View Single Post
  #86  
Old 01.02.2017, 16:53
cyrus's Avatar
cyrus cyrus is offline
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Emmenbruecke
Posts: 2,956
Groaned at 37 Times in 34 Posts
Thanked 3,373 Times in 1,477 Posts
cyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond reputecyrus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: All about the alt-right (in the wake of anti-Muslim shooting)

Quote:
View Post
Well, yes, because it's a fork of Wikipedia, with the purpose of creating a "bias free" information repository. They are changing almost everything in the code base (which is circa 1995, with many layers of cruft piled upon cruft). In time, it should become a completely different beast and (hopefully) remain politically neutral. Time will tell.

There will be other forks, or completely new challenges to some of the other firms that are clearly biased. Gab.AI launched last year to challenge Twitter, and seems to be doing phenomenally well. Personally, I do not like censorship of any kind, and as I have learned more about how Wikipedia and Twitter work, it really pisses me off!

Lest you think I am a far-Righter, I voted for Obama twice, Clinton twice (Bill), Reagan and Bush I and II. So I guess I have followed the Winners. I think that makes me a moderate who is now fed up with the status quo, Fake News and corruption on all sides of the political spectrum.

Not trying to pick a fight with you, Cyrus, as I have seen your posts for years. But I do think there is a lot of obfuscation going on from BOTH sides and I am sorely disappointed with the democrats. The GOP is rebuilding, and whether you like them or not, jettisoning the NeoCons is a good move.
Are you talking about forking the codebase, or the content? The codebase is shareable, the content has various, mostly open source licenses, but different to the codebase. Content from wikipedea should be attributed to the authors

You try to imply it's innocent, it isn't. Nowhere on any page is it clear where the content came from.

What it is, is someone taking a great big encyclopedia, taking the covers off it, replacing certain articles with their own, and trying to give the same level of legitimacy to their own articles as the stuff they've plagiarised from Wikipedia.

Once you learn how the alt right work, it will piss you off even more, it's misinformation, misdirection and just outright lies all down the line.

It's ironic that a page that tries to be about ethics, lives on a site where 99.9999999% of the content is stolen from another source.

EDIT: Look at what happens if you use the "cite this page" button https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php...ephant&id=5763. It lists the author as infogalactic.
Reply With Quote