I want to compete against Wikipedia. What am I up against?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
I want to compete against Wikipedia. What am I up against?
I want to compete against Wikipedia. What am I up against?
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Schizophrenia or severe mental moronation.
You're not going to just magically create another community of editors. And you can't afford the bandwidth or the moderation without monetization. Oop, wikipedia is ad-free anyway.
Why not? I’m not saying it’ll just magically appear. But given time.
>Why not?
because you didn't
you can't because you didn't
>but i can
but you didn't
this needed to happen before you thought you could do it
you didn't do it
it's over
Make something like "https://wiki.installgentoo.com/" but for schizo posting IQfy-tards.
Anyone who posts images of that fox unironically deserves 0 empathy.
Fox board.
$250M of DEI funds
There are all kinds of wikis out there. The political ones like rationalwiki and conservapedia are in some sense trying to do what you want to do so it's hardly a new idea. I guess you should describe your idea in more detail, do you want to challenge wikipedia on specific issues or in general? Because a lot of wikipedia is filler, but that still takes a lot of resources to create and manage.
>do you want to challenge wikipedia on specific issues or in general?
honestly anon, i just don't believe that there should be only one wikipedia. on principle.
Wikimedia Foundation is huge and they have the resources to handle anything that comes in their way, not to mention the good will of nearly everyone on the Internet. Wanting to open up a competing(?) 501(c)(3) would require you to explain why your product deserves to exist when Wikipedia already does. Funding it any other way is a good way to end up like Wikia/Fandom.
In fact, if you want to compete against Wikipedia, the biggest niche you probably could go for is to go after Fandom instead, as they're bleeding users and wiki moderators are looking for anywhere else to take refuge: open up cheap hosting that's better than the existing competition and with less restrictions.
After you amass a decent following of niches, you can probably start going after broader topics. Not going directly to encyclopedia, but just broader niches, working your way up. All of this, of course, while staying financially not-insolvent.
Now that I say this, this thread topic is giving me deja vu. Something about how you can't make it because if you tried, you'd just get vandalized to death.
$75k hosting costs per year
$100m paying executives and donations to their friend's 'non-profit' organizations.
it's the military
You're up against globohomosexual propaganda machine.
>I want to compete against Wikipedia. What am I up against?
Reposting/quoting from reddit because it's topical:
>One of Wikipedia's power users, Justin Knapp, had been submitting an average of 385 edits per day since signing up in 2005 as of 2012. Assuming he doesn't sleep or eat or anything else (currently my favored prediction), that's still one edit every four minutes. He hasn't slowed down either; he hit his one millionth edit after seven years of editing and is nearing his two millionth now at 13 years. This man has been editing a Wikipedia article every four minutes for 13 years. He is insane, and he has had a huge impact on what you and I read every day when we need more information about literally anything. And there are more like him; there is one user with 2.7 million edits and many others with more than one million. Note that some of them joined later than Knapp and therefore might have higher rates of edits, but I don't feel like computing it.
But that was years ago and he's not even in the top-5 of editors anymore.
So to answer your question, OP, you are against an unstoppable force of weaponized armageddon-tier autism in the form of a horde of 24/7-online demented editooooooooooooooooooors.
All you need to do is harness that autism to your own benefit. Find out what drives those editors, then make an even better version of it so they come to your site.
the intro paragraph would work like community notes I guess, I came up with it first though
the way wikipedia works is it reflects a very small section of the population's viewpoint, so it would be an improvement on wikipedia. Also, I don't mention it but you could change the weighting to make certain viewpoints more prominent, just the default weighting would reflect the population average.
I've thought about creating a wikipedia like site for cataloguing information on current events, politics, or controversial topics. The basic format would be that users would declare/be assigned a political affiliation. Users of various affiliations could vote on paragraphs and sections of the article. It could go like: intro paragraph (needs a non controversial score from all sides, lays out the established facts), side 1 (selected randomly), side 2. Then it would repeat that on a more detailed topic.
To keep fringe views from flourishing, you could normalize the sides based on surveys of the US/other public. So even if a bunch of nazis joined, since nazis are only a small portion of the US population, they would only get a small slice of the vote.
Isn't the first part of your post how Xitter's community notes work?
Also, the second paragraph makes me think it would turn out identical to wikipedia in the end.
Wikipedia
Just because you're competing with wikipedia doesn't mean you're competing WITH wikipedia you stupid fricking idiot holy shit!!
yes it literally does
I dont really think you know what you're talking about, lol
me.
>What am I up against?
Two decades of wealth accumulation and millions of volunteer editors (some are paid for by external sources)
where are they getting all this money, and what are they spending it on?
you would be best off with a wikipedia and other source crawler that links back to its various sources and compares what's common and what's been deleted, etc. You'd have a viable crossref site without required moderation (because it's puling from moderated sites) and it would be more comprehensive than wikipedia.
This is a pretty interesting idea, almost like a kind of metawikipedia. And there are quite a few wikias and stuff like that to pull from. You should do something like this OP.
I'll take my check in the mail
WTF this is actually pretty neat
The Germans have a term for it: Internationalen Finanzjudentum
Start with one single topic. Like Stanford tries for philosophy
https://plato.stanford.edu/
Try to cover the entire field, the articles should be in depth, way more than Wikipedia (which is often only a good starting point). Like if you pick chemistry, EVERYTHING that has to do with chemistry has to be covered in some article. Your goal should be that every chemistry student in the world uses the site.
When you achieved that, you probably have created the ideal software to cover entire field in depth. Then you open it up for other fields. They would be subcommunities
>chemistry.gaysite.com
>sociology.gaysite.com
>etc
You could also find some incentive for profs and so on to publish or edit on the site. The brand has to be so strong that writing an article there is like publishing in a journal.
Going that academic route is the best way to be different from Wikipedia. Nobody needs an exact Wikipedia copy.
Not OP, but this got me thinking. I wonder if there's a list somewhere of all the various wikis and wikias and encyclopedias available online or some specific search engine for them like there is for scientific articles.