Infogalactic, an online encyclopedia branding itself as a censorship free alternative to Wikipedia without “bias or thought police,” has launched.
The online encyclopedia that refers to itself as a “Planetary Knowledge Core™” was conceived as a replacement for Wikipedia that promises to be free of the problems that have plagued Wikipedia such as the bureaucracy amongst editors, censorship of content, harassment, and vandalism of public figures’ pages.
“Every notable public figure who has a page devoted to them knows very well what an inaccurate nightmare Wikipedia is,” said Vox Day, lead designer of Infogalactic and author of SJW’s Always Lie. “The page about me there has had everything from my place of birth to the number of times I’ve been married wrong. And that’s not even counting the outright abuse, such as when Wikipedians replaced the entire page with a definition of a sexually-transmitted disease or with a string of obscenities.”
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.
The website has expanded upon Wikipedia’s “five pillars” concept with their own seven canons:
-
Infogalactic does not define reality.
-
Infogalactic is written from an objective point of view.
-
Infogalactic is free content.
-
No griefing.
-
Play nice and play fair.
-
Rules are guidelines for users, not chew toys for lawyers.
-
Facts are facts.
Lucas Nolan is a conservative who regularly contributes articles on censorship and free speech to Breitbart. Follow him on Twitter@LucasNolan_ or email him at lucas@yiannopoulos.net
The acid test of its objectivity will be its acceptance of politically incorrect information about subjects like the Holocaust and 9/11. Articles on controversial subjects should present all viewpoints that can be backed up with solid facts and citations.
List/disclose the names of all owners, financial contributors and moderators at all levels of this sight for public disclosure. If names are held secret behind titles/groups/counsels such as described, then it is definitely not a forum that will ensure free expression and a non-biased approach.
I would like to think that this could be an alternative, but I need much more than this posting to convince me.