Wikipedia versus Whackpedia
From Whackpedia
Contents |
Content
Is there a need for Whackpedia? Don't we already have Wikipedia?
Here are a few good reasons:
- Wikipedia deleted a good science article claiming it belonged in a textbook not an encyclopedia
- Wikipedia deleted many great articles claiming they are original research even when the research has been well accepted
- Wikipedia also deletes anything that provides instructions on how to do something claiming that belongs in a manual not encyclopedia
- Encyclopedia is a great, but people also need a place where they can discuss things that weren't published in a book or a journal a long time ago and voice their opinions on topics
- Whackpedia allows discussion of current news, philosophy, allows for exploration of novel research and arguments etc.
Discussion
I just did a Google search for Whackpedia and found out that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antonio_Lopez made a page in Wikipedia about it and user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marasmusine did a speedy delete on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Whackpedia
A7. An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.
Profits versus NonProfits
A discussion about the for profit model of Whackpedia versus the non profit model of Wikipedia follows. You may leave your comments and continue the discussion further:
1: Google has also started Google Knol to compete with Wikipedia just a week and a half before Whackpedia started
2: I don't see a reason why Google will compete with Wikipedia, its free, its a free info and charitable, its not generating any revenue though Google may want to generate revenue to do this
1: Because as I said Wikipedia has a lot of flaws, its not about revenue at all, its about creating value, when you create value, revenue will anyways come
2: I believe after reaching at some point one should also do something like Wikipedia or something charitable for people, so far I have not seen any major flaws in Wikipedia there might be some in the info because its open for anyone to edit, I'm not sure though
1: Well probably you haven't spent enough time doing things on it, other than reading it
suppose you know how to fix something, or how to do so1thing, you cannot add that on Wikipedia
2: ya not really
1: suppose you write a nice story you cannot add that to Wikipedia there is a lot of knowledge Wikipedia won't let you put on but Whackpedia will
2: do u know why is that?
1: because they are interested in being a high quality encyclopedia and they don't believe this stuff belongs in an encyclopedia but there is information and knowledge beyond what encyclopedias cover which is important
2: for instance?
1: algorithms, how to do things, stories and poems, biographies, fiction, opinions many things encyclopedia is not the only type of book in a library, people write blogs, Whackpedia is working on a blog crawler for example, which will accumulate and categorize that information into Whackpedia automatically. Also, in whackpedia you can embed rss feeds, and youtube videos unlike wikipedia
2: wikipedia too can do these enhancements of relevant videos with the articles but again its not profitable organization, it might do later
1: do u know what it 1ans to be a nonprofit in the US? it means u can collect donations, pay your management higher salaries, and not pay taxes, opening a nonprofit is often more profitable to the management of the website than opening a for profit
2: there has to be some clause otherwise no company will be a corporation, all of them can be a non-profit. I know what you are saying since you are not earning so you don't have to pay taxes
1: There is your growth and innovation is limited, while Google and Whackpedia will take the steps to allow videos for example, chances are Wikipedia won't be able to because of it's structure. If you are nonprofit
because the shareholders won't ear profits
see there are advantages and legal reasons for both
for wikipedia they don't advertise for profit, they collect donation
if u want to advertise and earn profits that way to increase the value of shareholders u can't be a nonprofit
2: Do u know where do they use all that donation?
1: to pay their editors and management and run the servers so their management is much higher paid than a profit organization, because donations are much larger than the money they would get from advertising say
2: so what do you think the organization is doing this for? Just to pay their employees higher wages? I don't think they are keeping that donation for themselves had they wanted to do so they could have done much more...
1: See depending on your business model making it for profit and nonprofit will vary but both are legit business models
2: you might better know the number of hits on wikipedia each day this is not more of a business model
1: wikipedia has 90 million users
2: whatever donations are collected it is being further used for charitable work besides paying the employees, and what do u think does it have thousands of employees? no
1: no it pays the editors
2: this is why its open for all to edit and upload stuff I don't say it doesn't of course it does but how many of them are working for it?
1: no one is paying for not doing any work, profit or non profit
2: not many not as many as any other organization
1: I worked for a nonprofit http://.com they paid $10,000 a month to us web developers, you think most profit organizations that size pay that? no
1: its a business model where the business basically in their accounting shows no profits, but profits are revenue - cost, so the donations are revenue, and pay1nts to manag1nt and employees are costs
they just cannot output profits
2: the revenue generated is not used for the company itself but its meant to b used for some social work thats y its called non profit now it depends who uses this money n for what
1: then who pays the employees of the company tell 1 they don't work for free for sure
2: of course they don't the donation is of course used to pay them hey be right back, will continue this after dinner this is going interesting
1: well I am going to go have a lot of work to do, but I've done a lot of reading on this including from the Financial Managament Theory and Practice MBA textbook by Michael c. Ehrhardt, and from the lawyers of http://.com, but definetly look into it, a nonprofit is different from a charity which is what you are thinking
2: no thats not what I'm saying but thats what wikipedia doing anyways, we will discuss upon this
1: ya sure wikipedia is doing charity thats fine no arguing about that, but thats just up to them, anyways later
