With Wikipedia thoroughly compromised, opponents of Wokeism need an epistemological anchor to stop themselves falling down a conspiracy rabbit hole and repelling Elite Human Capital.
Now this is a very good idea. Curtis Yarvin had some thoughts along these lines on his old blog (though you wouldn't know it from reading his new Substack). You might want to check them out:
(I have linked to the original blogposts, not the newer stand-alone site, because the comments on UR were always worth reading and often better than the posts.)
The basic idea was to create a Revipedia in which 'converged' Wikipedia articles could be dissected and revised by different factions (rightists, leftists, and everything else). Some of his readers actually tried to get such projects off the ground, but it seems they didn't get anywhere, perhaps because Wikipedia had a more convincing claim to neutrality at that time.
It's a bit different from your idea of a unified Wokeless Wiki, but there are a couple of reasons to favour the decentralized faction model. First, it is unlikely that you will get everyone on the right to agree on even a basic set of epistemological principles, so it is better to embrace the debates and revisions than allow them to become an impediment to getting started. Secondly, although the project would have to be run by dissidents in order to prevent convergence, the faction model makes it possible to co-opt leftists into it by challenging them to defend their views honestly (rather than just scheming to shut the whole thing down). Just as the democratist system draws rightists into leftist mob politics, Revipedia would draw leftists into engagement with dissident ideas.
The single, critical change you propose, the one that will make absolutely all the difference, is eliminating the "anyone can edit" feature. As soon as there is some specific person, or set of people, that can say "No," without having to justify themselves or manufacturing consensus, the usefulness and credibility of the resource becomes entirely a function of the reputation of said person/persons.
Unfortunately, "anyone can edit" is precisely what makes wikis wikis. Anything else amounts to "traditional publishing with the serial numbers filed off," though of course without the institutional overhead/baggage/personnel of existing publishers.
I think the only way to perhaps thread that needle is to change the value of "anyone" from "anonymous internet randoms" to "anyone who establishes an IRL identity" and draconian use of the banhammer for anyone who attempts shenanigans.
But I still think that what you're describing isn't really a Wikipedia alternative so much as a pitch for a new, more accessible traditional encyclopedia. Wikipedia's main structural advantage, the "anyone can edit" policy, is precisely what makes it useless as a neutral repository of knowledge.
I think we need a “monarchist” e-pedia to balance Wikipedia’s bureaucratic muddiness. Find someone intelligent who can be trusted to engage in good faith, and make him the Super Admin. He will have biases and such, but responsibility with stop with him.
I’d say election by a board would be good enough, similar to just about every Western corporation. Creates stability. Editors should be open source similar to Wikipedia, and not a protected class of petty nobility.
There have been many attempts at creating a right-wing or less-biased Wikipedia, from Conservapedia and Metapedia, to Larry Sanger's own projects like Citizendium, Everipedia, and IQ.wiki.
Thanks for saving me the effort. InfoGalactic is the one I've made most use of, but it's not well maintained. If a larger collective effort to revivify IG is in the cards then someone ought to contact Vox ahead of time.
I like the idea of based Wikipedia, the only problem is that you’re not going far enough. I love your take we need essentialism but you’re going to have to toss the Humean/empiricist stuff because it’s actually opposed to essentialism, which is why the New Atheists like Hitchens loved Hume so much, and also why “rational” New Atheist wiki devolved into wokeness because empiricism is ultimately incoherent. Also worth noting that the “true, good, and beautiful” are the transcendental attributes of the God of classical theism, whereby Gods absolute transcendence can be understood by analogy looking at different attributes including truth, goodness, and beauty so you’re going to have to take on classical theism with this (as every essentialist ever has done because it logically follows due to the cosmological argument). If I may I recommend you look into the author Ed Feser, and his book “The Last Superstition: A Refutation of New Atheism” which talks about essentialism, the rise of modern philosophy which eventually led to New Atheism, and how the only answer is to go back to essentialism.
Well Peirce was a pragmatist meaning that he held positions he thought were “useful” not necessarily “true.” This amounts to a form of idealism where we as a society decide what is useful and thus what is actually true. The problem is the woke will come back and say well that’s just a form of control, it might be “useful” but it’s not necessarily true and it’s true that men can become women. Unless you have a full system that makes sense you can’t be skeptical of all things but arbitrarily draw the line at universals because that’s question begging. You have to go for the full hog or nothing
I'm going to repeat what a bunch of others here have already suggested. That is, go collaborate with an existing alt-wiki site like Infogalactic and edit articles on topics you're interested in; in a way that reflects the ethos you presented here. Unless you yourself have coding and webdev skills (plus a ton of spare time on your hands), a whole new site just isn't going to happen.
It's an interesting idea and I'm going to question it's systemic implementation more so that it's theoretical application and eventually assume a systemic success. I'm sure the, "theory," side is more your forte and you'd have better ideas than me on how it should be run internally.
Question 1: Who would be drawn to it?
Question 2: How would it be found?
Question 3: Do you have the resources and human capital?
Question 4: Is this a fundamental fight or just one you see an ability to accomplish?
I know you touched on some of these questions but I'm wondering if you could give more fleshed out answers to the specifics.
In terms of editors, I’d say disaffected academics who are tired of parroting out the Woke narrative.
In terms of readers, people who’s opinions haven’t yet formed and want an alternate perspective other than the mainstream Woke one, and anti-Woke people who want a reference guide.
Question 2: How would it be found?
Memes, X reposts, TikTok, high profile recommendations, social media accounts on all major platforms (subtle enough to get past the censors), and word of mouth.
Question 3: Do you have the resources and human capital?
No. But I do have a moderate reach, so I thought I’d write an article on this to see if there are people with more resources and human capital than me who are also keen on the idea, and may get something set up, even if I’m not formally leading it.
Question 4: Do you see this as a fundamental fight or something you see an ability to accomplish?
The most fundamental fight will be getting the levers of government power and taking control of Wikipedia, as it has widespread brand recognition. However, before we can get power, whilst we are trying to build our counter-elite, something akin to Rational Wiki is what I feel there is an ability to accomplish, and it would be a major step in the right direction.
I've been asked to contribute to the ‘encyclopedia of conservatism’, which is a project like this.
The plan is to rely on invited contributors to try to maintain both conservatism and intellectual quality, rather than an open editing system that would allow it to be overrun either by libs or far-right conspiracist cranks.
A certain girl at a certain event, tragic detransitioner who you may be aware of, told me about this.
Not to be sectarian but I don't think we should make it explicitly 'conservative'. I don't even really like the term to be honest. My goal was more of an 'alt-center' type project which claimed, and tried within our framing, to be political neutral.
This is a great idea. I believe that Wikipedia has two inherent shortcomings. The first is that articles are often too short, fail to do justice to a subject, and are littered with trivial references to popular culture. To solve this problem, I believe we need to create something that resembles the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, written by the best experts of the subjects in question. The second problem is a strange primitive quality of animations in science and technical articles. Given that the internet has existed for over three decades, the quality of interactive simulations should be better. The new encyclopedia should incorporate raw data, and let the reader draw his own conclusions by manipulating these simulations. If you can get this project started, I shall be a willing contributor. I agree with your overarching concept of Futurism.
This is a great idea. I believe that Wikipedia has two inherent shortcomings. The first is that articles are often too short, fail to do justice to a subject, and are littered with trivial references to popular culture. To solve this problem, I believe we need to create something that resembles the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, written by the best experts of the subjects in question. The second problem is a strange primitive quality of animations in science and technical articles. Given that the internet has existed for over three decades, the quality of interactive simulations should be better. The new encyclopedia should incorporate raw data, and let the reader draw his own conclusions by manipulating these simulations. If you can get this project started, I shall be a willing contributor. I agree with your overarching concept of Futurism.
A lot of the problems you point out could be fixed if there were even 3 editors who could eloquently explain the problem. If you can't do that, how are you going to find hundreds of people to do all the work?
Very interesting project. Speaking particularly of 'ends', do you think that such a website or platform would ever combine with Wikipedia as the tides turn? Something of an eventual Gramscian synthesis of institutions?
A project like this seems overwhelming, but really isn’t. A good part of Wikipedia can be coped over, only with some minor edits, and time and resources can be spent on the areas where Wikipedia is 100% irredeemably pozzed and tainted.
Of course an important task will be to gauge whether we will use (a sane!) version of Wikipedia’s “consensus” metric, or use another goal for articles.
Wikipedias “consensus” goal seemingly make sense, and the problem is not the goal itself but the way it has been weaponized. (Let’s quote 10 far left sources and pretend that is consensus.)
Also: Part of the problem for a new encyclopedia is content. Nobody bothers using an encyclopedia if it only has a few hundred or a few thousand articles. That’s why I’d suggest scraping Wikipedia for content. Perhaps slightly rewritten by chat gpt.
If we would start scraping Wikipedia for content, it’s also important to get the older content. Many articles on Wikipedia actually started alright and only got degenerated over time by leftist agitators. The best example is WW2 articles. If you look at what they looked like a few years ago there’s a stark difference.
The later editions about articles of for example German units or battles cut out 90% of the content for sourcing politically incorrect sources, and stuck in some war crimes claims and called it a day.
Now this is a very good idea. Curtis Yarvin had some thoughts along these lines on his old blog (though you wouldn't know it from reading his new Substack). You might want to check them out:
http://web.archive.org/web/20170402001027/http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/08/uberfact-ultimate-social-verifier.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20170404125354/http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/01/revipedia-how-to-defeat-us-government.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20170202143450/http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/08/resartus-social-revision-engine.html
(I have linked to the original blogposts, not the newer stand-alone site, because the comments on UR were always worth reading and often better than the posts.)
The basic idea was to create a Revipedia in which 'converged' Wikipedia articles could be dissected and revised by different factions (rightists, leftists, and everything else). Some of his readers actually tried to get such projects off the ground, but it seems they didn't get anywhere, perhaps because Wikipedia had a more convincing claim to neutrality at that time.
It's a bit different from your idea of a unified Wokeless Wiki, but there are a couple of reasons to favour the decentralized faction model. First, it is unlikely that you will get everyone on the right to agree on even a basic set of epistemological principles, so it is better to embrace the debates and revisions than allow them to become an impediment to getting started. Secondly, although the project would have to be run by dissidents in order to prevent convergence, the faction model makes it possible to co-opt leftists into it by challenging them to defend their views honestly (rather than just scheming to shut the whole thing down). Just as the democratist system draws rightists into leftist mob politics, Revipedia would draw leftists into engagement with dissident ideas.
Thanks for this. I need to make sure this actually happens.
The single, critical change you propose, the one that will make absolutely all the difference, is eliminating the "anyone can edit" feature. As soon as there is some specific person, or set of people, that can say "No," without having to justify themselves or manufacturing consensus, the usefulness and credibility of the resource becomes entirely a function of the reputation of said person/persons.
Unfortunately, "anyone can edit" is precisely what makes wikis wikis. Anything else amounts to "traditional publishing with the serial numbers filed off," though of course without the institutional overhead/baggage/personnel of existing publishers.
I think the only way to perhaps thread that needle is to change the value of "anyone" from "anonymous internet randoms" to "anyone who establishes an IRL identity" and draconian use of the banhammer for anyone who attempts shenanigans.
But I still think that what you're describing isn't really a Wikipedia alternative so much as a pitch for a new, more accessible traditional encyclopedia. Wikipedia's main structural advantage, the "anyone can edit" policy, is precisely what makes it useless as a neutral repository of knowledge.
Yes. Gatekeep like your life depends on it. Egalitarianism is for suckers.
I think we need a “monarchist” e-pedia to balance Wikipedia’s bureaucratic muddiness. Find someone intelligent who can be trusted to engage in good faith, and make him the Super Admin. He will have biases and such, but responsibility with stop with him.
Interesting proposal. Maybe every year all the editors could vote for this ‘monarch’. They may be recalled, but they are the final court of appeal.
I’d need to get consensus on the vision first. I hope I could trust somebody other than me with this position.
I’d say election by a board would be good enough, similar to just about every Western corporation. Creates stability. Editors should be open source similar to Wikipedia, and not a protected class of petty nobility.
Who would elect the board?
The board would be created by the same people who create the organization. Vacancies could be filled by the board or perhaps on the monarch’s advice.
So sort of like infogalactic?
https://infogalactic.com/
Ah, thanks for informing me of this. This is the thing @Dave Greene must have been telling me about.
There have been many attempts at creating a right-wing or less-biased Wikipedia, from Conservapedia and Metapedia, to Larry Sanger's own projects like Citizendium, Everipedia, and IQ.wiki.
Thanks for enlightening me about this.
Thanks for saving me the effort. InfoGalactic is the one I've made most use of, but it's not well maintained. If a larger collective effort to revivify IG is in the cards then someone ought to contact Vox ahead of time.
I like the idea of based Wikipedia, the only problem is that you’re not going far enough. I love your take we need essentialism but you’re going to have to toss the Humean/empiricist stuff because it’s actually opposed to essentialism, which is why the New Atheists like Hitchens loved Hume so much, and also why “rational” New Atheist wiki devolved into wokeness because empiricism is ultimately incoherent. Also worth noting that the “true, good, and beautiful” are the transcendental attributes of the God of classical theism, whereby Gods absolute transcendence can be understood by analogy looking at different attributes including truth, goodness, and beauty so you’re going to have to take on classical theism with this (as every essentialist ever has done because it logically follows due to the cosmological argument). If I may I recommend you look into the author Ed Feser, and his book “The Last Superstition: A Refutation of New Atheism” which talks about essentialism, the rise of modern philosophy which eventually led to New Atheism, and how the only answer is to go back to essentialism.
What’s wrong with having a sceptical view towards all knowledge, but anchoring it in universals?
I think Charles Sanders Pierce had this view, ‘Moderate Realism’?
Well Peirce was a pragmatist meaning that he held positions he thought were “useful” not necessarily “true.” This amounts to a form of idealism where we as a society decide what is useful and thus what is actually true. The problem is the woke will come back and say well that’s just a form of control, it might be “useful” but it’s not necessarily true and it’s true that men can become women. Unless you have a full system that makes sense you can’t be skeptical of all things but arbitrarily draw the line at universals because that’s question begging. You have to go for the full hog or nothing
I'm going to repeat what a bunch of others here have already suggested. That is, go collaborate with an existing alt-wiki site like Infogalactic and edit articles on topics you're interested in; in a way that reflects the ethos you presented here. Unless you yourself have coding and webdev skills (plus a ton of spare time on your hands), a whole new site just isn't going to happen.
It's an interesting idea and I'm going to question it's systemic implementation more so that it's theoretical application and eventually assume a systemic success. I'm sure the, "theory," side is more your forte and you'd have better ideas than me on how it should be run internally.
Question 1: Who would be drawn to it?
Question 2: How would it be found?
Question 3: Do you have the resources and human capital?
Question 4: Is this a fundamental fight or just one you see an ability to accomplish?
I know you touched on some of these questions but I'm wondering if you could give more fleshed out answers to the specifics.
Question 1: Who would be drawn to it?
In terms of editors, I’d say disaffected academics who are tired of parroting out the Woke narrative.
In terms of readers, people who’s opinions haven’t yet formed and want an alternate perspective other than the mainstream Woke one, and anti-Woke people who want a reference guide.
Question 2: How would it be found?
Memes, X reposts, TikTok, high profile recommendations, social media accounts on all major platforms (subtle enough to get past the censors), and word of mouth.
Question 3: Do you have the resources and human capital?
No. But I do have a moderate reach, so I thought I’d write an article on this to see if there are people with more resources and human capital than me who are also keen on the idea, and may get something set up, even if I’m not formally leading it.
Question 4: Do you see this as a fundamental fight or something you see an ability to accomplish?
The most fundamental fight will be getting the levers of government power and taking control of Wikipedia, as it has widespread brand recognition. However, before we can get power, whilst we are trying to build our counter-elite, something akin to Rational Wiki is what I feel there is an ability to accomplish, and it would be a major step in the right direction.
I've been asked to contribute to the ‘encyclopedia of conservatism’, which is a project like this.
The plan is to rely on invited contributors to try to maintain both conservatism and intellectual quality, rather than an open editing system that would allow it to be overrun either by libs or far-right conspiracist cranks.
A certain girl at a certain event, tragic detransitioner who you may be aware of, told me about this.
Not to be sectarian but I don't think we should make it explicitly 'conservative'. I don't even really like the term to be honest. My goal was more of an 'alt-center' type project which claimed, and tried within our framing, to be political neutral.
This is a great idea. I believe that Wikipedia has two inherent shortcomings. The first is that articles are often too short, fail to do justice to a subject, and are littered with trivial references to popular culture. To solve this problem, I believe we need to create something that resembles the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, written by the best experts of the subjects in question. The second problem is a strange primitive quality of animations in science and technical articles. Given that the internet has existed for over three decades, the quality of interactive simulations should be better. The new encyclopedia should incorporate raw data, and let the reader draw his own conclusions by manipulating these simulations. If you can get this project started, I shall be a willing contributor. I agree with your overarching concept of Futurism.
This is actually a great idea. We could use articles from pre-WW2 encyclopaedias, and update them with current events and knowledge.
This is a great idea. I believe that Wikipedia has two inherent shortcomings. The first is that articles are often too short, fail to do justice to a subject, and are littered with trivial references to popular culture. To solve this problem, I believe we need to create something that resembles the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, written by the best experts of the subjects in question. The second problem is a strange primitive quality of animations in science and technical articles. Given that the internet has existed for over three decades, the quality of interactive simulations should be better. The new encyclopedia should incorporate raw data, and let the reader draw his own conclusions by manipulating these simulations. If you can get this project started, I shall be a willing contributor. I agree with your overarching concept of Futurism.
I think we are at the point where it is faster to do this with AI than with people
Have you looked at https://infogalactic.com/ ?
As an non-woke alternate it is a start
Yes I have. I want to try and get in touch with the editors for advice and co-operation.
Or you could just edit Wikipedia?
A lot of the problems you point out could be fixed if there were even 3 editors who could eloquently explain the problem. If you can't do that, how are you going to find hundreds of people to do all the work?
All such editors have long since been banned due to the machinations of administrators like David Gerard.
Very interesting project. Speaking particularly of 'ends', do you think that such a website or platform would ever combine with Wikipedia as the tides turn? Something of an eventual Gramscian synthesis of institutions?
Potentially, but that’s a very long way off.
A project like this seems overwhelming, but really isn’t. A good part of Wikipedia can be coped over, only with some minor edits, and time and resources can be spent on the areas where Wikipedia is 100% irredeemably pozzed and tainted.
Of course an important task will be to gauge whether we will use (a sane!) version of Wikipedia’s “consensus” metric, or use another goal for articles.
Wikipedias “consensus” goal seemingly make sense, and the problem is not the goal itself but the way it has been weaponized. (Let’s quote 10 far left sources and pretend that is consensus.)
You seem to have more knowledge than me. I’ll definitely have you be part of the discussions for the project.
Also: Part of the problem for a new encyclopedia is content. Nobody bothers using an encyclopedia if it only has a few hundred or a few thousand articles. That’s why I’d suggest scraping Wikipedia for content. Perhaps slightly rewritten by chat gpt.
If we would start scraping Wikipedia for content, it’s also important to get the older content. Many articles on Wikipedia actually started alright and only got degenerated over time by leftist agitators. The best example is WW2 articles. If you look at what they looked like a few years ago there’s a stark difference.
The later editions about articles of for example German units or battles cut out 90% of the content for sourcing politically incorrect sources, and stuck in some war crimes claims and called it a day.
I like metapedia
Didn’t know it existed, I’ll check it out.
Read it. A little thin and overtly partisan.