Touting itself as “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit”, it’s no wonder that Wikipedia has garnered so much bad press lately. After all, it is hard to imagine that millions of anonymous users could accurately maintain a factual and unbiased living encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a non-profit site that is policed by hundreds of volunteers, yet very few of these volunteers have the experience and knowledge of a professional writer/editor. A cultural bias has seemed to have washed over many entries on the site, as general consensus replaces cold, hard facts. There is also a matter of vandalism, which the site is susceptible to. These problems, coupled with the almost obsessive behavior of many of the volunteers (try placing an external link on the site without having it removed), have led people to other sources for information. If you are looking for a different kind of online encyclopedia, try the seven alternatives to Wikipedia listed below.
Scholarpedia Scholarpedia is a site made from the same MediaWiki software as Wikipedia. It almost appears like a mirror site, but there are some significant differences. Scholarpedia is written by, you guessed it, scholars. Experts must be either invited or elected before they are assigned certain topics and, although the site is still editable by anyone like a wiki, updates must first be approved before they are made final. This not only ensures that all information added to the site is accurate and attributed to an author, vandalism never becomes an issue.
Citizendium Citizendium is a wiki that seems to be a compromise between the free-for-all that is Wikipedia and the strict supervision that accompanies Scholarpedia. One of Wikipedia’s founders, Larry Sanger, created Citizendium in the hopes of improving on Wikipedia’s model. With what the site refers to as “gentle oversight”, all articles are subject to approval by the site’s editorial team. Articles that haven’t been approved will have an accompanying disclaimer, which helps to prevent people from taking potentially false information to heart. Also, you must register under your real name to become a contributor, unlike Wikipedia. Although the site is still in beta form, it is quickly becoming a popular alternative to Wikipedia, one that Sanger feels will “probably succeed“.
Encyclopedia Britannica Online When it comes to trusted and unbiased facts, this site is your best option. Here, every volume of the Encyclopedia Brittanica has been transferred to Web format, in addition to multimedia features and an easy search tool. Updates to the site’s entries are made by professionals, as this isn’t a wiki community. The only drawback to this site is that it isn’t free. To have full access to Encyclopedia Britannica Online, one must pay a subscription fee of $69.95 a year. This is a sound investment for students, however, as the yearly fee is substantially cheaper than buying the encyclopedic set in book form. Also, major universities will accept the site as a reliable source when citing information in a research paper, something Wikipedia can’t claim.
MSN Encarta MSN Encarta is another online encyclopedia that bypasses the problems that plague Wikipedia. All entries have been written and fact-checked by professionals and the site will never be vandalized. However, like Encyclopedia Britannica Online, this site requires a subscription fee. For $29.95 a year, you can access MSN Encarta in its entirety, including the site’s accompanying thesaurus, world atlas and other research tools for students.
Infoplease Infoplease is a free online encyclopedia that is a part of Pearson Education, the largest educational book distributor in the world. All of the information found on the site is gathered from trusted sources, such as the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia and the Random House Unabridged Dictionary. Although entries may be limited in size when compared to Wikipedia, you can be sure that all the information is accurate and incapable of being influenced by outside users. Also, Infoplease has many multimedia features that assist researchers, particularly students who are attending distance education courses.
Conservapedia Conservapedia is a conservative, Christian-influenced wiki encyclopedia that was created as a response to Wikipedia’s alleged left-wing bias. The information found on this site is free of foul language, sexual topics and anything else deemed offensive by the site’s editorial staff. If you feel that Wikipedia shows a strong bias toward liberal views, then this site may suit your needs. All Conservapedia users are asked to follow the site’s seven Commandments.
Uncyclopedia Uncyclopedia is an ambitious spoof of Wikipedia. It could be seen as an over-the-top response to Wikipedia users, also known as “Wikipedians”, who seem to take the site much too seriously. From the home page’s logo to the formatting of each entry, the parallels between the two sites are uncanny and well-executed. Make no mistake, however. Nothing on Uncyclopedia should be taken as fact, which may be another dig at Wikipedia’s occasional inaccuracy. If you are fed up with Wikipedia’s many faults and want to have a good laugh, check out this satirical site.
Wikipedia is one of the most popular Web sites in the world, with mirror versions available in 251 languages. However, due to faults in its open-content structure, Wikipedia’s influence has been a menacing one at times. For example, on March 10, 2007, comedian/actor Sinbad was falsely reported dead on his Wikipedia entry. This news was taken as fact and spread quickly, even convincing Sinbad’s family and friends. Although the site can be a good starting point for research, there are many other alternatives, including the seven sites listed above. As Wikipedia’s detractors grow in numbers, so will online encyclopedias with better business models and editorial staffs. ------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Google's scholarly search engine is a way to broadly search for literature, articles, abstracts, theses and legal opinions from academic professionals, societies and universities.
2. Wolfram|Alpha
Wolfram|Alpha is a "computational knowledge engine" that uses specific algorithms based on specific assumptions to answer questions, rather than just give search results. The results also come back with sources and references that the site used for your computation.
3. HARO
Reporters in need of a source can use this forum to have their queries answered. The site claims to "deliver the sources that match your exact needs directly to your inbox."
5. Quora
Quora's information network can connect you with experts and answers from people who share similar interests as you.
6. Online Libraries
If you're a student, or still have a student account, you can log in to your university's online library to use research sites, such as LexisNexis or EBSCO. Many local libraries also have similar options.
7. Project Gutenberg
There are more than 38,000 cultural archives available as ebooks on Project Gutenberg, which you can download to your PC, Kindle, Android or iOS device.
10. Encyclopedia.com
Encyclopedia.com is another reference site that offers resources on pictures, facts and videos. There are a number of encyclopedia sites that have been cached, such as The Free Dictionary and Encyclopedian
11. eHow
eHow is an online how-to guide with instructional articles and videos, created by freelancers. Any eHow user can leave comments or responses, but only contracted writers can contribute changes to articles.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: What do you want to add (or remove) to the Wikipedia page about Ancient Egypt?
A lot of talks in some other threads is made about the wikipedia bias (or even the egyptology bias in general) but I'm curious to know what people would want to include in the Wikipedia's Ancient Egyptian page (lets start with this one) that is not already included? Or what would you want to remove from it? Both addition and removal must be backed by reliable sources of course (or lack of them for removal).
The article is riddled with dubious, sometimes laughably simplistic content. Let's look at the "Predynastic section" for example- QUOTE:
"In Predynastic and Early Dynastic times, the Egyptian climate was much less arid than it is today. Large regions of Egypt were covered in treed savanna and traversed by herds of grazing ungulates"
^^Where is the credible information on the climate, the aquatic cultures, the Saharan pump, the early productive NON agricultural economy, etc etc etc? A good editor could blend this info into some tight paragraphs not that much larger, with credible references.
By about 5500 BC, small tribes living in the Nile valley had developed into a series of cultures demonstrating firm control of agriculture and animal husbandry.
^Where is credible mention of the Saharan influences? Where Nabata Playa? Where the cultural links with the Sudan? Where did the "small tribes" come from? Out of thin air? Morphing from the very watas of the Nile? lol
And that's just that section.
If you go to the separate "Pre-Dynastic" Article the content is even more laughable and weak- little more than a glorified timeline. I was surprised at how thin it is, but should not be surprised. They want a thin, weak article that locks out credible scholarship. Actually years ago the Predynastic article was much more detailed. But all that has vanished (predictably)..
And this thin gruel is what Beyoku urgently wants to recruit people to rush out to "fix"? Even while deceptive moles fight you tooth and nail? I would suggest- leave it as it is- laughably weak, and lacking in credibility. Not saying don't TRY, but be aware that all your labor and time may be for naught. Better to spend your energy cultivating other more indepth sources. If you have 10 hours to kill, don't give it to Wiki. Spend 9.5 building up the alternative Africana-Infosphere or knowledge base.
Look at the more credible content that comes up in a simple Google Search on "Ancient Egypt":
posted
Sam O said: Wiki is always wrong about everything yet it still is an important, even indispensible, tool. It is so important because it provides what is "known" about things as well as how they are interrelated. It's a convenient way to access what you need to know on any given subject.
The primary thing I dislike about this specific page is that it presents Egyptological beliefs as gospel for the early periods and the later periods. Egyptological beliefs are close enough to reality for the later periods but more importantly are well founded on extensive information. If I had any expertise in these later periods then I could spot where wiki is wrong but lacking this expertise I just know they are because they're always wrong.
What concerns me is that there is the Egyptologically inspired claim (implication) that the early periods are well documented as well. This is simply false and a tactic used by Egyptology to confront skeptics and non-believers. There is almost no basis at all for their understanding of these earlier periods other than what they themselves believe to be a "book of magic". It is illogical and impossible to understand people on the basis of a book of magic. They invent a "cultural context" that doesn't exist to support their belief that the people were highly superstitious. It's this "understanding" of a book of incantation that causes most Egyptologists to sound like mystics when they speak of the pyramid builders.
There are countless things that could be "corrected" but the "corrections" won't necessarily be closer to any ultimate truth.
In this case it might be better if they relied less heavily on Egyptology and more heavily on other sciences to write about times before 2000 BC. The article would look much different and would have fewer errors of fact.
Well I don't see much of the magic you talk about, or book of magic. That is in more specialized articles. And I don't think most Egyptologists sound like mystics when discussing building of the Great Pyramid. Actually, it is mostly non Egyptologists who play up the mystical angle. And the Pre-Dynastic has been extensively documented including the use of modern sicentific studies of peoples, climate, economies, state formation etc. It is an ongoing process- much remains to be done in the field of course.
Sam p: On reading this article more closely I would say it is one of the best wiki pages. They seem to actually be improving as it pertains to accuracy.
One of the best? Nah.. I don't think so. Look at Beyoku's detailed critique below, and mine above. Her call for neutrality is commendable, but somewhat naive for such pages. Even more curious is her statement that she does not know how to get around Wiki- this from a person who has spent years online, including tussles on the racialist site- ForumBiodiversity and other venues. Hmm.... But anyway, there is a distinctive class of people that do NOT want improvements- preferring a weak article that keeps out scholarship at odds with their agendas.
------------
Although I do dont think this is the ideal article to edit based on the feedback already listed in the thread (basically you think you will be pigeon-holed as Afrocentric instead of Info-Centric.) Lets see what happens.
The ideas put forth from me will be based on Neutrality and analyzing what is on the current page and similar pages, IE: I dont see a need to go into biological affinity since it doesn't already exist on the page.
Looking at what is already there it seems pretty much well written. This is an Ancient EGYPT page and not a general nile valley page so it looks good. They even include Qustul.
What could be modified:
-Their idea on the Badari coming from the Western Desert. Source 12 comes from a book in the 1967. The Badari page itself is anorexic and has a source from the 1920's. There is much info that could be added but Gatto comes to mind and other recent data on Badari having affinities with a much wider spread culture. If they are going to mention migration they should mention the Sahara instead of keeping it vague...also mention Sudan and the Levant. Or they can leave it simple....IMO the article is good as it is in this respect. Other ancient iconography directly from West Africa could be included. Napta could get an honorable mention.
- Agriculture nor Animals - No dates. Again it could be kept vague because it links to specific pages with greater detail.
-TRADE They list Nubia but it doesn't link back to a page on Nubia....just the raw text.
-Language - Could be improved to include non Egyptian langues spoken INSIDE Egypt. Known Nilo-Saharan speakers. Known Cushitic speakers. Known names and People from the Western Desert that reconstruct back to Berber. New research that includes Chadic too may have been spoken there......waiting for publication to see if this was inside Egyptian Nubia, Sudanese Nubia or Western parts of either of their deserts. Ancient Egptian language is a Southern language - It has been hypothesized that the Northerners possibly spoke a different language prior to unification. Languages IN Egypt and the Egyptian language are two different ideas. The section could be expanded.
-Writing - Hieroglyphs date back to 3300BC. I would have to find a source but it precedes Sumerian....they likely know that.
That's pretty much it. The article is purposefully vague. I think its a good article though and many more anemic articles that could be expanded. Plus the page is "locked" I dont even know what that means yet. I mean why jump to Egypt when we can update and Ancient Nubia page? Well that is my input so far. Whatever specifics you are looking to change we can talk about that and source it...with new fresh sources.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: What do you want to add (or remove) to the Wikipedia page about Ancient Egypt?
A lot of talks in some other threads is made about the wikipedia bias (or even the egyptology bias in general) but I'm curious to know what people would want to include in the Wikipedia's Ancient Egyptian page (lets start with this one) that is not already included? Or what would you want to remove from it? Both addition and removal must be backed by reliable sources of course (or lack of them for removal).
The article is riddled with dubious, sometimes laughably simplistic content. Let's look at the "Predynastic section" for example- QUOTE:
"In Predynastic and Early Dynastic times, the Egyptian climate was much less arid than it is today. Large regions of Egypt were covered in treed savanna and traversed by herds of grazing ungulates"
^^Where is the credible information on the climate, the aquatic cultures, the Saharan pump, the early productive NON agricultural economy, etc etc etc? A good editor could blend this info into some tight paragraphs not that much larger, with credible references.
the statement is good, not dubious or laughably simplistic. It simply did not elaborate on climate information of the time period to your liking. Stop being dramatic
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
By about 5500 BC, small tribes living in the Nile valley had developed into a series of cultures demonstrating firm control of agriculture and animal husbandry.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
^Where is credible mention of the Saharan influences? Where Nabata Playa? Where the cultural links with the Sudan? Where did the "small tribes" come from? Out of thin air? Morphing from the very watas of the Nile? lol
Nabta Playa is a site of stone carvings a millennia before dynastic Egypt. It is speculation to call it an influence on ancient Egypt. It could be mentioned but it is not dubious or laughably simplistic not to mention it. You will have to elaborate on cultural links with the Sudan I am not sure what you are referring to. Nubia is mentioned in the article 23 times.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
If you go to the separate "Pre-Dynastic" Article the content is even more laughable and weak- little more than a glorified timeline. I was surprised at how thin it is, but should not be surprised. They want a thin, weak article that locks out credible scholarship. Actually years ago the Predynastic article was much more detailed. But all that has vanished (predictably)..
And this thin gruel is what Beyoku urgently wants to recruit people to rush out to "fix"? Even while deceptive moles fight you tooth and nail? I would suggest- leave it as it is- laughably weak, and lacking in credibility. Not saying don't TRY, but be aware that all your labor and time may be for naught. Better to spend your energy cultivating other more indepth sources. If you have 10 hours to kill, don't give it to Wiki. Spend 9.5 building up the alternative Africana-Infosphere or knowledge base.
stop being ridiculous. The entry is called Prehistoric Egypt
and it's pretty good. Nabta Playa is listed and linked to the Nabta Playa article. As you know Nabta Playa was established by pale red haired, thin lipped, Celtic people who came from what is now Ireland (light skinned blacks)
more credible than what? The main entry called "Egypt"
You don't seem to understand te structure of wikipedia. They list an outline for countries which is generally pretty good. Then if go to the History section it outlines the history as well as has a link to a more elaborate history article.
^^^ Here's separate three articles with all the elaborations you need. Compare this to Encyclopodia Brittanica
posted
zarahan you are mainly preaching to the converted here, you need to go back to stormfront and do some more undercover double agent work. Set up the account on another computer maybe. Beyoku will give you instructions on how to play the edge so you can drop bombs without getting banned. Come up with a good user name like Aryan Noble or Supreme Europe That's the front line. Seek out the enemy.
Global Black Sumpremacy 2014
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol.. there's a bus leaving. Shouldn't you be under it?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
lioness said: the zarahan complaint by was that the Egypt thread didn't elaborate enough on ancient Egypt, such things as not metnioning Nabta Playa which Toby Wilkenson mislabed "pharaoinic". You are incoherent. keep your troll accounts straight will ya? your lower case, scrambled para thing is obvious..
I told zarahan stop being a drama queen and calling this stuff "dubious" and "laughable"
You mean I can't describe you?
Beyoku/'lioness' said: ) Come on truthcentric. You are in the know. After glancing at the Bell Beaker page you dont know of any African similarities? [Smile]
^Didn't you say earlier you didn't know how Wiki works? lol... who's foolin who? [smile]
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic