http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=...changes&days=90

Wikitruth kinda dead

It's always been a low-volume sort of thing. I think -- at least in part because of the success of Wikipedia Review -- it serves more as an edited and compiled permanent repository of deleted material, outrageous acts, and so forth rather than a 'breaking news" site like we are.

It's ED-lite, nothing more.

I've never understood why Wikitruth doesn't get more abuse as an attack site. They're much worse than almost anything here...

1. As noted, it's much lower volume.
2. There's less overt overlap between Wikipedia editorship and Wikitruth editorship than there is between Wikipedia editorship and Wikipedia Review posters, which creates much less of a siege mentality.

Ah, but being mostly dead does mean that you're barely alive!

Wikitruth's problem is that the Wikipedia admins behind it are all either no longer active on Wikipedia or have been desysopped (hence why the few bits of new content they do get these days doesn't include anything that would require admin access to obtain).

I have to laugh every time I see Wikitruth compared to ED. ED is a internet humor history site turned garbage that includes material about Wikipedia, where it was conceptualized. Wikitruth is a website purely devoted to criticisizing Wikipedia. They're hardly even comparable. Same for Wikipedia Review and ED.

In that case, it should be easier to tell the difference.

Insofar as they are current admins, they get protection of course.

This may be part of it, but another part is that they fundamentally buy in to the concept of an encyclopedia created by the general public, they just think Wikipedia and Jimbo are screwing it up. That's the funny thing about WikiTruth -- if you scratch the surface, they're really true believers.

We will have to keep that in mind if WT's health takes a turn for the worse. They have a few things worth salvaging, much like the lose change.

Maybe this is why:



The masterpiece in its entirety here

Lol you spoke to soon, and wow they really took offense:

Find me something where the two are very similar, please?

Sometimes if a site goes dead for a really long time then one day it just vanishes. I'm glad wikitruth came back.

Well! Well let's not have bad blood between our sites. As Gomi points out they have a different format and we should encourage anyone who has seen the damage Wikipedia has done to continue to shine the light on it.

Although, the claim that "Wikipedia criticism is everybody's hobby now" did make me laugh.

That's an important distinction. Many banned users can't see past the superficial problems of the project. Some folk benefit from entrenched ideals like egalitarian, anonymous, no-accountability editing. When such users get banned they're more inclined to say things like "Wikipedia was a paradise before [[User:Stalin]] came along." Wikipedia review gets its share of these type. I think the proposed cabal of truth and justice is another example.

I think we could call the WR flavor "structural criticism," as opposed to mere "personality criticism."

The problem isn't the particular editors, or even the cabal, but it's the nonexistent hierarchy and utter lack of accountability that inevitably breads abuse. Any system which depends on the eternal beneficence of [[User:Stalin]] is a failure by design.