Some Reaction from Voxopedia

In response to my last Voxopedia post, there has been a bit of a defensive reaction from VD and crew. At his main blog Vox has announced that the daily average page views are now rivalling his own blog. That’s a harder stat to confirm but it seems unlikely.

Meanwhile at the support blog Vox has added a hysterically funny fan mail letter: https://infogalactic.blogspot.com.au/2016/12/fan-mail.html

“Today, I did a quick internet search (Google) for “Shiva” to verify a detail or two.  I clicked on the Wikipedia link.  By the end of the second brief paragraph, I was already informed of “the goddess tradition of Hinduism called Shaktism” and how it considers Parvati to be “the equal complementary partner” of Shiva.

Hmm.  Is Shaktism so prevalent or important that it must be introduced before we learn anything more of Shiva?  Also, I can understand how Parvati may be “complementary”, but the addition of “equal” smelled too SJWish.  I went to Infogalactic to see how its page differs.

On Infogalactic, the offending lines are absent, among other changes.

I am impressed.  I am also encouraged.  I don’t know where Infogalactic will lead or what all it will accomplish.  I can only imagine what providing a more pure source of information may do, how it may affect all the minds searching for information.  What if our youth become accustomed to the *lack* of SJW propaganda, and as a result become similarly skeptical when they meet it, as I did today?  You are saving lives and securing the future.”

I think you can all guess the amusing twist. The ‘Shiva’ page on Voxopedia is just an old copy of the Wikipedia page from when the Voxopedia crew copied Wikipedia over. http://web.archive.org/web/20161219095859/https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Shiva&action=history It hasn’t been edited since and Voxopedia editors have made no contributions to it (as such).

I guess that is a kind of conservatism? Celebrating the more inherent rightness of a January Wikipedia page over the degenerate decadence of a December Wikipedia page.

Anyway…to cheer them up, here is a graph of their registered members:

voxopediamembers

It continues to attract members, its just that they don’t edit articles.

 

Advertisements

13 comments

  1. lastcallistanbul

    Linear growth in registered users, minimal blogging activity, vanity updates… might take a while to catch up with English language Wikipedia.

    I presume they’re just never going to bother with the non-English versions.

    Like

  2. KR

    “Saving Lives and Securing the Future” sounds like a wholly laughable, consultant-created university mission statement.

    Like

  3. Brian Z

    Hi Camestros. I guess the more relevant point is that while Infogalactic stayed the same, there were change wars (and vandalism) on the related Wikipedia articles. In that first sentence, Wikipedia recently called Shiva: “one of the three major deities of Hinduism” and clicking it took you to the Trimurti article, whereas now the sentence calls Shiva “one of the principal deities of Hinduism,” at which link you have to scroll down to “Examples” to find the Trimurti in a subsection called “Trimurti and Tridevi,” yet Shiva Paragraph 2 still claims Shiva is part of “the Hindu trinity that includes Brahma and Vishnu” and THAT link goes to Trimurti, “the trinity of supreme divinity in Hinduism,” yet that link also also describes “Shaktism: The feminist Shaktidharma denomination assigns the eminent roles of the three forms (Trimurti) of Supreme Divinity not to masculine gods but instead to feminine goddesses,” however the article on Shakism – not linked – says feminists, who (it claims) think Shaktism is all about repressed female power, have nothing to do with tradition, etc., etc., etc., etc. It makes your head spin even if you already know a little about the topic.

    I doubt there is any perfect solution to the problems inherent in creating a short summary article about a deity for a lay audience. But if they generate new approaches that might help mitigate some of Wikipedia’s problems, others will build and improve on them. There are more encyclopedias in the internet’s future.

    Wikipedia took a while to take off, too. If no edits have been made to certain articles since the fork, can’t they easily update those to the latest Wikipedia version without manual inspection? Are they better off waiting for Phase 2 before encouraging mass edits?

    Like

    • camestrosfelapton

      “Are they better off waiting for Phase 2 before encouraging mass edits?”

      That is a good question but then they are actually making edits – indeed edits are more typical of what is going on than creating new pages even do creating new pages would seem to be a better use of their time given that a new fork of Wikipedia may well overwrite their edits.

      Even if they can create a more dynamic way of incorporating regular updates from Wikipedia, the best they can hope for is slightly-out-of-date Wikipedia instead of the current status of 1-year-out-of-date Wikipedia.

      Like

  4. Brian Z

    Camestros, it doesn’t seem quite so dire. The pages that have been changed are ones that the group of early adopters are interested in and have updated, so they would just fork and replace the unchanged ones. That said, they were maybe expecting to reach their funding goals faster than this.

    Like

    • camestrosfelapton

      Yes, they could do that as a one off but they’d still be a constant state of catch-up. Now think about the Shiva article Vox boasted about – what would happen to that? In your plan Voxopedia would replace its current version with the version that they are characterizing as less good!

      Like

  5. Ryan

    From a system conversions perspective, would it not be pretty easy to just port over anything on Wiki that either 1) doesn’t exist on Voxopedia or 2) anything on Wiki that is on Voxopedia but has an last edit date greater than x?

    Like

    • KasaObake

      Shh, don’t give them ideas! I’m really looking forward to watching the rest of this slow-motion trainwreck.

      @Brian Z: They have a user on the Teddypedia who, for a while, took it upon himself to keep at least *some* of it up to date by updating direct from Wikipedia – SisyphIdris has since slowed the pace of his edits and such though, and Teddypedia slips further and further into the past with every second. If Wiki is this inferior resource then SisyphIdris is irrelevant and the Teddypedia will continue to grow and edit its own pages just fine (but it’s not).

      I’m not even trying to say that Wikipedia is the best resource EVARR and that it couldn’t either use some major improvements OR be supplanted by a better system of knowledge storage and sharing, but the Teddypedia is not that resource, and it never will be. It’s really only attracting alt-right loons who seem, lately, to have a peculiar fascination with paedophilia.

      Their active userbase is small and very, very focused on issues important to the alt-right. It’s all well and good Ted declaring that InfoGalactic is/will be a bipartisan resource but that is not what is happening in this version of reality.

      They also have Miles “Pi=4” Mathis, which, y’know, flies in the face of providing accurate, factual information. It’s one thing to say “Miles Mathis believes that ‘kinematic Pi’ = 4” (a statement of fact) and quite another having a page declaring that it is actually true (which is, you know, false, even if his badly designed experiment ‘proves’ otherwise).

      Re his boasting about page views: InfoGalactic’s Alexa rank is 195k (it’s beaten 200k a little faster than I thought it might), and Teddy’s blog is 92k (which is actually worse than it was ~a week ago) which pretty much represents a whole hell of a lot more pageviews going to a *single* TLD for Ted’s blog (I think maybe the way Alexa counts blogspot views and rankings is skewy because it automatically redirects to the “correct” TLD for the country you visit from – but I can’t be sure of this, partly due to not really caring that much) than for the *only* TLD for IG.

      Compare that to Wikipedia which is currently ranked 5 on Alexa, and… well, ok, maybe this comparison is unfair on li’l Ted and his latest vanity project. What he really wants is to supplant the “failed” Conservapedia wiki clone right?

      Which has a rank of 57k on Alexa. Even here, he has a *shitload* of work to do, to even be as visible as a project he deems to have failed.

      Now, I’m aware that Alexa and similar sites have to be taken with a pinch of salt since it’s basically just calculated estimates of popularity but even so, such huge disparities in the rankings are a good indicator of the relative popularity/visibility of various projects and sites.

      Random note: until recently Wikipedia was flicking between 6 and 7 on Alexa so to go a further rank up to 5 represents a fairly massive leap – as you go up through the ranks it requires more and more to get to the next rank or milestone.

      Like