A new Wikipedia fork which is being developed

[Sophie]

Sorry, post deleted.

To me, the Callipedia site appears to be a shambolic mess, so not worth commenting on.

[Poetlister]

Sorry, post deleted.

To me, the Callipedia site appears to be a shambolic mess, so not worth commenting on.

That's a bit harsh. It's still under development. You wouldn't say that a house in its early stages of being built isn't worth commenting on.

[Eric Corbett]

Sorry, post deleted.

To me, the Callipedia site appears to be a shambolic mess, so not worth commenting on.

That's a bit harsh. It's still under development. You wouldn't say that a house in its early stages of being built isn't worth commenting on.

Wouldn't you?

Wikipedia's Visual Editor has been under development for how many years now? Doesn't seem to have prevented anyone from commenting on it though.

But Callipedia does seem a bit rudderless. Quite recently Nemo said in this thread that his strategy was to import WP's Vital articles, but it's difficult to see what's vital about "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?", "the seventh episode of the fourth season of the American television medical drama Private Practice", for instance.

[Nemo]

To me, the Callipedia site appears to be a shambolic mess, so not worth commenting on.

Can you be more specific?

The "tidying" up process is underway; excessive red links, and broken template/image/categories/etc will be removed.

But Callipedia does seem a bit rudderless. Quite recently Nemo said in this thread that his strategy was to import WP's Vital articles, but it's difficult to see what's vital about "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?", "the seventh episode of the fourth season of the American television medical drama Private Practice", for instance.

"Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King" is a Featured article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_You_H ... te_King%3F

This is actually the reason I changed the strategy from importing Featured articles to importing Vital articles; there were too many Featured articles that were obscure (such as articles on individual TV show episodes):

Wikipedia has a classification of vital articles here; I also plan on using Encyclopedia Britannica's article list as a reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles

[Eric Corbett]

To me, the Callipedia site appears to be a shambolic mess, so not worth commenting on.

Can you be more specific?

The "tidying" up process is underway; excessive red links, and broken template/image/categories/etc will be removed.

But Callipedia does seem a bit rudderless. Quite recently Nemo said in this thread that his strategy was to import WP's Vital articles, but it's difficult to see what's vital about "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?", "the seventh episode of the fourth season of the American television medical drama Private Practice", for instance.

"Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King" is a Featured article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_You_H ... te_King%3F

This is actually the reason I changed the strategy from importing Featured articles to importing Vital articles; there were too many Featured articles that were obscure (such as articles on individual TV show episodes):

Wikipedia has a classification of vital articles here; I also plan on using Encyclopedia Britannica's article list as a reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles

I'm quite certain I know a great deal more about Wikipedia's vital articles than you do, so please don't patronise me.

Are you claiming that "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King" is a vital article or not? Or are you claiming that you imported it before it dawned on you that most of Wikipedia's FAs aren't "vital"? Do you even know what the purpose of that Vital Article list was?

[Nemo]

I'm quite certain I know a great deal more about Wikipedia's vital articles than you do, so please don't patronise me.

No patronizing here.

Are you claiming that "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King" is a vital article or not?

No it isn't, in fact I'll probably delete it.

Or are you claiming that you imported it before it dawned on you that most of Wikipedia's FAs aren't "vital"? Do you even know what the purpose of that Vital Article list was?

My original plan was to import Featured (and possibly Good articles). But then I realized that there are too many Vital articles missing, and too many Featured articles which aren't Vital (such as the one you just mentioned).

As far as Vital articles go, the page states that it attempts to define what Wikipedia's most important articles are (e.x. earth, mathematics) and lists them in categories of 1 through 5.

So my plan now is to use it as a reference to make sure that the most important subjects get covered, and that we don't wind up with an abundance of highly obscure articles.

[Eric Corbett]

I notice a question on Sucks asking what's in it for editors to join your project, to which you have yet to respond.

So what is in it for editors? Everipedia, scam though it was, offered the chance to become a millionaire.

[Poetlister]

It may be useful to check List of articles every Wikipedia should have on Meta, though it's probably near enough the same. You can also import articles from the Dictionary of National Biography on Wikisource.

[Nemo]

I notice a question on Sucks asking what's in it for editors to join your project, to which you have yet to respond.

So what is in it for editors? Everipedia, scam though it was, offered the chance to become a millionaire.

If you mean financial compensation, I'm not in a position to offer that now.

Ideally it will provide a better environment for improving articles and collaboration, and not include many of the toxic aspects which Wikipedia does. (Administration will play a more active role in maintaining a healthy environment, rather than simply leaving problem editors and content to run amok or trust people who can't or won't behave like mature adults to "regulate" themselves).

[Eric Corbett]

You can also import articles from the Dictionary of National Biography on Wikisource.

You're having a laugh aren't you?

A source that's 120 years old?

[Eric Corbett]

I notice a question on Sucks asking what's in it for editors to join your project, to which you have yet to respond.

So what is in it for editors? Everipedia, scam though it was, offered the chance to become a millionaire.

If you mean financial compensation, I'm not in a position to offer that now.

Ideally it will provide a better environment for improving articles and collaboration, and not include many of the toxic aspects which Wikipedia does. (Administration will play a more active role in maintaining a healthy environment, rather than simply leaving problem editors and content to run amok or trust people who can't or won't behave like mature adults to "regulate" themselves).

So your aim is to be a "safe-space" version of Wikipedia?

If that is indeed your aim, how do you plan to outdo Wikipedia with your SEO?

[Poetlister]

You can also import articles from the Dictionary of National Biography on Wikisource.

You're having a laugh aren't you?

A source that's 120 years old?

By definition, it will only cover people who have been dead longer than that. It might still be useful at least as a starting point. After all, loads of Wikipedia articles are in fact based on it or other sources of a similar vintage such as an old version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It would certainly provide a list of people who should have articles.

[Nemo]

So your aim is to be a "safe-space" version of Wikipedia?

As much as Encyclopedia Britannica is, I suppose.

If that is indeed your aim, how do you plan to outdo Wikipedia with your SEO?

I won't necessarily need to "outdo" them - if I can land hits on the first page of search engines, I would consider that a success.

[Eric Corbett]

You can also import articles from the Dictionary of National Biography on Wikisource.

You're having a laugh aren't you?

A source that's 120 years old?

By definition, it will only cover people who have been dead longer than that. It might still be useful at least as a starting point. After all, loads of Wikipedia articles are in fact based on it or other sources of a similar vintage such as an old version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It would certainly provide a list of people who should have articles.

It could certainly provide some kind of list of those people who probably deserve articles, but the actual content of the articles, written in late Victorian English, is quite unsuitable for straight copying, as Wikipedia has done.

[Eric Corbett]

So your aim is to be a "safe-space" version of Wikipedia?

As much as Encyclopedia Britannica is, I suppose.

If that is indeed your aim, how do you plan to outdo Wikipedia with your SEO?

I won't necessarily need to "outdo" them - if I can land hits on the first page of search engines, I would consider that a success.

That's a worthy goal, but it won't happen by chance.

Why do think you very rarely, if ever, see Everipedia, or Citizendium, or WikiWand or other of these forks on the first page?

[Nemo]

So your aim is to be a "safe-space" version of Wikipedia?

As much as Encyclopedia Britannica is, I suppose.

If that is indeed your aim, how do you plan to outdo Wikipedia with your SEO?

I won't necessarily need to "outdo" them - if I can land hits on the first page of search engines, I would consider that a success.

That's a worthy goal, but it won't happen by chance.

Why do think you very rarely, if ever, see Everipedia, or Citizendium, or WikiWand or other of these forks on the first page?

i'm honestly not sure; I plan on having the site optimized specifically for SEO.

[Poetlister]

Why do think you very rarely, if ever, see Everipedia, or Citizendium, or WikiWand or other of these forks on the first page?

i'm honestly not sure; I plan on having the site optimized specifically for SEO.

Lots of sites are no doubt also optimised. I guess Everipedia is too. Will that be enough to give your site much Google prominence?

[Nemo]

Why do think you very rarely, if ever, see Everipedia, or Citizendium, or WikiWand or other of these forks on the first page?

i'm honestly not sure; I plan on having the site optimized specifically for SEO.

Lots of sites are no doubt also optimised. I guess Everipedia is too. Will that be enough to give your site much Google prominence?

We'll have to see, I've noticed that some MediaWiki spin-off sites (e.x. RationalWiki) do fairly well in the search results despite being relatively small and obscure.

[Eric Corbett]

Why do think you very rarely, if ever, see Everipedia, or Citizendium, or WikiWand or other of these forks on the first page?

i'm honestly not sure; I plan on having the site optimized specifically for SEO.

Lots of sites are no doubt also optimised. I guess Everipedia is too. Will that be enough to give your site much Google prominence?

No, it won't.

Wikipedia has a special relationship with Google, in that a new WP article will appear in Google search results within minutes, whereas with other sites it will take days or even weeks before the crawler visits. Doesn't mean that Wikipedia can't be beaten in the Google search results, it can, but not by simply mirroring WP content. There has to be new, better stuff, and that requires competent editors who're prepared to get stuck in and write that stuff.

And although it may not be politically correct to say it, in my experience most of the competent editors are not always the most PC of people. I would of course include myself in that category.

[Nemo]

Why do think you very rarely, if ever, see Everipedia, or Citizendium, or WikiWand or other of these forks on the first page?

i'm honestly not sure; I plan on having the site optimized specifically for SEO.

Lots of sites are no doubt also optimised. I guess Everipedia is too. Will that be enough to give your site much Google prominence?

No, it won't.

Wikipedia has a special relationship with Google, in that a new WP article will appear in Google search results within minutes, whereas with other sites it will take days or even weeks before the crawler visits. Doesn't mean that Wikipedia can't be beaten in the Google search results, it can, but not by simply mirroring WP content. There has to be new, better stuff, and that requires competent editors who're prepared to get stuck in and write that stuff.

And although it may not be politically correct to say it, in my experience most of the competent editors are not always the most PC of people. I would of course include myself in that category.

My plan isn't to stop at being a mirror of Wikipedia; the first step is simply deciding what content to import; the next step will be figuring out ways to branch out and differentiate our content from Wikipedia's.

And although it may not be politically correct to say it, in my experience most of the competent editors are not always the most PC of people. I would of course include myself in that category.

If "not allowing pedophiles" is "PC" then I really don't give a crap.

[Eric Corbett]

My plan isn't to stop at being a mirror of Wikipedia; the first step is simply deciding what content to import; the next step will be figuring out ways to branch out and differentiate our content from Wikipedia's.

I would suggest that your plan ought to start with what kind of site you're intending to build, what's your USP.

I really can't see you getting much purchase with a safe-space version of Wikipedia. After all, readers aren't concerned with how articles are built, or what's happening behind the scenes.

[Eric Corbett]

If "not allowing pedophiles" is "PC" then I really don't give a crap.

When did I mention pedophiles?

I suggest you rein in your neck, before it's reined in for you.

[Vigilant]

Why does this conversation remind me of off-wiki with different players?

[Eric Corbett]

Why does this conversation remind me of off-wiki with different players?

I guess only you can answer that question.

[Nemo]

If "not allowing pedophiles" is "PC" then I really don't give a crap.

When did I mention pedophiles?

I suggest you rein in your neck, before it's reined in for you.

I don't understand what you're angry about; I didn't mean to accuse you of "defending" pedophiles at all.

The main page of Wikipediocracy mentions a convicted child-porn possessor (Deku-shrub) editing Wikipedia in 2020 (even despite Wikipedia allegedly having a policy against this).

That's the type of dreck that I want to avoid entirely with Callipedia; I don't consider this "PC" so much as just good sense.

[WanderingGuest]

If you're planning to build a less toxic version of Wikipedia, preemptively ban Eric Corbett, his sympathizers and generally anyone who resembles Eric Corbett in any way. Indeed, Eric Corbett is the personification of incivility and toxicity.

[Eric Corbett]

If you're planning to build a less toxic version of Wikipedia, preemptively ban Eric Corbett, his sympathizers and generally anyone who resembles Eric Corbett in any way. Indeed, Eric Corbett is the personification of incivility and toxicity.

That might be argued by some to be a good starting point, but it does display a complete lack of common sense, or even honesty.

But just to put your mind at rest, I have no intention of editing any kind of wiki ever again. I cannot, of course, speak for my "sympathizers" or anyone else who resembles me.

[Vigilant]

I'm getting such an off-wiki vibe here.

When does David Gerard show up to push everyone's poop back in?

[Anroth]

When money is involved.....

[Mojito]

Nemo: good on you for having a crack. I hope it works out.

Best ignore those who frequently whinge about the failings of Wikipedia yet also just want to poke holes in someone's efforts to create an alternative.

[Nemo]

Nemo: good on you for having a crack. I hope it works out.

Best ignore those who frequently whinge about the failings of Wikipedia yet also just want to poke holes in someone's efforts to create an alternative.

Fair enough.

[Eric Corbett]

Nemo: good on you for having a crack. I hope it works out.

Best ignore those who frequently whinge about the failings of Wikipedia yet also just want to poke holes in someone's efforts to create an alternative.

When did you redefine making suggestions as "poking holes"?

[Poetlister]

The thing to do is to consider each editor on their contributions and interactions with others on the site, regardless of what you may know about their behaviour off-site.

[WanderingGuest]

The thing to do is to consider each editor on their contributions and interactions with others on the site, regardless of what you may know about their behaviour off-site.

Nah. This risks toxic people using your site as hunting grounds for marking targets for their off-wiki harassment. And of course don't forget the pedophiles. If you know anyone to be a pedophile offwiki, definitely ban then because they are using your site to mark grooming victims, guaranteed.

[Nemo]

The site now includes a full list of articles - articles are still being imported, but you're welcome to view it in the meantime (articles which haven't been imported yet will show up as redlinks):

https://callipedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Ca ... l_articles

(The list is a direct copy of Wikipedia's vital articles listed below. Some changes will eventually be made; we may delete some from the list, or include others, but this is a good-enough inclusion benchmark for now):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles

[C&B]

What's up, Doc?

[Jim]

The site now includes a full list of articles - articles are still being imported, but you're welcome to view it in the meantime (articles which haven't been imported yet will show up as redlinks):

https://callipedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Ca ... l_articles

(The list is a direct copy of Wikipedia's vital articles listed below. Some changes will eventually be made; we may delete some from the list, or include others, but this is a good-enough inclusion benchmark for now):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles

https://callipedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham

She was the mother of Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States.

You might want to look at the "seas of redlinks" next, or soonish... An article for Ann Dunham, but none for her son seems, somehow, rather odd...

My apologies if that's just part of the ongoing process. It looks, visually, quite nice, if a little slow to load.

[Nemo]

The site now includes a full list of articles - articles are still being imported, but you're welcome to view it in the meantime (articles which haven't been imported yet will show up as redlinks):

https://callipedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Ca ... l_articles

(The list is a direct copy of Wikipedia's vital articles listed below. Some changes will eventually be made; we may delete some from the list, or include others, but this is a good-enough inclusion benchmark for now):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles

https://callipedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham

She was the mother of Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States.

You might want to look at the "seas of redlinks" next, or soonish... An article for Ann Dunham, but none for her son seems, somehow, rather odd...

My apologies if that's just part of the ongoing process. It looks, visually, quite nice, if a little slow to load.

Right, I'm still in the process of importing the articles.

[Nemo]

I've resumed work on the website and finished deciding what articles to import for the time being.

Most of the articles are taken from Wikipedia's list of Vital articles, which ranks articles in terms of their importance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles

Next steps will be website formatting / attribution / search engine optimization.

---

Contributors, as well as suggestions for article inclusion are currently welcome:

https://callipedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page
https://callipedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:WikiForum

[Nemo]

Currently there are 36,000 articles.

https://callipedia.miraheze.org/w/index ... edirects=1

All of the articles are taken from Wikipedia's List of Vital articles, so this ensures that most important topics are covered, and that there are no cruft or junk articles being hosted.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Currently there are 36,000 articles.

https://callipedia.miraheze.org/w/index ... edirects=1

All of the articles are taken from Wikipedia's List of Vital articles, so this ensures that most important topics are covered, and that there are no cruft or junk articles being hosted.

Ha ha ha ha. You think Wikipedia's vital articles list won't contain any "cruft or junk articles"? Did you forget who made the list?

By the way, are you hotlinking images from Commons?

[Poetlister]

Even if all of the topics are sensible and encyclopaedic, there is no guarantee that the articles themselves are much good,

[Midsize Jake]

By the way, are you hotlinking images from Commons?

I'm going to take a wild guess that you probably wouldn't be asking if he wasn't, and indeed, a quick check of the top article exemplar for any encyclopedia-like wiki site, namely their H.P. Lovecraft article, reveals that the file has been uploaded to Callipedia and linked correctly to that file from the image (as displayed in the article), at least if you open it in a new tab. But if you don't (i.e., if you simply left-click on it), you find that the actual image being displayed is indeed hotlinked from Commons, and the "Details" button on the lower-right corner takes you to Commons. (You can also see Commons as the image source using the "View Image Info" or "View Image Details" item in the context menu).

So, a little more work to do on that.

[Giraffe Stapler]

By the way, are you hotlinking images from Commons?

I'm going to take a wild guess that you probably wouldn't be asking if he wasn't, and indeed, a quick check of the top article exemplar for any encyclopedia-like wiki site, namely their H.P. Lovecraft article, reveals that the file has been uploaded to Callipedia and linked correctly to that file from the image (as displayed in the article), at least if you open it in a new tab. But if you don't (i.e., if you simply left-click on it), you find that the actual image being displayed is indeed hotlinked from Commons, and the "Details" button on the lower-right corner takes you to Commons. (You can also see Commons as the image source using the "View Image Info" or "View Image Details" item in the context menu).

So, a little more work to do on that.

Don't be fooled by what you see.
https://callipedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles

Callipedia is just showing you the Wikipedia page for the file.

[Nemo]

Ha ha ha ha. You think Wikipedia's vital articles list won't contain any "cruft or junk articles"? Did you forget who made the list?

I have an A-Z list of Encyclopedia Britannica articles which I plan on cross-checking it with. For starters, most articles on Britannica should have an article on the wiki. Anything beyond that is going to be viewed with caution.

https://www.britannica.com/sitemap/0-9/1

By default - once the lists are proofread, new articles are not going to be open for creation, except on special request.

By the way, are you hotlinking images from Commons?

I'm going to take a wild guess that you probably wouldn't be asking if he wasn't, and indeed, a quick check of the top article exemplar for any encyclopedia-like wiki site, namely their H.P. Lovecraft article, reveals that the file has been uploaded to Callipedia and linked correctly to that file from the image (as displayed in the article), at least if you open it in a new tab. But if you don't (i.e., if you simply left-click on it), you find that the actual image being displayed is indeed hotlinked from Commons, and the "Details" button on the lower-right corner takes you to Commons. (You can also see Commons as the image source using the "View Image Info" or "View Image Details" item in the context menu).

So, a little more work to do on that.

As of right now, I haven't uploaded any images myself.

The Wikihost I'm using is integrated with Commons. (Any images uploaded to Wikipedia but not Commons aren't linked due to the copyright issues):



If I have to, I can re-upload images myself (but that's not my first priority).

[Giraffe Stapler]

As of right now, I haven't uploaded any images myself.

The Wikihost I'm using is integrated with Commons. (Any images uploaded to Wikipedia but not Commons aren't linked due to the copyright issues):

Well, apparently hotlinking is totally fine with the WMF. I don't know why I am surprised to learn this.

[Ryuichi]

If I have to, I can re-upload images myself (but that's not my first priority).

You should get Fae to give you a hand with that. I hear they have some free time now.

[Poetlister]

As of right now, I haven't uploaded any images myself.

The Wikihost I'm using is integrated with Commons. (Any images uploaded to Wikipedia but not Commons aren't linked due to the copyright issues):

Well, apparently hotlinking is totally fine with the WMF. I don't know why I am surprised to learn this.

The WMF want to make Commons images easily re-usable, which is why NC and ND licences are banned. It would be odd indeed for them not to allow hotlinking.

[Bezdomni]

If I have to, I can re-upload images myself (but that's not my first priority).

What you're displaying is a local copy of the image, so it's not actually hotlinked to commons (so if someone replaces the image on commons it will not affect you as you'll still be displaying the image you imported at time t). I was sad to notice that Canut revolts (T-H-L) was not considered a "vital" topic in labor history.

[Giraffe Stapler]

If I have to, I can re-upload images myself (but that's not my first priority).

What you're displaying is a local copy of the image, so it's not actually hotlinked to commons (so if someone replaces the image on commons it will not affect you as you'll still be displaying the image you imported at time t). I was sad to notice that Canut revolts (T-H-L) was not considered a "vital" topic in labor history.

It's hotlinked to Commons.