man-crush” like he used to. No notice at all, how sad, how ever-more-unrequited! So Teddy must make another cry for attention. Even Chuck Tingle doesn’t mention Teddy any more (though his current project about the debates is pretty funny).

      Does Dr. Tingle get a mention in Teddypedia?


  2. Along with being unintentionally hilarious, it is also inadvertently cute. The vainglorious little names they come up with (starlords, galaxians, corelords, Supreme Dark Lord, evil legion of evil) remind me of nothing so much as an adolescent boys’ fantasy club in the treehouse after school lets out for summer. It’s sweetly painful how much they wish the world and successful people to take them seriously.

    Extra pretension points for having “seven” canons though; presumably they have been working on this for forty days and forty nights. Out of ten points each in the Mr Create-your-own-Universe** competition, I commend them 6/6/6 for epistemological consistency/ sanity/ formalwear.

    **A Trump enterprise, based offshore unless the tax loss is in-country (which it won’t be, since -$800,000,000 goes a long way)


    1. Aside from formats and redirect links etc the main change from the original Wikipedia articles seems to be the John Scalzi page…which…I mean…seriously Vox get some self respect or at least wait until you’ve got the project established [breaks into song from Frozen]


      1. They’ve just copied Wikipedia, right?

        (Bad tech joke incoming)

        Stick a fork in this project, it’s done.


  3. Oy vey. So lesson *not* learnt from his earlier EssJayDubya Enemies List debacle? Crowdsourcing when you’re stuck with a bunch of mental midget minions is tough.


  4. Okay so I can see why a breeding ground of hatred could be a bad thing, but overall, at least in the short term, it seems to be a win to me that they’re walling themselves into a nice little virtual safespace with Gab, and this project, and probably a dozen other rip-offs of already successful sites. Makes them all so much easier to ignore if they’re going to be less active in the mainstream. I guess this could all be to do with the “big fork” that Beale bleats about?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think the Voxopedia is the Big Fork (as in a fork of Wikipedia).

      The strategy of cutting themselves off gives them control but also a danger of isolation and inherent limitation in their reach. The downside is it creates a world in which the hate can fester until it splurges out into some corner of everybody else’s lives.


      1. The hate’s festering and splurging anyway; them having their little safe space might at least give civilization a break for a bit.


  5. I’ve little use for the alt-right, but anyone who thinks Wikipedia is free of bias and ridiculous drama is living in a reality bubble of their own. You say this new thing will be a hate site, but I see plenty of hate here. Do you people have any self awareness at all?


    1. Nothing is free of bias. Bias is like entropy – it works its way into things. The difference is whether we work to reduce it or whether we actively seek to increase it.

      As for hate here – well here is the thing: I don’t think people like Vox should be barred from voting, I don’t thing that sexually assaulting people on the right is something that should how be permissible, admired or encouraged, I don’t think conservatives or people of a given faith should be banned from getting married, I don’t think it is somehow OK for police to disproportionately shoot right-wingers just because they might make the police feel unsafe, I don’t think states should bring in odd voting restrictions to stop demographics more likely to vote Republican from voting, I don’t think poverty is OK for people who are rightwing, I don’t think conservatives should be deported en-masse, I don’t think our borders should be controlled to keep conservatives out, I do make the distinction between people on the right who just SAY violent things and people who actually DO them, and, on that note, just because of repeated instances of right wing murderous terrorists acts I don’t believe everybody on the right should be treated as a terrorists.

      Yes, there is a LOT that I dislike about modern conservatism and even more I dislike about those further to its right – BUT here is the difference: I’m STILL willing to treat the right as human beings with civil rights. This is because I believe in FREEDOM.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. JustSomeGuy: I see plenty of hate here

      You must have a very bizarre definition of “hate”. Camestros has given you lots of examples of what would actually be hate — and none of them are happening on this site.

      If you’re upset that the people here are deconstructing and mocking stupidity, well, that does happen on the internet, when people are foolish enough to put their idiocy on display for all to see — but it doesn’t qualify as “hate”.


  6. OP is simply projecting, the purpose of the project is to do what Wikipedia no longer does: stick to the facts. Wikipedia no longer performs its primary function and Infogallactic is correcting that mistake.


Comments are closed.