As announced on Cyde Weys blog:



Veropedia Inc. is a Florida corporation whose only listed officer is Danny Wool.

Trusted by who?

Veropedia Inc.? Now, I didn't major in business but that seems to me that Danny and others are trying to make money off WP. I mean, doesn't "Inc." mean a for-profit business?

Ah, an admirable goal to take the best of WP and create stable versions. But I think it'll take more than this to convince many here of Veropedia's worth.

Looks like it is for profit and ad driven. Also it looks like shit at the moment.

Danny's not very trustworthy. If it was run by one of the more trustworthy admins. I don't know... all the admins we never talk about... then it would be good.

...It looks like Moreschi is jumping ship.... That's not a very good sign at all, although I agree with his view that English Wikipedia is not salvageable in its current incarnation.

Notice the "Donate to the WMF" button on the top, too. It looks as if Danny's trying to appease TPTB.

Here's where the problems are going to start :



Now, what happens if the experts say "this is based on old research and is all wrong. Change it to this"?

This is where the fun starts. The changes will not be made on Veropedia, but on Wikipedia. According to the FAQ :



So, the people making the changes are going to have to say "But the expert on Veropedia said that this was all wrong...."....And each article's guard dog is going to fight to keep the version that they're protecting....

I can see major conflicts coming out of this just over the horizon...If they would just take the articles off of Wikipedia and then polish them at another site, that would work. But imposing the views of "outside experts" on the WP system? No way will that work with all of the Randian rhetoric that they like to throw around over there...

I don't know what they mean about the current Wikipedia article being returned if a "verified" version doesn't exist yet. I looked up Comcast and Carolina Ardohain, and I got zip.

By the way, is Moreschi allowed to use his User page to simultaneously disparage Wikipedia and advertise a different for-profit venture? I would have thought that's against some WP:RULE or another. Wikipedia admins who read this message -- please get busy on reverting his page and chiding him for these violations of WP rules.

Greg

WP:ROOL ??? — You mean like WP:IARDEE IAR IAR ???


I hope yer not holding your breath

Jonny

Green internal links on Veropedia link to other veropedia articles, blue ones link back to Wikipedia. I've no idea whether Moreschi's userpage actually violates policy or not, but I suspect describing what you're up to on Wikipedia is probably allowable in most cases. I agree it seems unlikely anyone would think it smart to attack the Veropedia Cabal over something petty, since it is a cluster of ~75 admins. Since fixing Wikipedia articles up to a level that would make the acceptable for upload to Veropedia significantly improves the quality of Wikipedia, one might expect that edits for Veropedia would all be good for Wikipedia. 'course, I had no problem with Wikipedia Review, so your mileage may vary.

Cyde likes Danny, so obviously Danny is going to get free advertising. That's pretty predictible.

The WP attribution is flawed, in that it show changes after the date of moving the article to Veropedia. This would appear to be at least a technical violation of GFDL. The attribution should only show those who worked on the article up to the point of uploading to Veropedia. This can be derived from the information given by comparing upload date to WP article history but is not directly provided. This problem will become greater as the articles diverge further.

I like the idea of this. Many of the problems with Wikipedia is that it keeps changing its articles, thus it can go from good to bad quickly, or from "we thought it was good" to "woops no it wasn't" very quickly. Also of course some articles are so biased, so inaccurate, so controlled, so false, that they don't deserve to be anywhere.

The problem is how will this work in practice? Who will the trusted people be? Will they still use articles such as Lockerbie bombing and Port Arthur massacre (Australia) (2 examples of articles that we know are factually inaccurate, but will never be changed to be accurate)? Or will they insist on articles that are actually accurate?

Will they stick with articles that have no inherent bias? Articles that have only 1, or perhaps 2, main viewpoints? Will they stick to what amounts to Wikipedia's best quality articles? The purely factual articles, and the "cruft" articles?

Or will they *shudder* try to demonstrate that yes, Wikipedia can handle articles about historical issues, political issues, and issues involving great controversy? (the kinds of articles which time and again Wikipedia has proven incompetent in covering)

We will wait and see what they do.

It sounds like a good idea in theory though. I've considered a few times myself running a project like this.

The short answer is "Trusted editors are editors Danny trusts to upload quality articles that meet the general standards of Wikipedia, especially with respect to citations, and not dick around or cause drama." Realistically this means people who've been editing Wikipedia for some time and shown that they write good articles. Expert reviewers are something like "Ph.D. where appropriate, or whatever's comparable".

The end result? There are already 3000+ articles up, which cover a range of topics. I don't think any expert reviews have actually taken place, though at least one expert has signed on to do so. Similarly biographical articles where the person is alive are being passed to the person or their agents or whatever for feedback - not meaning content control, but consultation. How this works out in practice? I'm not sure this has actually happened yet - there's a menubar item on reviews and approvals, so if any are approved it should show.

I'm waiting to hear back via e-mail from Mr. Wool about how he's distributing the Amazon ad revenue to the various editors. Or, is this another of those Jimbo-style, you-volunteer-and-I'll-keep-track-of-the-money kinds of things?

Greg

I think this makes them a good target for a 230 test case. More involvement in vetting and selecting editors amounts to more control over content. The list of co-defendants grows: WMF, individual editors, Veropedia. Also if the Florida "non-profit volunteer" immunity ever applied to WP it certainly does not to Veropedia. I looked a few "random articles" until I got bored. I did not find any BLPs.

On a different point: I have noted that the Amazon ads appear to be static and don't bear any relationship to the requested article. That can't be very effective.

A very canny move on Mr. Wool's part. Jimbo is either very annoyed or he is somehow going to get profit from it for himself.

The way I understand the relationships involved, I don't believe 230 enters into it at all. Veropedia is not serving like Wikipedia - it's a seperate company publishing it, and Danny's on the line for anything that goes wrong. The "trusted editors" are selected partially on the basis that Danny trusts them not to upload any material that would get Veropedia into a situation where it's content could get us into trouble, among other things. I don't think any libel lawsuit could involve WMF, it's just Veropedia, Danny and the uploader who're possible targets.

There's a pretty low level of living persons biographies right now because of the plan to have the subjects give feedback - a few were uploaded initially, but we stopped uploading them until the subject feedback mechanism is in place. I did find one for Stephen Hawkings - but it doesn't seem like there's anything in it he could sue over, even by British standards. It did not indicate any reviews have taken place.

Good for them if they do not assert 230 immunity. That is an indication of responsibility.

I love the idea of veropedia, and i agree wikipedia isn't salvageable now, veropedia keeps the info from wikipedia reliable for good.

What they ought to do is upload a few articles that were excellent but got deleted anyway.

Although I am strongly in favor of stable versions, I don't support this project. Stable versions should be done through Wikipedia itself, and Danny could have used his influence to make that happen--instead he has created what appears to be a for-profit fork.

Yes, but at least he's being honest....because what is Wikia?

Indeed, it's not like this is the first fork of Wikipedia that makes money (or hopes it will someday make money, may be in the red for now).

It is more than stable versions, with expert vetting, subject consultations and so on.

On a plus note, I'm not sure Danny's influence nor his small retinue of admins could force stable versions down Wikipedia's throat if it tried.

For now I would not support the project. This is because it seems to intimately tied to the dysfunction social networking community of WP. I will watch the program with a eye toward revising my opinion if it seems warranted.

Hmm....Yet another admin jumps on the veropedia bandwagon....

This looks like the next big thing that's going to save the day...

Somehow, I don't think so...but they at least have their illusions to keep them company....

can you cite a few examples?



we've tried for months and months and months to get stable versions implemented. Jimbo and the Dev's simply dont want to do it as far as I'm aware.

As it was explained to me, Danny felt starting something independent might force their hand.

Well, if he tried and failed, that's different. This could, however, lead people to say that if you want stable versions, the need is satisfied by Veropedia, and therefore it might actually reduce the possibility of getting a stable versions system on WP.

It looks like everything that sucks about Citizendium with the added bonus that you get to deal with Cyde in some form.

No thanks.

No doubt just one of many GFDL exploitations to come in the years ahead.


Jonny

Actually, this kind of thing is why Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL. Precisely so other people can pick up the slack. Not exploitation, intended purpose (very literally too, Veropedia is close to the original goal of Wikipedia, Nupedia).

The GFDL was created by Tom Sawyer. It stands for Gnu-Whitewash Fence with Donated Labor.

The whole "we keep the best version" thing is a technicality that's easily worked around. If WP has a crappy article and nobody can improve it for long because some cabal owns it, all the boys at VP have to do is edit it to a good version and use that one. Even if it's immediately reverted, theirs is the one that gets immortalized on VP. Of course, this is effectively the same thing as if they had admitted that VP is a fork and allowed people to edit VP directly. This would amount to saying that WP is too fucked up to edit; a simple truth that WP admins prefer to ignore.

Anyhow, I think this isn't necessarily a bad idea, if they actually do what they promise. I don't even care if they make a few bucks from ads, since they'd be earning it by effectively resolving content disputes by exerting editorial control (in the normal, non-WP sense of the word).

Al

Citizendium is a good idea in general, but it never got any support, thus it flopped.

You are so full of crap that it defies the limits of mortal credulity.

Jonny

Citizendium comparisons are probably justifiable, but IMO not entirely accurate. We're not aiming for elitism - anyone can join, provided you're interested in quality encyclopedic content, and not so much in the drama from the rabble. Wikipedia was always meant to be the scratchpad for Nupedia - we are merely trying to achieve what was meant to take place along. Whether we'll be successful in that is yet to be seen, but I'm inclined to give it more than 2-3 weeks to decide that

We are still discussing our policy on bios of living people. The issue is sufficiently contentious on WP that we'd really like to hash out something properly rather than succumb to WP's unfortunate tendency to apply the policy unevenly.

As for some admins jumping ship because of Veropedia - I'm not too sure about that. A necessary consequence of being involved with Veropedia is being involved with Wikipedia also, as we do need to often improve articles significantly before getting them onto Veropedia.

If experts point out errors in articles, I doubt they will be inputted into the WP article straightaway. All of Veropedia's members are sufficiently experienced to know that we are to discuss significant changes in the proper manner, and not get carried away because some guy with a PhD (not Essjay ) told us to implement a drastic revision.

GFDL issues are probably sufficiently dealt with at this point - each article contains a history, and a link to the history on WP, so we know exactly who's done what, and where. Further comments and suggestions regarding this are welcomed, of course.

Call me idealistic, but I see the project as a good thing for Wikipedia. Let's see how it goes, it's still a baby finding its feet.

Are these discussions taking place in private somewhere, then? Not that that's necessarily bad... It's just that the solution to the whole problem is so blindingly obvious, and yet the WP folks persistently refuse to see it.

What's the software being used over there, btw? Clearly not MediaWiki, unless it's been heavily modified - is it custom stuff? Sure looks like it.

Anyway, welcome to WR, Riana... we'll try not to get into too much of a tizzy if it turns out it isn't really you, if you know what I'm sayin'...!

This is in some ways much better than flagged revisions... but already the content on several articles on the Veropedia version is outdated. One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that it can be updated as soon as a new publication comes out.

This sounds like Veropedia damage control....Okay, where's the list of admins who are part of this? Already, you've got your good bud Moreschi involved here, which doesn't make the drama aspects seem any less likely....who else is involved then?



Well, what about an "opt-out" option for everyone, regardless of notability?



If you read what's on Moreschi's talkpage, he's saying that he's not going to be working at Wikipedia because English WP is in a hopeless state and he's going to be working with Veropedia because nothing can be done to save WP. That sounds like "jumping ship" to me...I'm not saying that this is bad. Indeed, I think that it's an extremely realistic position to take.



Which brings up an important question: how are you planning on selecting these experts?

I believe that what you're saying then is that the modifications will take place outside of Wikipedia, in a place where you can create the "stable" version which you're then going to spring on the other, unsuspecting, wikipedia "usual subjects"?? How do you plan on imposing these then on the people who are not part of your subset of editors?



The articles do not contain the history. The articles contain a link to the history on Wikipedia. Now, what happens if WP's database goes down? Or disappears? You no longer have the history. And the terms of the license are that the article itself must contain any modifications previously made. I believe that this would mean that they should be on the same server as the article itself. So, I'm not sure that you've got all the bases covered here at all.

For example, List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society, which was worked over by loads of editors, not just the "usual suspects", and was even defended by Jayjg.

Thanks for the welcome, Somey, and it really is me.


It's not all admins, although a significant portion are - I'm pretty sure this wasn't intentional. Trusted editors usually become admins (although not all admins are trusted editors, I'm told). The recent changes shows a lot of our contributors - I'm not sure how specific you want this answer to be, but ask away.


You're welcome to come to our IRC channel (#veropedia on freenode) and make suggestions. I'm not sure that'd fly too well, though. Believe it or not, a lot of people are quite happy having their bios up. (And yes, I know a lot of them aren't, I'm not that high up in the clouds).


If it appears that Moreschi has made that choice, so be it, but he's just one person who has; no-one has to choose between the two projects. In fact, the point is that we're working together. Cutting through all the bullshit, our ideologies are largely the same - well-sourced, well-written content.


Right now the focus is more on getting articles onsite.


No springing involved. Just going to do it the same way big changes are always proposed, discussion, a bit of compromise perhaps, resolution at some point. We're not planning on changing things in one day.


We do have a history dump from WP, which may be publicly available soon (as in, WP histories onsite).

Here are the names that I would put in the "usual suspects" category, at least from what I see around here (meaning that I've seen them mentioned in passing here):

Gianno (of Arb-com fame)
Tony Sidaway (even I know about him as a drama generator....)
Danny
Jossi (although I've only seen his name in passing)
Wizardman

There is also our very own Alison, who does not fit into the above category as far as I can see (she seemed very easy to work with on Wikiabuse while that was going on). However the "Nathan" seems to be an editor named "Mercury" on WP, who I've never heard of.

Then there are names which I've never heard of, which would probably be a good sign

Daniel Bush
ST47
Dark Falls

Already, you've got more names on this active page that we recognize than those that we don't. There are lots of admins who never get into any trouble with anyone, who are good editors and who are civil.

These are the people you should be going after to recruit. Just some friendly advice...



Well, it's none of my business, since my own bio is not on WP (and I hope that it never will be)...However, a lot of people here think that this makes sense....



The selection of the experts and how they interact with you is going to be an important gauge in judging your success or failure. The fact that you don't have an answer for this is not a good sign.

Still, it could work, but it's all going to depend on choices you make now, and who you let in the door is one big choice. If I had to make a call now, from the people I see editing, I think that you've already blown that one...

Most Veropedia editors actually like Wikipedia, and see this as a way to improve Wikipedia in parallel with a second project. The absolute worst case is that we get an article and Wikipedia is not affected - the best case is that we get an article and Wikipedia gets a better article. I would guess that some cabal reverting would be a very tiny percentage of articles, most of the improvements we have to make before uploading articles is in the realm of sourcing, which is unlikely to be reverted.

I doubt it'd fly in strictly formal terms. At least in the extreme limits of notability, I don't think you can hope to be a serious general encyclopedia without certain biographies. You might be able to omit Kim Phuc or Don Henley, I don't think you could just not mention Margaret Thatcher ....



Not everything is worked out, and it has been sort of "need to do" priorities, so expert vetting has fallen a bit behind "code works and there are a few people around to work" so yes, it's just now that we're getting to expert vetting, biography reviews and the like. Danny's got a couple of interns for contact people, and the experts are something like: They read and review the article, and can either approve or not approve it, and send it back to us, with optional short-ish public statement and longer private statement. We can change the article and repeat the process if we see fit. Really, the main issue we have with experts is just that they're reasonably qualified to be thought of as experts, usually meaning they have a Ph.D., but variable by field. Readers will be able to see whether articles are endorsed by any experts. The details of whether any particular expert works with us, at this time is mostly just "Who is actually an expert and is interested?", I'm not sure what we'd want beyond that. Of course, we can always drop problematic experts or something, and it may be possible

Another incomplete, overlapping list can be found. The WP editors who use the Veropedia logo.

Danny
Jossi
Eagle 101
Swatjester
Daniel Bush
Adam Cuerden
Moreschi
SirFozzie
Nishkid64
Aditya Kabir
Wizardman
Miranda
Moreschi
Sagaciousuk
DarkFalls
Riana

That's Jossi Fresco, press contact and spokesman for The Prem Rawat Foundation, and OWNer of several WP articles relating to his spiritual leader.

I wonder if a cleavage will develop between WP admins/editor admitted to veropedia and those not? Isn't that the natural cost of avoiding drama? Will JzG's search engine find this post?

Jossi shows that this isn't the problem!



The risk here isn't that some cabal reverts an article after it's been polished up and sent to VR; this is irrelevant, since the whole point of VR is to preserve good versions. No, the deeper problem is that, already, VR is itself corrupt.

Jossi, for example, isn't just a cultist who protects his cult leader, he's generally engaged in protecting anyone accused of cultism. Ayn Rand's Objectivism has been called a cult (or cult-like) by a number of highly notable and relevant people, but Jossi has joined Team Rand in the past to hide this fact by any means necessary, even though he has no personal love for Rand. With Jossi on board, VR with be a haven for pro-cult versions of articles.

Ultimately, VR hasn't overcome WR's infiltration by crazed religious zealots and scheming political partisans, so it's going to suffer from the same problems of bias, censorship and general abuse of admin powers. I hereby withdraw my tentative support for the project. May it rot in the same level of hell that WR WP does; the one reserved for those who favor power over truth.

Al

(edited, as shown, to remove confusing typo)

Oh good, yet another VaporPedia, 'cause we really didn't get enough GAS (Gehirne aus Scheiße) talkin bout all the wunnerfool thangs Citizenda was gonna do ∑day, NEday now. And of course, it's just the brand of Føøtøøre Nøøz that the VaporSphere sucks up like Candi. Not to mention the imprimatur of the Cabal Central Committee that's already stamped onto it.

Jøy Ø Jøy !!!

Jonny

I hope - I sincerely hope - that there's a typo in there somewhere.

There was indeed: I meant WP, not WR.

WR, in contrast, turns out to be in purgatory, which really pisses off the RCC, since they deny the existence of purgatory. Coincidentally, that's WP's stance on WR's existence.

Al

Brilliant and exactly what should have been policy at WP, long ago.

Bring in scholars and dedicated people with real wisdom, and poof! There goes the foundation.
Pay people to actually care about not letting the articles default to the mean and medicore, and this will take on a life in an of itself.

Set up the basis for mergers and acquisitions with other providers and you have the potential
for a very profitable mega site. The current WP will be a feeding station and ultimately a MySpace type site where vandals play and interested people will go to cull articles that retain some sanity before their pending and certain doom at WP.

Google and all the major search engines will be involved because there will be money to be made.

I warned Jimmy Wales of this happening, last March (2007.) I think I was banned and blocked shortly thereafter, then unblocked, then blocked again.