Talk:Everipedia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sources

• Rubin, Peter (December 6, 2017). "COMPETITOR THAT'S HARNESSING BLOCKCHAIN FOR EPISTEMOLOGICAL SUPREMACY". Wired.
• Brown, Mike (December 6, 2017). "Wikipedia Cofounder Tells Us His Plan to Build Encyclopedia on Bitcoin Tech". Inverse.
• Janes, Andrea (December 6, 2017). "Can Everipedia remake collaborative encyclopedias to be inclusive and enjoyable?". Boing Boing.

Fences&Windows 20:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (Everipedia is one of the leading website for finding information online. There is no need to delete the page. If there are some issues you can correct them or just let me know i will correct it.) --Arshlabbu (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

As the previous deleting admin, I can confirm that there are significant differences in this new version compared to the previous version, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply.

You can actually see for yourselves as that version was userfied at User:Leprof 7272/Everipedia, which brings up a question: @Arshlabbu:, did you use the previous deleted version as a starting point in any way? It's not a problem if you did, there will just need to be a history merge to retain proper attribution. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

No i didn't used the previous deleted version as a starting point --Arshlabbu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Please update www.everipedia.com to everipedia.org. The former is old, but still redirects. 172.91.65.151 (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC) Travis Moore

Also, we don't use MediaWiki software. It is built from the ground up on Django / Python - Travis Moore

I think you're referring to the MediaWiki category - I've removed that just now. Kuru (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Still no Wikipedia article!

To me it seems absolutely ridiculous that with its six million English-language articles (now clearly exceeding Wikipedia), there is still no EN Wiki article on Everipedia. Now that ex-Wikipedia expert Larry Sanger has become their Chief Information Officer and that they have announced porting the entire system to blockchain computing, there can no longer be any excuse to continue exclusion. Google news displays a whole string of recent articles on Everipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yup agree it has come out of obscurity in the last few months.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The draft, while not fully developed, looks good enough for Start Class. I am surprised at some of the reasons offered above for publishing it, but the offering of bad arguments doesn't make it a bad idea. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't this an article yet?

I know the previous version was deleted but as mentioned before it has came out of obscurity and is a lot more popular than citizendium is or ever was. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The draft was moved back into mainspace three days ago. Kuru (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kuru: Ohh, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuriGagrin12 (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Alternative to Wikipedia

"Everipedia wants to compete with Wikipedia."[2] That is a mundane claim. QuackGuru (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a mundane and verifiable claim. Just the source cited is rather outlandish. What Everipedia wants knows only Everipedia, and therefore must be referenced to its founders. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree it needs to be sourced to its founders. We use an independent source and an independent source does not have to have a quote from the founders. QuackGuru (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I was unclear. The claim that A "wants" something can be attributed only to A or to reliable sources which clearly attribute it to A. Nobody can read other person's mind what this person "wants". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
      • What about "Everipedia intends to compete with Wikipedia."[3]? QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

P.S. As for being "largest encyclopedia", this is clearly bullshit. There already exist aggregators which include Wikipedia. And no one will prevent them to gobble EPedia in the same way as EPedia gobbled WPedia. Therefore if any "expert" babble that EPedi "has chance" to become largest, this would simply mean this expert is an idiot or a sell-out. (Of course WPedia themselves can brag as high as they wish; everybody would know this is just PR shit.) Staszek Lem (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The content does not state exactly state they are the "largest encyclopedia". The source says "I'm Sam Kazemian and I'm the CEO of Everipedia. Everipedia is basically trying to be the largest encyclopedia on the Internet."[4] This page states "As of December 2017, the site has over six million articles, more than in the English Wikipedia.[6]"

The source says "With over 3 million unique monthly users and 6 million wiki articles, Everipedia already has more content than English Wikipedia."[5] This page states "Everipedia wants to become the largest encyclopedia online.[5]" The content is sourced. If any source is neutral or wrong I don't judge. QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@QuackGuru and Staszek Lem: Yes Quackguru, we absolutely have to judge. That's what we do as editors. WP:RS is a necessary condition for inclusion, but it does not compel us to repeat anything printed in an RS, especially when no evidence is given for this and it is simply parroting a talking point from a company spokesperson. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced content

No source is required for lead? However, there is no source in the body to verify the claim for Wikipedia's Online encyclopedia. Sourced content was deleted on another page in favor of the first sentence being unsourced. We should not allow unsourced content to be added to this page such as account registration was restricted. QuackGuru (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Fails verification using the secondary source

It is better to not use their home page to try to verify the claim when there are several secondary sources available. The secondary source still being used does not verify the claim "advertises itself". That means the content still fails verification using the secondary source. Adding a primary source does not change what the secondary sources stated. QuackGuru (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I replaced "As of December 2017, Everipedia advertises itself as the biggest English-language encyclopedia,[2] with more than six million articles.[13][14][non-primary source needed]" with As of December 2017, Everipedia is the biggest English-language encyclopedia,[17] according to The Next Web and has over six million articles, according to The Block.[18] I think we should not attempt to use a primary source to argue against secondary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

"More than in the English Wikipedia"

Isn't it a bit redundant to state that a less strict fork of something has more content than what it was forked from? The only situation in which this would not be the case is if the fork were a static copy of the original at a given point in time and the original then, despite its stricter rules, grew faster than the fork did. - Tournesol (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not redundant. A fork could have the same number of pages or less or more. It depends on the site. QuackGuru (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

QuackGuru is correct. In theory, one could create a WP fork using only Featured, A-class, and Good articles, all of which add up to under 1% of the English Wikipedia. Therefore, it's not redundant to point that out. Xcalibur (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Veropedia forked only selected Wikipedia articles that met their standard. Everipedia forked most Wikipedia articles. Since new articles are being continuously created on Wikipedia they can't fork every article unless they have a live bot continuously forking articles. Everipedia has millions or will have millions of non-notable articles. QuackGuru (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

QuackGuru - I find it disingenuous to call the above "consensus" and reverting this edit. [6] So I'm re-engaging the discussion here. The phrase should be removed as it is not independently verifiable. What evidence is there that they have more than English Wikipedia, other than them claiming it? To my knowledge, there is no stats page like Wikipedia to show this, and no WP:RS has pointed to such evidence – they have simply parroted the press release from the company. It may very well be true that they have more, but there is no evidence for this and no RS has provided the proof either. In fact, we can show quite consistently that they have snapshotted English Wikipedia at some point in the past, have not been doing live updates across the board, and have not been consistently copying new articles. An article I created on English Wikipedia on December 17 [7] does not exist on Everipedia, 10 days after the fact. An article I created on October 13 does not exist on Everipeida either. [8] So the projected message from Everipedia that they are all that English Wikipedia has, and then some, is unverified. In fact, most evidence points to plenty of doubt around that claim. As a result, it should be removed until a reliable source can back up that claim with their own words or research, and not just repeating a talking point from the company. Ping: Bigdan201, Tournesol -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The argument was that it's redundant to point out that everipedia has more articles, and we should just assume that to be the case. In fact, it's not redundant because there could be more or less articles depending on the fork. I agree that statistics should be properly sourced. I also agree that the article currently has too much influence from PR and marketing, and would benefit from more balanced and neutral coverage. And yes, it seems they took a snapshot which is not regularly updated in spite of their claims, e.g. my work on the Dietrich section of Decipherment of rongorongo was not ported over, even though it's been up for a few months (nor am I interested in it being ported, but I digress). Of course, we have to avoid original research in favor of reliable sources; hopefully more critical content will be published. In the meantime, this source [9] is a good start, particularly: The closer you look at Everipedia, which didn’t respond to questions or a request for a list of its most visited pages, the less substantial it appears. Almost every page on the site is copied verbatim from Wikipedia — although not updated as frequently as Wikipedia — and the trickle of entries posted by Everipedia users relate almost exclusively to sensational topics including ... all topics that seem engineered to capitalize on trending search terms. This confirms my initial judgment -- that most of the WP fork would be neglected, most of the activity would be centered on current events/pop culture etc., and that everipedia will end up becoming a tabloid version of WP. Xcalibur (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Some of its content is a static copy of Wikipedia (See their article Sengkang. It is very similar to the Wikipedia article Sengkang before I began editing it) so I agree with you.  Anchorvale ^T@lk  07:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

An article I made here is not on their online encyclopedia, so they don’t have all of Wikipedia’s content and more. Also, Wikipedia is still bigger as it is more active and is more frequently visited. Everipedia takes a long time to search, just for your info and when they have a blockchain almost no one can make an account.  Anchorvale ^T@lk  08:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

So should we replace “biggest online encyclopedia” with “biggest online encyclopedia in the number of articles”?  Anchorvale ^T@lk  08:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The source used in the lead does not verify your proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Alexa rating

@QuackGuru: Why all these daily updates? Wouldn't one Alexa rating update per month (or less) do? These edits show up for patrollers who then check and realize that nothing was changed to the article... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I provided an edit summary. Patrollers are not going to check the edit with the same edit summary if they assume good faith. Updates keep the article current. QuackGuru (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent sources

Everipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Another one, a primary source from Wikimedia Commons, which tells much is wrong with licencing. Ymnes (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Unresolved licensing issues could become a serious problem. If left unresolved, such issues could affect images and even article content. QuackGuru (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Logo

Nominated for deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Not speculation or rumor

Based on Lunyr's timeframe[10] is nether speculation or rumor. The source reviewed the timeframe of both sites and estimated Everipedia will reach the market first. QuackGuru (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

See "Earlier in 2017, Lunyr first proposed plans for a blockchain-centered encyclopedia, but based on Lunyr's timeframe, Everipedia will reach the market first, according to Wired in December 2017." I think this can work because the claim is attributed to Wired in the text. QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Largest distinction?

I guess we can't set this straight as I doubt that there are the sources, but our reliable sources policy is certainly a larger distinction than the format. As for "neutral", that's just not the case. On the sourcing issue (and the lack of a BLP policy) See some of the articles on editors here:[11][12][13][14]> Is there anything in this source[15] that would be useful? Doug Weller talk 10:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. See this edit. QuackGuru (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Copyright and other concerns

Hamstead Road sign - 2014-09-27 - Andy Mabbett.JPG

Everipedia is breaching copyright by using images and text without attribution:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 57#Issue about Everipedia's contents brought from Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#Everipedia
• c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/02#Everipedia using multimedia content from this project
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Everipedia's wikibot copying more of Wikipedia content

An example is my image, above, which appears at https://everipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barr/6758130/ renamed and with no mention of my name or the CC licence.

Does anyone have sources, so this can be documented in our article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Andy. Someone just got me into Everipedia and I've notized the same with two of my articles and one image. I find this pretty annoying, hope someone can do something about it. But how can this site be taken serious without giving proper attribution for its content? --Clemens Stockner (Talk) 20:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of how the issue affects us as Wikipedians would be better at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Everipedia's wikibot copying more of Wikipedia content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for this link! --Clemens Stockner (Talk) 10:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Citations and proper attribution

• {{PD-notice}}
• {{CC-notice}}
• WP:CFAQ
• WP:COMPLIC

Examples with using proper attribution in citations to avoid copyright violation or to indicate the content from the source is in the public domain:

References

In addition to concerns with images, there could be concerns with using proper attribution for the citations when, for example, copying content from sources. QuackGuru (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

When a website such as Everipedia copies content from Wikipedia they also need to copy the proper attribution added to the citation. For example, see "The understanding of trypophobia is still limited and the number of peer-reviewed articles is low, as of 2018."

References

The proper attribution was added to the citation. I have not found a reliable source that discusses this yet for Everipedia. Without proper attribution it is a copyright violation. If Everipedia is copying content but is not copying the way the references are formatted they could be adding copyrighted content without proper attribution. There are sources that allow content to be copied but they require proper attribution in order to use the content. Proper attribution is required for copying licensed content that is not in the public domain. See WP:Compatible license. QuackGuru (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Attribution required for copying content from Wikipedia

See "The IQ tokens are intended to be exchangeable for Bitcoin."[16] The Forbes news article was written on February 20, 2018. See "The IQ tokens are intended to be exchangeable for Bitcoin.[20]"[17] on 17:05, 8 January 2018. Content I wrote is being lifted without attribution to Wikipedia.

Also see "They indicated it would convert to using blockchain and a cryptocurrency token called IQ to encourage content creation."[18] See "On December 6, 2017, the company announced plans to convert to using EOS blockchain technology, and work on a cryptocurrency token called IQ to encourage generating information.[23]"[19] This one is very similar to what I wrote. I decided not to use this Forbes article because they copied content I wrote without proper attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Copying articles

Copying article from Wikipedia to Everipedia could result in spreading incorrect information across the Internet. For example, a new page called IQ tokens states IQ tokens were airdropped to EOS.IO token holders on 12 July 2018.[2][4][5][6]. All the sources failed verification and the date is wrong. The airdrop was on July 13, 2018. The only source the verifies the correct date is a statement on Bitfinex's website. I have not found any reliable sources that discusses this yet. QuackGuru (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I have warned the responsible user, Rayan El-Khoury, about the blockchain sanctions. If they add any unreliably sourced content about crypto-related stuff, I will indefinitely topic ban them. MER-C 13:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Please respect Wikipedia policy

Editors are not required to independently verify each statement an independent source stated. The claim is independently sourced using a WP:SECONDARY source. More than one independent source verifies the same claim:

See "Everipedia is the largest online english encyclopedia in the world,..."[20] — The Next Web

See "With six million articles, it’s the world’s largest English language encyclopedia, bigger than English Wikipedia itself."[21] — Inverse

See "With over 3 million unique monthly users and 6 million wiki articles, Everipedia already has more content than English Wikipedia."[22] — The Block

See "Oggi, con oltre 6 milioni di articoli, è la più grande enciclopedia di lingua inglese ma ha ancora un pubblico ristretto di editor."[23] — Money.it (In Italian)

See "Everipedia — самая крупная онлайн-энциклопедия в англоговорящем мире, частично благодаря тому, что использует ресурсы Wikipedia, которая, в свою очередь, основана на базе Британской энциклопедии."[24] — High Tech (In Russian)

See "Everipedia, atualmente, já tem mais artigos em inglês do que a Wikipedia.."[25] — Nexeo (In Portuguese)

"What is most strange about Wikipedia is that editors consistently argue that the content is verifiable or an additional source verifies the content when the content or source presented absolutely fails verification." — QuackGuru

I have edited many Wikipedia-related articles. Is Wikipedia the world's greatest or largest encyclopedia" or does Everipedia have more English-language articles than Wikipedia? Is this article the place to debate this if the sources are accurate or parroting the press release? Remember, we are not using a primary source or press release for the claim. I think we can stick to using one citation for each statement in accordance with "Citation underkill". I have not found a single source that states the numbers are wrong. That means there is no serious dispute. See WP:ASSERT. The dispute should be among or between sources rather than an editor thinking the independent sources might be wrong. We do not need to double verify each statement. That would be counter to Larry Sanger's Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Editors are not supposed to be journalists. We are not supposed to claim the sources could be wrong, especially when there is a consensus among sources for the same claim. Larry Sanger maintains he is the co-founder of Wikipedia. But it is more than Sanger who maintains he is the co-founder of Wikipedia. There are independent sources that verify he co-founded Wikipedia. Same situation here. If Everipedia states that have X number of articles we can report it. But when independent sources also state that the site has X number of articles, and it is surpassed Wikipedia's English-language Wikipedia we can state it in Wikipedia's voice until there is a serious dispute among sources. I'd rather focus on improving the page than question the consensus among sources. I checked every edit made to the Everipedia entry and I checked all the sources to make sure the information is properly cited. Violating original research or replacing sourced content, with content that fails verification is against verifiable policy. Pseudo-facts is like fake news. We don't have different rules for different pages. Wikipedia's WP:sandbox is for test edits or fake information. It may or may not be true but our position as editors is to not takes sides or speculate if it is or is not true. According to Citation balancekill, "Placing a citation after each idea or concept does not guarantee the content is verifiable. Consensus on Wikipedia does not magically generate accuracy." . Wikipedia seeks verifiable, not truth. It is better to eliminate guesswork and stick to verifiable content. Editors should not wonder what they think of the new website when editing the article. Personal opinion and failed verification content is common in Wikipedia articles. For example, the first sentence in the article on Wikipedia failed verification for a number of years. Rather than provide a secondary source, a primary source was used to verify the claim. When there are many independent sources for a claim we should stick to those sources. If the sources are uncritical of Everipedia it does not mean the article reads like an ad. The article is neutral when the content is as neutral as the sources. I propose removing the {{advert}} tag at the top of the article. No specific content was identified as problematic. Therefore, the tag is not appropriate to keep indefinitely at the top of the article. If there is any specific issues with any sentence I or another editor can provide verification or the sentence or sentences can be rewritten to be even more neutral. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The article reads like it was polished up to look good pre-ICO, hence the tag. Doesn't require sentence-level justification, that's spurious - David Gerard (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Please show where there is a specific problem with a sentence or sentences. Keeping the tag is not appropriate when no specific problem has been pointed out. QuackGuru (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The template document itself says it's about article tone, your question isn't a sensible one - David Gerard (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you think is specifically not neutral with the "article tone" that could use a rewrite? QuackGuru (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The whole tone. Sources slanted to look good for the ICO. Read the template doc - your demand for sentence-level contradicts it and comes across as querulous. Accordingly, I've restored the tag - David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The tone is neutral, according to the sources presented. Wikipedia is not the place to judge sources or determine which source is neutral or slanted. An editor reports what the source states and puts aside any personal opinion as to whether one thinks the sources themselves are slanted. We write according to the sources and not whether we think the sources are right or wrong. Editors are not judges. See WP:GREATWRONGS. QuackGuru (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Does the tone still seem problematic to you? It seems OK to me but that might be my bias. If so, any particular areas for improvement? Λυδαcιτγ 02:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Audacity: I am not David Gerard, but this article still reads like an advert to me. I can point out a few sentences, but realistically, the whole article needs to be rewritten from scratch. I had added a tiny bit that wasn't even really negative, just facts, and it was quickly removed. For me it was just WP:BLUESKY.

I'll pick out a few examples:

"Everipedia aims to build the most accessible online encyclopedia, and not be as restrictive as Wikipedia."

Fails WP:NPOV. Could be worded more neutrally as "Everipedia aims to be an encyclopedia with a wider scope than Wikipedia".

"The site's interface is akin to Facebook,[10] as opposed to Wikipedia's wiki markup syntax."

..completely ignoring the existence of the Visual Editor.

"Everipedia adapted social media elements such as letting celebrities communicate with fans."

Source from January 2016 said that, and worded it about as broadly as that. Is this even still possible? Do celebrities actually use it? And what is stopping celebrities from registering an account on Wikipedia?

Everipedia allows users to create any page on anything[failed verification]

I can think of at least six things I will not be allowed to create a page for.

"and anyone can contribute to a page by registering an account."

Wrong, because you can't just register an account. You need an invite.

"As of 2018, anyone can apply for an invite."

And anyone could become a millionaire. But when I go to https://everipedia.org/register/ it just says the registration is invite-only. I can't remember how/where to ask for an invite so that's it. Saying "anyone can apply for an invite" is misleading at best.

"Once Everipedia is decentralized and hosted on the EOS platform, countries like Turkey and Iran that block Wikipedia will no longer be able to block it, via Everipedia's fork."

Nothing but guesswork and predictions based on nothing. Yeah, Wired said it. If they say blue is the best color, that doesn't mean they should be quoted on that.

This just goes on and on. If I were to try and fix it, I wouldn't, because I would rewrite it from scratch. But anything not overwhelmingly positive has little chance to survive here. So all we can do is keep the article as it is and leave the advert tag forever intact. Oh well. Alexis Jazz (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll point out the few examples list above:

"Everipedia aims to build the most accessible online encyclopedia, and not be as restrictive as Wikipedia."

Passes WP:NPOV. See "Everipedia’s vision is to become the most accessible online encyclopedia that can be edited by members of the public."[26] Also see "Beall described the company’s goals as sharing and producing information in a way that is less restrictive than Wikipedia’s model. “Overall, we want to be a lot chiller than Wikipedia and just help share information and not get hung up on stupid details,” he said."[27] Also see "While Wikipedia’s restrictions on what can and cannot have an online page prevent internet “trolls” from fabricating and spreading false claims and facts, Everipedia also has a system for accounting for legitimacy while still maintaining an open content creation space."[28] The content is neutral in tone, according to the source. It is also accurate. I'd rather not replace it with other content that is less neutral.

"The site's interface is akin to Facebook,[10] as opposed to Wikipedia's wiki markup syntax."

..the source does not mention the Visual Editor. If any source does mention Visual Editor then please present the source.

"Everipedia adapted social media elements such as letting celebrities communicate with fans."

Yes, the source is from January 2016, and it is well sourced. See "Similarly, Wikipedia has no social element to their pages, versus Everipedia has implemented social features that allow, for example, celebrities to share and interact with fans."[29]

See "Everipedia allows users to create any page on anything as long as it is sourced..." It passed verifiability and I added "as long as it is sourced". See "BB: Is there a limit to what is worthy of a page? Kazemian: Anything that you can cite! If it exists elsewhere on the Internet, then it is a valid topic on Everipedia.[30] That verifies the content.

New wording: "and in the past anyone could contribute to a page by registering an account."

I made a small change to the previous text to address the concern. The current content is now correct.

For the other sentence I changed it to: "As of 2018, a person can apply for an invite." See "Q: What is the process of becoming an editor or contributor to Everipedia. A: You request an invite,..."[31] That verifies the content using an independent source.

"Once Everipedia is decentralized and hosted on the EOS platform, countries like Turkey and Iran that block Wikipedia will no longer be able to block it, via Everipedia's fork." It is sourced content and it is neutral based on the source. Yes, Wired said it and other sources also say very similar things.

I can go on and on and verify any content anyone claims failed verification. I can't say the same thing for the Wikipedia article. The first sentence is unsourced in the Wikipedia article. The second and third sentence fails verification in the Wikipedia article. I did make a few adjustments in this article where applicable. On the other hand, it would take years to fix the policy violations throughout the article entitled Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: thanks for making a few changes, but sorry, the article is not neutral and not correct. NPOV means writing with a neutral tone. If all sources are totally raving about a movie, that doesn't mean the Wikipedia article should. (it could cite some of the raving though)

Being able to source content has zero meaning if the statements in the source are outdated or questionable.

Content without a source that can be verified by (nearly) anyone does not need to be cited.

Anything regarding unscientific predictions generally has little place on Wikipedia, no matter if you have a source or not. Alexis Jazz (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I made adjustments based on your comments. The content is properly referenced as well as dispassionate in tone. Let's review.

The statements in the sources and article are current and have not been questioned among reliable sources.

Unsourced content that can be verified can be sourced. If it can be sourced then no editor would have a problem with providing a citation. If it is unsourced then the content will most likely be challenged, especially on a page with zero unsourced content.

Anything widely discussed in the media, such as the announced plans to convert to using the EOS blockchain, generally has space for it on Wikipedia, as long as the content is properly cited. See WP:FUTURE: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."

A tag was added to the top of the article but the issues are being addressed and the content is being tweaked. The content about invitation information is sourced and accurate using an independent 2018 source.

See "Q: What is the process of becoming an editor or contributor to Everipedia. A: You request an invite,..."[32] The current wording is "As of 2018, to start editing on the site, a person can apply for an invite." That is accurate.

A tag was also added to content that passes verifiability policy. The part about celebrities communicating with fans is well sourced. We do not need a better source. See "Similarly, Wikipedia has no social element to their pages, versus Everipedia has implemented social features that allow, for example, celebrities to share and interact with fans."[33] I adjusted the wording in the article. I also addressed the issues. Hence, the tags were removed. QuackGuru (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: You have removed content that was verifiably correct and are defending to keep information that is verifiably wrong or misleading. And if the CEO of GM tells a journalist in an interview that "We aim to build the FUCKING BEST CARS EVAH of all time!" this does not mean you can put a sentence like "The company's intention is to build the FUCKING BEST CARS EVAH of all time.¹⁵" in the General Motors article. It fails NPOV. Hard. Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I did remove a completely unsourced paragraph that was not verifiable. I tried to find an independent secondary source. Wikipedia is restrictive otherwise I could of used Twitter as a source. I did remove verifiable content because it was a bit dated. It is no longer early 2018.

Source says "Q: What is the process of becoming an editor or contributor to Everipedia. A: You request an invite,..."[34]

Article says "As of 2018, to start editing on the site, a person can apply for an invite."

The source does not go into detail in regard to requesting an invite. Therefore, the article can't go into detail about it. I can't add content based on personal experiences with trying to register and I can't just make things up. If anyone has a better idea how to word it then it can be reworded. Another option is to find another independent source about the invite. Or add a quote from the source or just add "according to the company". I can't think of another option. I am restricted by Wikipedia policy. QuackGuru (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Based on the above conversation there is still no specific explanation for the tag. No particular improvement has been pointed out to remove the tag. The source is definitely RS for the mundane claims. QuackGuru (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart is not an RS

Who keeps putting Breitbart back as a source for this article? It's not an RS for anything other than the fact that something was written in Breitbart. It's definitely not an RS for discussing an encyclopedia - David Gerard (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it. Now the article only has 98 problems. Grayfell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 16 August 2018‎

There is a previous discussion about the source.[35] See WP:BIASED regarding Breitbart. The claims are undisputed and mundane. Nothing controversial is being stated. For example, see "This experience of seeing his Everipedia article moved him, and it helped him understand Kazemian's idea better.[36]" Content in this article is heavily disputed and we need a citation for each claim. WP:CHALLENGE states "All content must be verifiable." I even noticed sourced content is being replaced with failed verification content or inaccurate content. The source is currently used only in the Origins section and it is used in numerous articles. Breitbart interviewed [https://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/02/09/everipedia-the-wikipedia-competitor-for-the-people/ two of the co-founders of Everipedia]. It does not improve the article by deleting the source and its content. Sourced content is being replaced with a citation needed tag. I have read other sources. Only that source verifies those specific claims. QuackGuru (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It "moved" him? You don't see a problem with this kind of language in a neutral encyclopedia article? Grayfell (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

What wording would you propose instead? QuackGuru (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying you don't see a problem with this? Why is this trivia needed at all? It's bland PR thinly propped-up by a bad source. There is an endless buffet of start-up culture churnalism available for any given startup. Breitbart, The Next Web, Nextshark.com, One World Identity, TechRasa, and any of the countless other blogs, PR firms, and biz-tabloid which could interview these people may or may not be factual, but not every detail which can be supported by a source belongs here. Just say after Everipedia found their first investor, Mahbod Moghadam (co-founder of Rap Genius) joined Everipedia as a co-founder. Even this is excessive, but at least it's simple. This is the important part. How "moved" he was by seeing his own article is utterly trivial and only serves as backdoor spam for the company.

The more I look at this, the worse it gets. Something went terribly wrong here. A source titled Exiled Rap Genius Founder Plans to Overtake Wikipedia, Wants to Suck Mark Zuckerberg's Dick is not a solid foundation for an article about a business. Grayfell (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This is the answer to QuackGuru's queries above about the promotional tags - he seems to literally not understand that this constitutes overwhelmingly promotionally-toned writing - David Gerard (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell: thanks for working on this, the article has been on my TODO list for pomotional tone since a while. —PaleoNeonate – 21:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I added an unreliable source tag per above, this article requires serious cleanup. 344917661X (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I also added a cleanup tag. 344917661X (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Clarify?

Why is there a need to clarify the fact that Everipedia is a knowledge aggregator? 344917661X (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 28 August 2018‎

344917661X, please excuse my ignorance, but what is a knowledge aggregator? Wikipedia has no article by that name, and it's unclear from our Aggregator disambiguation page which type is meant here. If this is a term of art, then I suggest it would be helpful to non-technical readers such as myself to define knowledge aggregator either inline or as a standalone Note. Thanks for your patience. KalHolmann (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems more like a nothing phrase than a term of art. We should remove it from the first sentence. VQuakr (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed how new it was. I went ahead and contested it per WP:BRD. VQuakr (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I have removed knowledge aggregator from the lead. 344917661X (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 28 August 2018‎

Nevermind, someone already has. 344917661X (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 28 August 2018‎

Registration link broken

it seems to take you offsite now to GitHub. Has the article format also changed or is it because I'm using my iPad? Doug Weller talk 01:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: nah the article has been broken for a long time. QuackGuru will only write things here that can be verified using reliable sources.. even if they are outdated or just wrong. It needs to be rewritten from scratch (some refs and the infobox could be reused..), but who has the time? Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You don't need to register now, it's more complicated than simply registering! "To begin creating content and voting on the new network, users may visit everipedia.org. No user registration is required and only an EOS account and IQ tokens are needed to interact with the protocol." Buyt that looks like a press release.[36] Doug Weller talk 07:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Changes

I have reformatted the entire article, infobox, lead section, headers, sources, and layout all improved with some regard to the MOS. After having a look at the site itself it does not match up to the article very well. For example trying to edit on the site directs me to a software plugin called 'Scatter' which I think is their login and user management system. Scatter is not even mentioned in this article. If there is "presentation of competing articles" or "rating of articles" it is not apparent. There is no sign of needing an invite to edit. If "A live bot forks Wikipedia content" then it must be broken because their content is not being updated. I also find "Everipedia aims to build the most accessible online encyclopedia" highly dubious as it does not appear possible to even edit without first being the owner of various cryptocurrencies. This is not explained in the article either. The article mentions banner ads, but does not mention when these stopped, which I assume they did because I don't see any. If anyone here has some experience of this site they may want to address these issues. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree 100% with what you have written above. I am a highly experienced editor/writer with both Wikipedia and Citizendium but I am entirely baffled by the Everipedia site. I can see no forking from Wikipedia, no way for the casual visitor to, say, look up "Babe Ruth", and no way for someone like you or me to get in and edit it. As you say, maybe we have to sign up and buy some cryptocurrencies. Whatever the case may be, all of this needs to be addressed in the present WP article. Hayford Peirce (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The article looks 100 times better now, but I am still concerned over the reliability of Next Shark, One World Identity and TechRasa, which are still used as sources despite the fact that a previous discussion said they are unreliable. 344917661X (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Get rid of them. I only got rid of the sources I know to be unreliable, I don't have full knowledge of every source. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I got rid of One world Identity since there was only one citation citing the website, but getting rid of the other two websites will require a lot more work since Next Shark and TechRasa are used multiple times as a source in the article and replacing them with other sources will require even more work. 344917661X (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The new IQ-token-based site is not very well covered in the press as yet. I wrote up a newsblog post on it, but I'm not an RS ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

There definitely needs to be more coverage on Everipedia in Reliable sources, since the article is still missing a lot of information. You didn't go into too much detail on why you hate Everipedia and only gave a very brief summary on what you think of the encyclopedia at the end of your blog post. Would you mind elaborating more on why you hate Everipedia? P.S. I also hate Everipedia. 344917661X (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Can't be bothered hating it. But mostly it's just not a significant thing, and never can be. WP:NOTFORUM however, so I won't go on - David Gerard (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

How about elaborating more in a blog post instead? WP:NOTFORUM does not apply outside of Wikipedia, so there's nothing stopping you from doing a blog post on why you hate Everipedia. 344917661X (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering I literally just said the opposite, I get the feeling you're not reading what I'm writing - David Gerard (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I did read what you said, and i'm fine with you not doing a longer rant. I was just saying that there's nothing stopping you from doing so outside of Wikipedia. P.S. What else have you posted on your blog? 344917661X (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@David Gerard and 344917661X: You want more rant? c:COM:Everipedia. It's the real deal. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I hear Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain is a good read too. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

References

how do you even FIND this wretched Everipedia to even read an article in it?

I must have written a half million words for Wikipedia and a million words for Citizendium over the years. I have Larry Sanger's email address. I have been an officer at Citiz. off and on for years. So I'm not a complete neophyte at this online encyclopedia business. But I'm baffled by Everipedia. Where is a site I can go to and actually SEE some articles, the way I can by going to wikipedia.org or citizendium.org? If I type in Everipedia.com at the top of the screen, it takes me to Everipedia.org. Which is full of baffling links trying to SELL me stuff. How can it be the "biggest" encyclopedia in the world if Joe Schmo can't go to it to look up the Boston Red Sox, say? Don't you think this issue should be addressed in the present article?

By the way, whoever is doing this massive editing and rewrite is doing a TERRIFIC job! The article now actually makes some sense! Thanks for all the great work! Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you try the "search" bar at the top of the Everipedia.org page? FloridaArmy (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

No, because I didn't see it -- I expected to find a page similar to that of WP or CZ. Thanks for telling me. Sorry for being so stupid. On the OTHER hand, if someone like *me* can't find it, what does that say about their interface? Hayford Peirce (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Surreal, isn't it? It also follows a similar site organization scheme to Wikipedia, so https://everipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Red_Sox/ leads to Everipedia's fork of Boston Red Sox. Very strange that they don't they make the search bar's function more obvious from the front page. Almost as if getting people to read the article's isn't their priority. As for editing... something something Blockchain!

Ideally this would be explained, but for comparison, WP's Red Socks article has been viewed about 45,000 times just today. Everipedia's has been viewed 140 times total. Since few people seem to be using Everipedia as an encyclopedia, it's reasonable to guess that reliable sources haven't explained this problem yet, but perhaps sources are out there waiting to be cited.

I second the praise to the editors who've cleaned this up. It's dramatically better. Thanks a lot! Grayfell (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I'm glad to see that someone else agrees with me about the strange lack of "user friendliness" at this site. I would say that the ratio between WP and EV hits for the Bosox today tells the story.... Hayford Peirce (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Misleading...

STEP ONE: Copy all of Wikipedia. Create a bot to copy all new Wikipedia articles as they are posted.

STEP TWO: Allow idiots to add wrong information, make it hard to remove wrong information.[37]

STEP THREE: Edit the Wikipedia page on Everipedia to repeatedly claim that it is "larger that Wikipedia".

STEP FOUR ...

STEP FIVE: Profit![38]

--Guy Macon (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

While I do agree with what you have to say, this is not the place to discuss why Everipedia sucks. 344917661X (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not discussing why Everipedia sucks. I am discussing the fact that the current article makes the following claims:

• "Everipedia is the largest English-language encyclopedia"

• "As of December 2017, the site has over six million articles, more than the English Wikipedia, according to The Block and is the largest English-language encyclopedia, according to Inverse, Money.it, and High Tech."

True, but trivial. Anybody with money for server space can set up a bot that copies all Wikipedia articles to their site but doesn't delete articles when Wikipedia deletes them, thus insuring that the result will always be "bigger than Wikipedia". The number of articles isn't even slightly important. The language is overly promotional. The article should compare number of readers, number of editors, and number of articles created, not copied from another site by a bot. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying on your stance and i'm sorry for assuming you violated WP:FORUM. If you think the claims "Everipedia is the largest English-language encyclopedia" and "As of December 2017, the site has over six million articles, more than the English Wikipedia, according to The Block and is the largest English-language encyclopedia, according to Inverse, Money.it, and High Tech." are promotional and unnecessary, get rid of them. The article should not look like a promotional piece. 344917661X (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I second this objection, actually. The cited sources are minor somewhat-RSes blankly repeating Everipedia's blatantly promotional claims - David Gerard (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I am a bit swamped right now but if I get time free and nobody does it first (hint, hint) I will do some major rewriting. I would like a neutral description comparing visitors, edits, etc. and a good, easy-to-understand section on blockchains. The article should also have a reception section with sourced criticism about BLP violations, welcoming paid editing, allowing someone to pay to get a more favorable article, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I would be great if you did a major rewrite of this article. 344917661X (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Date of founding

Ok, but we need a source. Doug Weller talk 07:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

it was already in the body, I just put it in the intro too - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

My bad, thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Article tags

@Alexis Jazz: You added tags to this article a few months ago. Would you mind going into more detail about the article's problems? X-Editor (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• X-Editor, where do I even start? This article has a history of manipulation by Everipedians. It's slightly better than it was some time ago, but still pretty bad.
  • "Everipedia is a blockchain-based online encyclopedia" Citation needed. I know it's impossible to edit Everipedia without installing some..thing on your computer, but this seems to be used for voting on edits. What is a "blockchain-based online encyclopedia" anyway? I'd say an encyclopedia that stores its content on a blockchain. Is there a reliable independent source that says that's actually what they do? Even if they do, https://everipedia.org/ is clearly not that.
  • License: "Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Int'l". Not anymore, I checked recently and wasn't informed of any license when trying to edit.
  • "After the blockchain is implemented, the company plans to convert the points into a token currency." and several following lines. I'm planning to build a spaceship. Speculation and daydreams.
  • "Everipedia says the blockchain model does not have centralized servers, therefore eliminating the cost of servers." As everipedia.org is reachable with a normal browser this is horseshit.
  • "As Everipedia is decentralized via blockchain, Forselius claims that it is not possible for governments to censor Everipedia by its assigned server IP addresses." I'm sure Forselius claims this but it's misleading and horseshit. Governments can target the domain or they can have sufficiently advanced systems (China) for fine grain filtering which is very difficult to get around. We mislead readers by presenting such a dubious claim without an independent source that actually looked into the claim to back it up.
  • "Everipedia adapted social media elements such as letting celebrities communicate with fans" Misleading. The source says "Similarly, Wikipedia has no social element to their pages, versus Everipedia has implemented social features that allow, for example, celebrities to share and interact with fans" which shows right away that the source doesn't know what it's talking about, but it also doesn't explain what Everipedia does to accommodate this. This is far too vague and requires a better source.
  • "Everipedia reportedly utilized a live Internet bot to monitor Wikipedia for changes, synchronizing such changes but giving preference to local edits on Everipedia." Yeeeeeah sure. And Prince Philip lives.
  — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not all bad, that Houston Texans roster looks pretty sharp; with all that talent, I think they're going to mature into an NFL powerhouse. Kuru (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)