Talk:Recyclopedia: Difference between revisions
1. MediaWiki is too vulnerable to Wikimedia-sanctioned sabotage 2. Recyclopedia, in any form, will just be attacked again 3. Recyclopedia was more accurate and balanced than Wikipedia
(Ahhh. We have an email address to ask for mysqldumps...) |
(1. MediaWiki is too vulnerable to Wikimedia-sanctioned sabotage 2. Recyclopedia, in any form, will just be attacked again 3. Recyclopedia was more accurate and balanced than Wikipedia) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
::Ahhh. We have an email address to ask for mysqldumps... But who'd want to set it up again is a different question. And with fresh MediaWiki, not some crap GetWiki that violates GPL in many people's view. | ::Ahhh. We have an email address to ask for mysqldumps... But who'd want to set it up again is a different question. And with fresh MediaWiki, not some crap GetWiki that violates GPL in many people's view. | ||
:::GetWiki doesn't violate GPL any worse than [[Wikipedia]] violates [[GFDL]]. And, the GetWiki facility to fix damaged articles was and is excellent, and was and is the best thing for the [[GFDL Corpus]] in general. There is no chance that [[MediaWiki]], controlled by [[Wikimedia]], will make it easier to fix up articles damaged by their cabal. Their [[XML import]] facility is inferior to the GetWiki "leech" facility. So if anything a GPL version of that facility is required. | |||
:::And, why would someone bring up [[Recyclopedia]] again just to see it hacked off the net illegally by people who consider themselves above the law, again? This is even EASIER for them to do if [[MediaWiki]] is the [[wiki code]] in use, since they are experts at [[MediaWiki bot]]s, since they use them all the time, and control both sides of the equation (the wiki code and the bot code). | |||
:::It would make more sense to build leeching [[wiki code]] based on [[MoinMoin]] or [[tikiwiki]], with a parser for the [[wikitext standard]], which would be immune to [[MediaWiki bot]] attacks, away from [[Wikimedia]]'s influence, and able to actually be run without interference democratically. Oh, and by operators who will complain to authorities of [[cyberterror]] when they are hit by [[denial of service attack]], and get the perpetrators arrested. | |||
----------------- | |||
Here's a bet worth taking: take any dozen non-policy articles from Recyclopedia, and have actual academics working on the state of the art in the field compare them to their English Wikipedia equivalents if any. Do you think the Wikipedia version, or the Recyclopedia version, would be more representative of actual current state of the field, in the opinion of people who have nothing to do with [[Wikimedia]], and don't know which is "official"? | |||
[[Trolls]] bet that the Recyclopedia scores at least 9/12, and that the Wikipedia versions will be known to contain several obvious fatal errors and omissions that make them unsuitable for distribution to ordinary people, as they are misleading. | |||