Replacing Wikipedia

[Ron]

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/10/10/anti-thought-police-infogalactic-launches-as-wikipedia-alternative/

Infogalactic promise to solve the common issues with community-edited online information through “objectivity, proven game design principles, and a sophisticated series of algorithms.” The website is currently in phase one of their five phase plan that is designed to improve factual accuracy and neutralize vandalism.

“The single biggest problem with Wikipedia isn’t Jimmy Wales or its outmoded 1995 technology, but the fact that it is patrolled by 532 left-wing thought police who aggressively force their biased perspective on the rest of the world,” said Vox Day.

Here is a link to the competing site:
https://infogalactic.com/

[dogmush]

I'm well aware of Wikipedia's problems and censors, but the idea that Vox Day could provide a restaurant menu that was "without bias" is laughable, much less a website.

[Scout26]

There needs to be a Cortex....

[RevDisk]

Oh gods, this is another Vox Day's ego project?

Vox Day doing anything without bias is like building an ocean without water. I'm not saying he's always wrong, but I will say he is probably one of the most biased individuals on the planet.

That said, wikipedia is a great resource if you stay away from current events. Hard science stuff tends to be pretty decent. History is usually decent, if taken with a taste of salt. Current events or persons? Any change to any current person or event should require a three person of opposite ideologies signing off said update before it goes live.

It'd be nice to have a higher quality alternative, but many have tried and all have failed for various definitions of failure.

[Perd Hapley]

It'd be nice to have a higher quality alternative, but many have tried and all have failed for various definitions of failure.

Like when they call it "Conservapedia"?

[roo_ster]

The proof will be in the pudding. 

[230RN]

The proof will be in the pudding.^{[Citation needed]}

[roo_ster]

The proof will be in the pudding.^{[Citation needed]}

Will you accept wikinfogalaconservadramatapedia as a source?

[230RN]

Why Coitinly !

[Perd Hapley]

I was just reading this really sad little article on Wikipedia, which seems to have been written and edited almost soley by members of the movement it describes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement

Has some factual inaccuracies, and little input from opposing viewpoints.

[Marnoot]

I was just reading this really sad little article on Wikipedia, which seems to have been written and edited almost soley by members of the movement it describes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement

Has some factual inaccuracies, and little input from opposing viewpoints.

What happens frequently with articles like that (not saying its necessarily the case here) on Wikipedia is you get a few rabid editors dedicated to a small subset of articles who revert changes anyone else makes, and are dedicated to such reversions to a point where it doesn't seem possible that they have any day job besides removing competing viewpoints.

[Perd Hapley]

What happens frequently with articles like that (not saying its necessarily the case here) on Wikipedia is you get a few rabid editors dedicated to a small subset of articles who revert changes anyone else makes, and are dedicated to such reversions to a point where it doesn't seem possible that they have any day job besides removing competing viewpoints.

I'm sure. I posted it because it seems like the opposite of left-wing slant. Not that most conservative/libertarians would be KJVO, but most KJVO are (I presume) conservative/libertarian.

[De Selby]

I was just reading this really sad little article on Wikipedia, which seems to have been written and edited almost soley by members of the movement it describes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement

Has some factual inaccuracies, and little input from opposing viewpoints.

Agreed.

It annoys me that any biblical discussions don't have a link to the historical evidence.  They should all mention that Jesus's bones have arguably already been found, at a site that is to date the most likely candidate for final resting place of the first Christian.

[Perd Hapley]

I read that novel, and it was awful.

https://www.amazon.com/Skeleton-Gods-Closet-Paul-Maier/dp/1501274015

[De Selby]

I read that novel, and it was awful.

https://www.amazon.com/Skeleton-Gods-Closet-Paul-Maier/dp/1501274015

I was talking about the actual tomb with Jesus, his mother Mary, dad Joseph, and brother James found in Israel.

Of course it could always be some other famous Jewish family from the 30's AD, who by chance have all the same names AND family relationships as the people written about in the gospels.

[RevDisk]

I was talking about the actual tomb with Jesus, his mother Mary, dad Joseph, and brother James found in Israel.

Of course it could always be some other famous Jewish family from the 30's AD, who by chance have all the same names AND family relationships as the people written about in the gospels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talpiot_Tomb

Ehhh. Not concrete. Possible, but not concrete.

[De Selby]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talpiot_Tomb

Ehhh. Not concrete. Possible, but not concrete.

It's almost impossible for it to be concrete due to age,  but ask yourself this:

If you were looking for a Jesus tomb, what names would be in it, and where would it be?

The detractors seem to mainly harp on about it not fitting the bible.  Still, it seems to me worth further investigation with that collection of names.

It has the correct location, correct set of names, and correct age.  There's certainly nothing that obviously rules it out, and much to suggest it could be the spot.  It might explain why all of the resurrection texts we have are clearly of later origin than the un-altered gospel of Mark.

[Ron]

It's almost impossible for it to be concrete due to age,  but ask yourself this:

If you were looking for a Jesus tomb, what names would be in it, and where would it be?

The detractors seem to mainly harp on about it not fitting the bible.  Still, it seems to me worth further investigation with that collection of names.

It has the correct location, correct set of names, and correct age.  There's certainly nothing that obviously rules it out, and much to suggest it could be the spot.  It might explain why all of the resurrection texts we have are clearly of later origin than the un-altered gospel of Mark.

Your narrative has been constructed with the presupposition that it is the family tomb of Jesus. To me it looks like you are rationalizing backward to support your decision to believe it to be so.

After reading, admittedly just a little bit on this, it is obvious there is no proof one way or another. In fact I would submit that if there was definitive proof, statistical or otherwise, it would be the biggest story in our lifetimes. The first red flag for you should have been that the supposed proof is statistical in nature. That is a weak proof for anything and as we all know both sides of every issue generally can marshal statistics to support their position.   

Like much in life the safe position regarding this is to say, hmmm, I don't know. 

[Perd Hapley]

I was talking about the actual tomb with Jesus, his mother Mary, dad Joseph, and brother James found in Israel.

Of course it could always be some other famous Jewish family from the 30's AD, who by chance have all the same names AND family relationships as the people written about in the gospels.

I knew what you were talking about, and given the substantial evidence for Christ's resurrection, your sarcastic hypothesis is the more likely.

The detractors seem to mainly harp on about it not fitting the bible. 

Well, that does seem to be an important consideration. 

[De Selby]

I knew what you were talking about, and given the substantial evidence for Christ's resurrection, your sarcastic hypothesis is the more likely.



Well, that does seem to be an important consideration. 

More evidence for the resurrection is where?  How's that compare to the actual body and tomb?

[Perd Hapley]

More evidence for the resurrection is where?  How's that compare to the actual body and tomb?

Eye-witnesses testimony vs. speculation that they may have found a body? Really?

[De Selby]

Eye-witnesses testimony vs. speculation that they may have found a body? Really?

Eye witness, as in documents transcribed by unknown people and copied by hand for 300 years before anyone organised them?

Anyway, they certainly got a conspicuous list of names right - we have a Davidic relative in a tomb who matches the story perfectly

[Perd Hapley]

Eye witness, as in documents transcribed by unknown people and copied by hand for 300 years before anyone organised them?

Organized them? What's that supposed to mean? Copied by hand? You're right, they should have taken photos - those can't be hacked.

Anyway, they certainly got a conspicuous list of names right - we have a Davidic relative in a tomb who matches the story perfectly

Perfectly? I thought you said it didn't match the Bible? Besides, a bunch of very common names being found in a tomb, two thousand years later? Even if it were a perfect match, that's as far as it goes. Some names.

[De Selby]

Organized them? What's that supposed to mean? Copied by hand? You're right, they should have taken photos - those can't be hacked.

Perfectly? I thought you said it didn't match the Bible? Besides, a bunch of very common names being found in a tomb, two thousand years later? Even if it were a perfect match, that's as far as it goes. Some names.

The thing you're ignoring is a set of common names with the same relationships described in the bible, centred around a Jesus descended from David.  That makes the odds that it is another family not described in the bible significantly lower.

EYA:  Of course that isn't proof those bones are the biblical Jesus.  But it's certainly worth investigating.  Nothing obviously rules it out other than the resurrection story, of which an eye witness authored or recorded account does not exist.

[Perd Hapley]

The thing you're ignoring is a set of common names with the same relationships described in the bible, centred around a Jesus descended from David.  That makes the odds that it is another family not described in the bible significantly lower.

EYA:  Of course that isn't proof those bones are the biblical Jesus.  But it's certainly worth investigating.  Nothing obviously rules it out other than the resurrection story, of which an eye witness authored or recorded account does not exist.

You're saying no one testified to seeing the risen Jesus?

Also, since this thread is about Wikipedia, can you cite sources for the relationships and connection to David?