[–] HarlandKornfeld14 0 points 45 points (+45|-0) ago 

Infogalactic is alright and getting better.

[–] buggermeharder [S] 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

Wikipedia has Infogalactic categorized as "Alt-right". What am I to make of that?

[–] clamhurt_legbeard 0 points 70 points (+70|-0) ago 

It means infogalactic makes Wikipedia's SJWs mad.

[–] 300_Black 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago 

Anything (((they))) think constitutes wrongthink gets a meaningless buzzword. They'd never actually use the term "wrongthink" though because then the normies might realize their bullshit.

[–] Eualos 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

It's their competition. Why would they say anything nice about it?

[–] HillBoulder 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

It means they really don't want us to use it. So we should definitely use it.

[–] GazeboCathedral 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

First thing I looked up was "White Pride" due to the wiki meme. The site seems balanced. Here are the first two paragraphs [Source]:

White pride is a movement in responses to persistent and pernicious anti-White sentiment in the Main stream media and leftist politics that encourages to see the culture of Europeans in a positive light and to celebrate the many achievements of white people.

However, anti-white groups and sites claim it is a motto primarily used by white separatist, white nationalist, neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations in order to signal racist or racialist viewpoints.[1][2] It is also a slogan used by the prominent post-Ku Klux Klan group Stormfront and a term used to make racist/racialist viewpoints more palatable to the general public who may associate historical abuses with the terms "white nationalist", "neo-Nazi", and "white supremacist".

[–] thou_shall_prosper 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

Infogalactic!

[–] firecat 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

The Encyclopædia Britannica it has real sources and you can know who wrote the article. There is no "we think" in that site it is just facts with no different viewpoints. Lastly why it is the best is because no one can change the information, it goes through many experts.

if you think britannica is not ok then try Citizendium it has real people adding the articles. It also requires people to verify that it is them, so you %100 know the person who posted the article.

[–] JonReed 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

and wikipedia was praised before because it didn't have central sources

[–] GazeboCathedral 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

My recollection of Encyclopædia Britannica in book form matches what you said. Glad to see they are still pure.

A minor problem is that you have to pay, which is not that big a deal. Hell, I gave Wikipedia $20 once during one of their beg-a-thons years ago due to my constant use of it. Would not recommend again. Stupid, stupid of me. The major problem is that if one is trying to link others information, they have to have paid as well to see it. Kind of a bummer in that regards.

[–] phw 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Good. I recommend the essay WP:CANCER if you're thinking about donating money. Apparently they have plenty and are wasting it.

[–] alele-opathic 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Citizendium had a great thing going almost a decade ago (fuck I feel old), but, unlike infogalactic (which cloned Wikipedia), they were having trouble getting enough new pages set up and approved by experts that it fizzled out for want of content. IMO, they had a great article review setup that was far more factual, and thus would have been great for science topics (which should have been their sole focus), but alas.

[–] nul 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Metapedia is based af

[–] HonestPerson 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I wish there was a platform that does not omit facts, and it would be even better if it listed all unverified facts as well so that the community can provide sources, categorize, etc.

For now I can recommend Metapedia, they have been around for a while now, though I don't think it is very active at the moment.

[–] Alwaysmakingprogress 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

There are an infinite number of facts, you have to omit almost all of them whenever you talk about anything.

[–] HonestPerson 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I know. But you can sort facts by certain factors, like time, location, or connections for example and present them in a nice way (timeline, map, graph, etc).

[–] Hydrocephalus 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Sounds like someone is trying to gague how many people have heard of infogalactic. If you talk to vox day, tell him I'm a big fan.

[–] buggermeharder [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Nope. I've been vaguely aware of alternatives for some time now, but today is the first time I heard of Metapedia. Who is Vox Day anyway?

[–] LexOrandiLexCredendi 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

An influential blogger/author/game designer who would probably fall under the "neoreactionary" camp more than anything.

https://voxday.blogspot.com - definitely worth some time, imo.

[–] Hydrocephalus 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

If you're sincere in not knowing who he is, he's the guy who made infogalactic. He also made a new comic series called alt hero which has some guy beating an illegal immigrant child rapist with a hammer. Also there is a hot chick named dixie who's costume has a confederate flag theme. Overall they are pretty good for the first few issues, vox day is a fairly prolific science fiction/fantasy writer so he knows how to set up a story.

Edit: When I say they are pretty good for the first few issues, only the first few issues are out yet. Every issue I've read has been entertaining and it's clear he's building up to a lot of cool stuff.

[–] obvious-throwaway- 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

I thought the alternative was Conservapedia

[–] buggermeharder [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

load more comments ▼ (12 remaining)