Infogalactic:Galactic boardroom

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to the Galactic boardroom. This is the place for Galaxians to discuss the technical issues, policies, and operations of InfoGalactic. For resolving disputes with other Galaxians, please visit the Galactic tribunal.

For more lighthearted chatter, head over to the Galactic jazz lounge.

Galactic boardroom
« Older discussions

Coding For Television Episodes

Hi gang. I've been busy lately, so I haven't caught up yet. I'll be back more soon with more stuff. Meanwhile I just popped in to update a mirror and discovered some coding stuff. I just copied the article from Wikipedia and added this to the top:

This is a Wikipedia article mirror, copy update on 2017 April 08.

So you know - I like to declare at least one of the following declarations in bold italics at the top of every article that I confidently can:

This is an InfoGalactic original article.
This InfoGalactic article has forked from originally being just a Wikipedia article mirror.
This is a Wikipedia article mirror, copy update on...
This is a Wikipedia article mirror.
This article was censored on Wikipedia.

To the point, the code results are drastically different between the source and result:

List_of_Real_Time_with_Bill_Maher_episodes on Wikipedia
List_of_Real_Time_with_Bill_Maher_episodes on InfoGalactic

This looks like a very nice code tool thing that I will learn to use in the future. It'd be great if InfoGalactic could utilize it too. (Full disclosure: I've never updated any episode lists before, on WP or IG, though I have been considering building giant episode lists of all of The Corbett Report episodes and lists.)

I'd like to hear comments about it and be pointed to the usage documentation, especially if InfoGalactic adopts it.

Regarding my failed edit attempts, please simply delete my efforts on the Real Time Episode List, linked above, and revert it to the oldest one and only proper mirror even if it is an outdated copy.

Now that I've made a "thing" of this, I promise I will return to it soon to learn about the coding and to update the episode list in one way or another, high on my to do list.

Thanks in advance for your feedback. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

JasonCarswell, there is no need to revert your edits. The code you copied works perfectly. If you look now, I think the page will look much closer to what you were expecting (though it's unfinished). You will also noticed I have not edited that page at all. Looking into your issue taught me something about transclusion that I did not know, and now I'm chomping at the bit to put it to use myself. The link to wikipedia in the previous sentence is a good place to start. Basicly you're taking parts of one article and inserting them into another. The long and the short of it is, you need to copy several wikipedia pages with names like Real Time with Bill Mahar (season xx) over to Infogalactic to make the list appear as you want it to. Gilgamesh (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Some thoughts, more needed

  1. I am not sure what the correct way is to indicate that an article is entirely from Wikipedia or entirely local or a mix of both. Categories look like a way to do it, but we don't want to have to go through all 5M articles and add a category to them. We could default them to showing that the article comes from Wikipedia at the bottom unless they have a category entry saying they are different. However, we have to work on the code for that. Further thoughts are welcome.
  2. The whole transclusion thing and templates are a god-awfull macro language that is hard to understand for normal people ... something better is needed.

-- Crew (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Crew, I would like to partially if not wholly disagree with your point 2 above. One of my biggest frustrations is having to update the same information on multiple pages. For example, Daytona 500 and List of Daytona 500 winners have substantial overlap, including a table of winners. I've thought about building templates (in Template: space) to cover situations like this, but by doing so I would be cluttering up Template space with lots of templates that are only called by a couple of pages each. I hadn't realized until now that I can have one encyclopedia article call another encyclopedia article, saving me a lot of work to update.
For JasonCarswell's issue, he has 3 options.
  1. He can learn about transclusion, and use it future edits.
  2. He can hunt for television-specific documentation on Wikipedia about how to edit episode lists without needing to know how transclusion works. This documentation is most likely one or more subpages of WikiProject Television.
  3. He can simply copy the pages I told him to and trust that some editor at Wikipedia has read this documentation and knows how to use it. Gilgamesh (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the transclusion link. I have some reading to do.
You may decide if this idea may be good or bad. Since all articles with only one version in history are direct snapshot copies from Wikipedia, extremely rare exceptions being articles perfectly composed and saved somehow without any need for correction, revision, update, etc. OR extremely new articles yet to be revised. A bot could create a new updated snapshot that would make the formerly unedited snapshot article more current, and more importantly it could add "This is a Wikipedia article mirror, copy update on..." to the top, with whatever coding markers you like, as well as added benefits of collecting more article history documenting growth edits or censorship. Unfortunately it's not copying the entire Wikipedia article history or discussion history, but it's much much better than naught. As for all the other InfoGalactic articles with at least one version in history, the revisions and edits are evidence of human activity likely forking articles in some way(s) or are completely original. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Fast image uploading idea

Why not give every article a direct button "upload images", and have them automatically be put into gallery for that article? For instance if I find that a diagram is hard to understand, I could just browse the article's gallery until I find a photo which makes sense. A good gallery system would be more useful than even google images Hydrargyruum (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I like brevity, but ...

Forkbot overwrote the article John Lewis (Georgia politician) with a redirect to John Lewis (civil rights leader), so now these two are redirects to each other. For more fun, John Lewis (Georgia) redirects to John Lewis (Georgia politician), so this is now a double redirect. And don't forget that John Lewis (American politician) redirects to John Lewis which is a disambiguation page. Gilgamesh (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. I will make sure that the ForkBot people know. -- Crew (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, the issue seems to be that on W John Lewis (Georgia Politician) redirects to John Lewis (civil rights leader). I am manually importing that page. --Crew (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for Self-Citation

Can we cite ourselves for witnessed events that may have no other citation but are nonetheless true? I just noticed LastRedoubt included an important fact that he witnessed himself that can't be cited, so he deleted (correctly) the "needs cited" sticker.

I wonder if it would be useful to have a "cite editor" structure, like this:

< ref>{{cite self|first=Last|last=Redoubt|source=Eyewitness|date=.... and so on

(NeitherNor) 00:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I had a similar problem. Before I was banned off Wikipedia for a year, I was trying to "fix" 9-11 Truth articles, etc. Another angry Truther was defending me. I checked out her(?) profile and saw other things she'd had censored. While I'd heard of Milton William Cooper I new nothing much of significance. Her efforts on his page were refuted but I saw a solution. I simply added "alleged" to the police testimony. Naturally the Wikipedia goons defended the article saying that cops are always truthful etc. Later (somewhere in my email archives) a Milton William Cooper's neighbor wrote me an email with the "real story" of his murder and begged me to put it on Wikipedia. I was banned soon before or after that email, but I added it to InfoGalactic under The Actual Circumstances Of Cooper's Death (with corrected and improved grammar and narrative flow). I replied to that email that I had done this, but received no reply. If there's a better way, I'm all ears. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Search Timeout Problem

For some reason searching for a non-existent page takes forever then gives you an error. I just tried to see if there was already an article for Bill Still - several days ago. Yesterday and today the problem remains. I thought perhaps it was my internet or your server or something. I just thought I'd bring this to your attention if it's a real problem or I could learn why it's not. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I have seen the same thing and was getting timeouts. Eventually it worked. I will work with the support folks to see if we can resolve this. -- Crew (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I had that problem when I was trying to create the Run for Something article, but it worked when I finally manually edited the URL to create the page, rather than trying to search for the non-existent page. Jean Valjean (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"Authority control"

I wondered what this was, copying or editing articles from Wikipedia Authority control on WP. Initially I thought they were monitoring potentially subversive articles. Does IG use this? Should I add it, delete it, or ignore it? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Editing without registration

After almost a year, InfoGalactic is still several times smaller than Wikipedia. I have been thinking about ways to get more new users.

One option would be to allow anyone to create a new article without having to register. They could continue to edit the new article until they deleted their cookies or changed their IP.

Another option would be to allow anyone to create a new version of an existing article without having to register. The different versions of each article could be listed as part of the main article, or shown in the page header. That could be how the differently "biased" article versions get started.

People could be encouraged to create new IG articles about subjects rejected by WP because of notability issues. For example self-published books, clubs, businesses, careers, etc.

Finally, organizations could be encouraged to create Promotional or "official" articles about themselves. No charge for that service, but the article version would be clearly marked as such, with a link to the neutral version.

I think it's important for the editing page to emphasize that whatever an editor posts must be TRUE. InfoGalactic considers the truth to be supremely important. Other editors will of course try to verify all the changes made.

I have some more ideas, will come back later after some thinking. Jack-arcalon (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem will most likely be one of managing all the spam and malicious content ... however, I am interested in hearing ideas. -- Crew (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Nice to see some discussion here. The site was just down for a little while today with a "no database connection" error, and I was afraid it was gone for good.
I think the project needs to do some fundraising. How about doing a Reg A+ stock sale at a site like Or sell shares as cryptocurrency?
With funding, you could get the technical features like user preference sliders and dynamic updates running, and maybe buy some ads to get traffic.
Also seek deals with alternative search engines like duckduckgo who are trying to create independence from google. SolarFringe (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The project is still alive, but how well is it doing? Three months between posts here at the "boardroom"? Are traffic & edits slowly increasing, or going downhill? SolarFringe (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed new policy for Infogalactic

I propose that the IG site settings be modified to allow anyone to create a new article on any subject, without having to register first. My understanding is that Wikimedia software allows that as a standard option.

If this change is made, the new option to start an article could appear on top of every page, next to "Read", "View source", and "View history". Presumably, a "cookie" will be set on their browser, so they can make edits until their browser cache has been cleared. If they later want to make further edits, they may have an incentive to get properly registered.

If spammers create millions of spam articles, the Adminstrator version of the Special:NewPages page might be usable to delete all new articles created within a specified date range. Creators of genuine articles should have kept a copy of the text they posted.

Perhaps this option could be tested on a trial basis for a few days or weeks. Jack-arcalon (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Mediawiki software could allow anonymous users to create new pages . . .
# Anonymous users can't create pages 

$wgGroupPermissions['*']['createpage'] = false; 
Jack-arcalon (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

May we have some more megabytes please

Infogalactic is suffering from its own success, as the increasing number of users can make it harder to edit pages during heavy traffic hours. Jack-arcalon (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


In the near future, someone may alter an existing article to make it far-left. We don't have the software yet for different versions of the same article. In that case, I think the far-left edited article should become its own similarly-named article. The original version should be restored where the edit was made.

For example:

Someone edits the entry for Mike Pence to make him seem like a radical fascist. These changes should be moved to a newly created page: Mike Pence (far-left interpretation).

On the main Pence page, there should be a link to the far-left version, and vice versa. Jack-arcalon (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought corrupt Mike Pence was a radical fascist dressed in Republican fascist clothing, just like corrupt Hillary Clinton is a radical fascist dressed in Democrat fascist clothing? It's totalitarian turtles all the way up and down. (I also address this "narrative multiplicity" below.) ~ JasonCarswell (talk)

automated wiki editing

Eventually, someone is going to invent software that will replace all current encyclopedias. Not necessarily a conservative AI to edit every entry (or add bias warnings without changing the underlying text), but a way to add any amount of data to any article, from comments and opinions to verified citations, and hide or reveal them as needed. Jack-arcalon (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Future IG MediaWiki code evolution

Is it possible to add content to an Infogalactic page without changing the article text itself? For example, there could be giant lists of Tag:alleged cuckservatives or Tag:alleged far-right extremists or Tag:alleged SJW converged organizations. For all articles on those lists, Infogalactic could add pre-determined text in each case. That way, Forkbot would continue to update the articles to the latest version, which it would not do if this information was added manually. There could be many different lists of attributes, representing many possible texts that could be added to each such article. Jack-arcalon (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

How about the Special:Categories footer section? ~ JasonCarswell (talk)

Is Infogalactic being blocked

I'm getting a

Secure Connection Failed

The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.

error when attempting to access Infogalactic directly, I'm currently editing through a proxy. Is anyone else having these problems, either with Comcast or in general?

Thales (talk)

"problems with inpuitW

Hallo. I am told that there are "problems with inpuitW but not told what they are or why my editing function was switched off. Last contribution was about Jonathan Tampico. I don't think it was libelous. It was all sourced. Petronella (talk)

We had a problem with the hosting company last night. I will look at the other issue. Which pages. -- Crew (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Community Community Community

I like the ideas listed above in #Editing_without_registration, #Hypothetical, and #Future IG MediaWiki code evolution. Until it becomes burdensome you could allow unregistered users to work with an alert for a InfoGalactic moderator to verify on regular basis that the work is at least not vandalism, or even to editorially clean up as necessary. The latter two I address below.

I see several fundamental problems with InfoGalactic:


For InfoGalactic to grow it needs to be about community. (And not just from the right, libertarians, "alt-right", or whatever (I'm referencing the InfoGalactic News list, and if you want to add more progressives, truthers, conspirophiles, indie media, free thinkers, etc. enjoy my list).) We must embrace alternative communities and let them have their say, even if we don't agree, as long as articles are clear about who's perspective is expressed (see Narrative Duality below).

Voting for someone because they aren't the other guy is not good enough. (All the systems are rigged.) So too, working on InfoGalactic because it isn't the rigged and censored Wikipedia simply is not good enough. InfoGalactic needs to be about more. As SolarFringe stated, what is the traffic like? Can you publish stats? Sometimes I wonder if my work will even be here next week. I need to feel secure to dedicate hours to this. I want a future here.

I know there's an InfoGalactic forum out there that I joined but did nothing beyond that. I have absolutely no clue if anything happens there. It should not be off-site. It should be here, somewhere on this site.

InfoGalactic seems to steel its images from Wikipedia who has very robust copyright and copyleft and commons metadata. I'd like to see that here.

Most image hosting sites claim the rights to your work for perpetuity. This is utter bullshit. If I upload my work on their site they claim the right to make T-shirts or sell it or whatever forever. I want a place where I can retain the rights of my designs, illustrations, graphics, etc. and expressly define the copyright or creative commons copyleft of my choosing.

People with photograph collections can batch upload their unimportant files to Facebook or whatever, but if InfoGalactic allowed single files to be uploaded with this type of copyleft you might attract a community of like minds. It's also a step or few away from merchandising - a whole can of worms that might be worth opening.

In particular, the Steemit community might appreciate images here.

For example, I created my own little User:JasonCarswell/gallery of my old artwork mostly from at least a dozen years ago, formerly on my old website. I could easily triple it. And that's not even counting my more recent work that I won't add without proper copyleft accreditation.

Is my gallery allowed? I haven't seen rules against it. Could this be a "selling point" to attract new community members? I can't see why not.

I have one more bigger idea I will express in a whole new section further down, perhaps today or on another day.

Suppression & Omission

When I first wrote it last year it was #3 on Google but a month ago it didn't even show up on Google for several pages and was politically buried while near the top of the first page on DuckDuckGo. I am pleasantly surprised today that it has been unsuppressed:

My Pedophocracy article on InfoGalactic is at #5 on DuckDuckGo.
My Pedophocracy article on InfoGalactic is at #9 on Google.

(I'd been hearing about this oligarch pedo crap and simply wanted to see a list to verify that it was authentically prevalent as claimed. I searched online but found no lists so I made this article and two lists of the "accused" and the "acknowledged".)

My first troubles with Wikipedia started in 2015 with an article I wrote about James Corbett (journalist). They shut that shit down and I moved it to the semi-rational RationalWiki (where it's since been perverted) before I discovered InfoGalactic. My James Corbett article on InfoGalactic on DuckDuckGo is too far down (behind at least 2 RationalWiki links to my old article (which was linked to by The Washington Post via a CIA fake news Prop-Or-Not site)) as it is on Google. Actually it's absent on DuckDuckGo.

Labels & Updates!!!

InfoGalactic needs to clarify and distinguish articles better with labelling and metadata. AND this should be automated somehow by comparing source Wikipedia history.

I've done this manually on this original Tigole article and this forked mirror KickassTorrents article by declaring at the very top in bold with italics...

This is an InfoGalactic original article.
This InfoGalactic article has now forked with new content added on 2018-02-13.
This was a Wikipedia article mirror copied here on 2016-05-31.

While comparing to the source Wikipedia history it makes sense to update the article and images.

An outdated encyclopedia will attract ZERO new users and keeping the encyclopedia current will keep links alive and topics relevant. (Also, Wikipedia is suffering their own problems maintaining their censorship and loosing contributions, expanding less rapidly.)

Narrative Duality (or Multiplicity)

This addresses the #Hypothetical section above.

In addition to various perspectives and historical revisions, there are many ways and layers to getting "woke". This involves knowing the mainstream version and at least one other narrative. A colour coded labeling system might make some of this easier and more clear for newbies and pros alike. (See the image at right I made to start the conversation. The labels don't have to look like those. I can design anything you like if asked.)

Many of the category sections are a mess and many are under utilized. Categories are fine but they're at the foot of the article and we need labels that are far more noticeable and higher on the page like the seriesbox/sidebar that's under the infobox at most article's top right.

It may even be worth locking off articles and/or sections of articles that echo the official corporate media propaganda. For an outdated example of what I'd done in the past you can see at the tops of these articles: InfoGalactic's Pizzagate and the mirrored official story as Pizzagate conspiracy theory.

In another example of narrative duality I simply relabeled a section and added a second narrative section for Milton William Cooper and his Death (according to the "official" Wikipedia version) versus The Actual Circumstances Of Cooper's Death.

Splash Page vs Identity

The layout works. It's almost okay - except it's not original. Maybe InfoGalactic can be similar but not the same. InfoGalactic must become unique.

  • Why not have a little banner statement about who you/we are and why you're here. The Infogalactic:Introduction says nothing and where are we on the Infogalactic:Roadmap that explains absolutely nothing? Technicalities don't count as goals. There is no identity or definition to support - and the pillars and/or cannons don't count.
  • Why not have a statement saying who we want as contributors?
  • Why not be transparent and feature site statistics on the splash page. Traffic, edits, latest edits, number of mirrored, forked, and original articles, etc.
  • There are 5 sections and only 1 is "from Infogalactic News" which is just an aggregation from alternative sources someone selected. I'm not even judging the sources or the selector, but this is not a transparent or democratic process and just some news feed that links off-site and in no way serves the InfoGalactic brand.
  • IF you were able to distinguish between the encyclopedia (filler) mirrored articles and the forked or original articles, say with metadata and labelling, then you'd be able to present InfoGalactic Original content on the splash page.
  • Why not put the "Other areas of Infogalactic" (bottom splash page section) links of the Community portal Galactic boardroom in the giant left hand margin (giant waste of space, would be better as a header) under the InfoGalactic logo.
  • Why not have a video(s) of the day section? You could link YouTube, D-Tube, BitChute, etc. I've seen tonnes and even marked many with A+ A++ and rare A+++ to share one day.

FYI: To whom it may concern. The InfoGalactic logo has transparency issues. If you look at the logo image at right, in my browser with a night filter for eye strain, you can see that there are two "white" bars on either side of the capital "I". These white stripes should be transparent.

Also, the logo to the right and the top left corner is not the same one that is almost half the way up this page at my "#InfoGalactic Logo - a graphics experiment". Up there the top "original" does not have the white bars but it does have a faint white/grey halo around the logo and text like someone using Photoshop selected the white pixels and deleted them for transparency. My "rebuild" has proper transparency around the logo, but the text has the white/grey halo as I simply copied it from the original. If you care, say so, and I can make a screen grab of that with my browser's night filter too.


Also, what's up with "Dark Lord Designs" at ""? I'm atheist and anti-dogmaticist and don't believe in much - but many folks do and Dark Lord simply conjures up Satanist and Luciferian and child sacrifice stuff which will put off many people. It's hardly a cool, edgy or even clever name. If that webstore is a part of InfoGalactic I would change it or find one less alienating. I'm not a prude, but potential InfoGalaxians might be.

(Full disclosure: I like/d wicked breakbeats and my nickname is/was Sunshine so I had from about 2000-2010 where I had my graphic portfolio and 9-11 truther stuff, but I wasn't near as woke as I am now regarding so much about conspiracies, false flags and hoaxes, Hegelian dialectics, historical revision, the climate scam, NWO, BIS, The Process Church, etc.)

Sorry Not Sorry

This spiel got longer than intended but I'd been saving it up. I think these are important ideas and may hopefully helpful. Please respond below.

~ JasonCarswell (talk)

RE: Labels & Updates

I am...reluctant. First, there's a faint whiff of narcissism about them, secondly, they "name the competition" (which savvy marketing gurus advise against), and thirdly, any article mirror will be instantly dated by the "hat" tag. -- Let's just concentrate on making a kick-ass encyclopedia that bores in on the truth and makes the l'il piggies squeal.-- Froglich (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Please expand upon you reluctance. Either it is well founded, can be explained away, will land between or is something else.
InfoGalactic's foundations and backbone are outdated articles borrowed/stolen/liberated from Wikipedia. There is no shame in that unless you want there to be. If Wikipedia was authentically a "free encyclopedia" (removed from their bookmarks last year around election time) that legitimately represented all views there'd be no need for InfoGalactic. We need to include that in the InfoGalactic identity and brand. Not only that, but InfoGalactic needs to be clear about how it's different that Wikipedia so people will actually want to use it verses the globalist empire's mouthpiece. We must win over hearts and minds for the resistance. If we aren't different, proud (narcissistic?), and worth joining, then why bother?
Every "hat tag" (I really like your/this term) could state something to this effect to explain and justify not only the purpose of the hat tag but also of InfoGalactic.
The graphics can be anything you want. Ignore them if you think they are narcissistic.
I don't know which marketing gurus you're talking to. As a rule of thumb perhaps. This is a very different situation than selling cars, and often it's good to name the competition if you want to put yourself in their league. (I highly recommend watching The Gruen Transfer, a brilliant funny Australian show about the advertising industry and the art of persuasion. One episode goes into this some. (I've been a professional animator across North America for almost 30 years.))
Again, the foundation and backbone of InfoGalactic is the format, structure, and tomb of Wikipedia. Pretending otherwise is delusional. Denying it is irrational. Embracing it is... let's not get carried away. It is what it is. Until it isn't, when all the articles are forked or original and independent.
Yes! Every mirror should be dated by the hat tag! People should know how potentially outdated the content is. It's no different that reading any article elsewhere. New York Times articles on Bill Gates from 1998 or 2008 or 2018 are very different. I wouldn't call it dishonest or even obscurantist, but dating the article adds further transparency and an authentic effort towards legitimacy. We must not shrink from our flaws and weaknesses, but point them out to find solutions, or at least be aware and cautious of them.
There's likely someone better than I am at categorizing and nomenclature that can develop our hat tags. It would be better that someone who knows better where all the effort on InfoGalactic is taking place so it can be better labelled. I've only written a few random articles. (So far from what I understand many of the InfoGalactic people are alternative right (not in the corporate media pejorative alt-right sense, nor in the mainstream retarded right). I'm more of a conspirophile anarchist progressive alternative left (not in the corporate media pejorative alt-left, nor the insane SJW or feminazi, or even the mainstream corporate corrupt democratic retarded left) and haven't seen any of that represented here, though I haven't looked. That said, though I'm for the Green Party, I'd rather vote for anti-war Ron Paul than sheepdog Bernie Sanders, though either would be superior to what's going on now.)
I'm all for making a kick-ass encyclopedia of truth. My unfinished mess of a Truther article draft was censored on Wikipedia. I don't care about squealing piggies except to expose them as they culturally engineer their Machiavellian corrupt rigged systems to rob, exploit, inflict suffering, and exterminate the masses and planet. (Though if you don't mind, please show me / link to how you make them squeal?)
I think we, InfoGalactic, should embrace our "heritage"/origins as well as declare/pronounce/market our differences that make us unique and proudly proclaim that InfoGalactic is the Wikipedia fork that is actually free from corporatocracy censorship, and where they have failed we can succeed, presenting diverse and varied viewpoints.
~ JasonCarswell (talk)
I think hat-tags (Wikipedia term for bracketed codes that generate links and so forth at the tops of articles) are, save when purely functional, gaudy. (Having a slick and professional "manual of style" is the one thing they really got right over there before the SJWs flood-filled in thought-police Gestapo'd the crap out of it.) Imagine how awful Wikipedia would look if all of its articles had those 8-bit eyesores slathered over everything. Well, they're not going to look any better over here.
As far as dating goes, it's a bad idea so long as we have fewer editors. Why? Because it is the reflexive consideration (rightly or wrongly) of the average user who lands here from a search-engine to assume that a wiki with the most recent edits is "better" just because they are more recent and presumably therefore comprehensive. If the average Wikipedia article is edited once or more times per day and the average Infogalactic article is edited much less frequently, it's tantamount to proclaiming that one's articles are "obsolete" if we date the article at the top. (So in other words, I argue that we should not date the articles via hat-tag as a tactic to make them seem "just as fresh" as the other place's.)
"...I'd rather vote for anti-war Ron Paul than sheepdog Bernie Sanders..." --They all lead to the same place; struggling just makes you sink deeper into the tar.--Froglich (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I grant you my 8-bit hat tag designs are obviously not perfect or they would have been instantly adopted. That's why I'm trying to discuss them here. Thanks for engaging me. The design can be anything functional. The red-yellow-green idea is simple and clear. My design was just for starting this conversation and can be redesigned by me, you, or anyone, assuming we agree they are as necessary as I do. I profoundly believe the function is very important and perhaps critical to distinction/branding, clarity/functionality, and potential thriving of InfoGalactic.
The function of the mirror-fork-original hat tags is to clarify to everyone what content they are reading. This is the ultimate citation for this mirror/copied encyclopedia (not plagiarized (though without the article's history accreditation is sketchy)). It may also help (us) promote any forked and/or original work. The rest of this encyclopedia is necessary (temporary) mirrored filler to avoid dead links until the mirrored articles can be updated with new information including bias clarifications and declarations (aka multiple narratives/perspectives).
Wikipedia doesn't need those hat tags because:
  1. they aren't mirroring/plagiarizing/forking anything.
  2. they rarely acknowledge various viewpoints nor admit biases.
  3. they already have their own graphics (and some are 8-bit) with an established aesthetic that InfoGalactic is unoriginal and simply copying. (InfoGalactic could do something distinctive as simple as making the background a faint yellow/creme colour so folks won't mistake it for the white/grey Wikipedia. I picked yellow/creme as an example because it's not politically red or blue or purple nor will it clash with the hyperlinks of those colours.)
  4. they are established and don't need to distinguish themselves from any "competition". (We could have a banner that welcomes alt-right, alt-left, truthers, conspirophiles, historical revisionists, etc (edit this list as you see fit) to clarify the purpose and justify the existence of InfoGalactic.)
The date is debatable about it's necessity. A date is simply functionally utilitarian on many levels, like on news articles, and more in the coding besides. A date does not have to be in the hat tag and can be separated, though I think it's better together. It could be off to the side over, inside, or under the infobox. Some articles are years old. (If anyone cares, I think Wikipedia should also feature a "last edited on..." as well.) At a glance it would save anyone from having to check the history. Sometimes the date matters, sometimes not - depending on the topic. I mention it because this is something that can be automated, as can the mirror/fork detection and updating process - should anyone with the coding skills apply this. This is important only on those subjective articles that matter - so I won't dwell further on this.
Anyone who lands on InfoGalactic is NOT looking for the Wikipedia narrative and will not shuffle on due to an old date. This is a straw man. Anyone who thinks new is always better has real money and/or shops at Walmart and avoids antiques, vintage stores, and yard sales - and they don't know much about research. You've therefore presumed the comprehensiveness. Many of Wikipedia's articles have been improved and then savagely cut back. The 9/11 Truther Movement is perpetually undergoing revisions and "defensive" revisions on WP. I rescued Lionel (radio personality) from the butchers at WP (Lionel_(radio_personality)), though I have yet to update it. (What does WP mean by "Authority Control" near the bottom?) Sometimes older versions are better.
I haven't run across SJWs on Wikipedia as I don't read whatever they'd be pushing, but it doesn't surprise me as it's choking the MSM they cite. But I have seem them shut down "truthers", myself being one. You are certainly correct - they got their "manual of style" down pat. I'm trying to help ours here.
I laughed reading your voting link. I'm going to read it again. I'm Canadian and can't vote for Ron or Bernie. Voting is a joke anyway. "If voting were effective it'd be illegal." I won't bother mentioning the Princeton study proving the people's voices are irrelevant, the left-right paradigm and the Overton window, the two major (war) business parties are literally the absolute minimum number of parties (one away from being a one party state like China) when there's 37 brands of cereal, voter registration nonsense, striking votes, vote disposals, vote tampering, multiple voting, dead voters, gerrymandering, super paks, super delegates, rigging from top to bottom, corruption, secret societies and boardrooms, Zionist infiltration, inverted totalitarianist corporatocracy, Vegas slots are more regulated than Diebold machines, Greg Palast, that the tax and voting forms should merge for taxation with authentic representation, or that they should just block chain the whole fucking thing. Oops, I guess I just did.
I'd like to hear yours or anyone's thoughts on re-branding or improving the InfoGalactic brand to distinguish it from WP in order to attract more folks.
~ JasonCarswell (talk)
InfoGalactic (or any other wiki) is not going to distinguish itself from Wikipedia via "branding"; it will distinguish itself by its content, which is to say by not only not being a politically-correct de facto propaganda ministry, but by having an internal control structure designed for immunity to O'Sullivan's Law operational from the word 'go'. -- That's why I am here. Truthfully, it is the only reason I am here, the only reason I suspect most others are here, and it is the reason the site was created in the first place. The InfoGalatic mast icon is the only brand it needs.--Froglich (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response.
By "branding" I don't mean advertising or anything flashy (unless you want that for some reason). I mean definition and distinction.
An example of a simple subtle distinction would be a cream background would be slightly different than the Wikipedia grey background. I don't understand why you wouldn't want to distinguish InfoGalactic from Wikipedia in a visual manner. I also don't understand why you wouldn't want to declare that InfoGalactic is different by some clear definition.
By definition I mean what is InfoGalactic all about. Aside from hints here and there, until your little paragraph above I had no idea where anyone was coming from on here.
Because of those previous hints, I've often stated that I lean left, but try to also point out that I often lean right, yet mostly lean away towards anarchism. All of these are impossible ideals worth striving for, yet none of these will work, and only balance is necessary and sadly lacking. By stating this I don't think I've alienated anyone as there isn't much "community" here I'm aware of, as the sparseness of this page attests.
I can't say if the SJWs have bastardized the articles on toasters, water skiing, or ceramic excavations, but there are probably apolitical articles about that here. They probably don't have date issues of any significance. They also won't likely have any "distinguishing content". I certainly haven't seen any distinguishing content on here, other than your links or my little efforts.
However, just now I searched for Russiagate and had to link it to my old June 2017 untouched Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article, a variation on the Wikipedia official narrative (another example of dual narratives). Sad. Sad, for a right site (that it wasn't updated).
That O'Sullivan's Law is an interesting extreme article with an unmistakable biased perspective within which it may be correct though not declared, but is actually quite flawed from other perspectives or criticisms of which there are none.
I agree SJWs have become ludicrous. So to with the right and the idle sheeple center and the anarchists who don't realize many need their tribalism and papa/nanny state. We're all be culturally engineered to fight each other while elites get away with murderous wars and vampirically suck the heart out of humanity.
Far above any identity politics or tribal leanings I think of myself as a truther, historical revisionist, and a conspirophile sifting through everything to find the most rational ideas. After I was censored on Wikipedia for being another "polite truther" I first became aware of InfoGalactic when another truther showed me where I could be free. I haven't seen any other truthers here since, nor much of anyone, but this trutherism is why I'm here. I'm certain others might come if we made them welcome, and at least distinguished IG from WP even a little. Do you know of other "tribes" on IG or is it only right wing folks. (Please forgive me if I'm not politically correct. I don't know any alt-right or right wing folks so I don't know what you/they like to be called, and I don't mean any of this in a pejorative or sarcastic manner. On occasion I watch RedIce on YouTube and other stuff, but not enough to be hip to the jargon.)
Clearly I'm not a complete idiot, yet I am still unclear about InfoGalactic's identity, or yours for that matter. Are you an administrator? Do you speak for IG? I'm not challenging you, I'm just asking because I simply don't know. If you are, perhaps you could rewrite some of the pillar/canons to include more information because they are so non-descript that they really demand "rebranding". I almost feel like InfoGalactic is intentionally bland to avoid detection or something, or maybe that's just my tinfoil hat talking.
I have a proposal and project I'm drafting to pitch the IG team. I haven't explained it yet so don't let your imagination go wild - it's not a big deal. But it's because of this I want to know more about this right wing stuff, if IG is stable and has a future, if IG is a good place for my concept, and if the IG team would mind it, and/or others like it. Soon to be explained...
~ JasonCarswell (talk)


What do you folks think of Metapedia? For better or worse, here are some other takes:

I ask because I'm curious to know how InfoGalactic folks, whether speaking for themselves or IG, think of Metapedia, how they might be similar or different.

I generally lean classic "lefty" (not this new SJW or Hillary insanity) but I believe Carbon Tax is a scam dependent on climate change hysteria. Pollution is a problem and so is secret geoengineering (chemtrails). I think that Olympic switched names with the Titanic and it was sunk for an insurance scam while also taking out 3 billionaires leading the way to the Federal Reserve, Income Tax, and World War 1 and it's sequel. Also, sitting empty in the middle of the Atlantic, the California, empty but for 3000 life jackets and blankets failed to catch the rescue signal and it turned into a greater tragedy, by legit accident. To my final point, the Holocaust as we've been told - only since the 1970's - is a scam. I love Jews as much as anyone, ex-girlfriends, relatives, coworkers, bosses, etc. I don't give a fuck. And Arabs, including Palestinians, are legit Semitic too. Many Euro-Jews aren't Semitic. It's the Zionists in Washington and Israel, as well as banks and Hollywood, that I despise. I like my fellow Canadians fine, but I despise the Canadian government, like all governments and "leaders". So too, Hitler was a bad guy as all leaders are but he certainly wasn't what they make him out to be. In fact, Stalin and Mao killed far more folks and as a person who admires many Marxist ideas, they disgust me. Stalinism is not Leninism is not Marxism. But I digress. The Holocaust is a scam for German "reparations". I'm not denying that there were work camps that enslaved Jews as well as Black people, Gay people, journalists, artists, anarchists, dissidents, criminals, etc. but you don't have museums for them in every state. And you don't have Native American Indian museums all across Europe collecting money in the name of Genocide (though I think Native Americans, Asians, and Black communities certainly deserve reparations, more support, and fewer jails). The 6 million number is pure fiction from the 1800s and is actually less than 200k. The number is also impossible to have achieved (simply do a search for "Holocaust math"). The gassing is impractical inefficient terror-fiction. Burning the bodies is ridiculously wasteful in the crisis war time when fuel was short. And the guards were as skinny as the prisoners because the food supply lines were strategically cut. To top it all off, it's illegal to investigate the alleged Holocaust in many countries (because they want to suppress the truth). Sorry this turned into a rant but there is a need for counter-Zionist propaganda narrative corrections. Cultural engineering has us all flinching about everything. Women deserve equal pay but no one talks about how 93% of workplace deaths (and injuries?) are men. I refuse to be shamed because I'm a white male with all the privileges that other people attach to that ignoring the down sides. I also refuse to be proud that I'm white, male and/or Canadian because I had nothing to do with that and did not earn it in order to be "proud". I am far from supreme but I'm not the opposite either. I like every Jew I've met but I despise Machiavellian Zionism. I am a Green anarcho-progressive and I like good Marxist ideas as well as good ideas from the Right, but above all I like reason and truth and new ideas. ~ JasonCarswell (talk)

On other wikis

I would personally be OK with a merger of Infogalactic, Conservapedia, and Metapedia if it would triple the number of contributors. Some articles would need to clearly list their various viewpoint and bias levels, as already planned for Infogalactic.Jack-arcalon (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please tell me/us all more about these bias viewpoint plans.
I'd never heard of Conservapedia. Metapedia has the better name. InfoGalactic was a bad choice.
As I've said before, the left and right are nuts and I'm nuts in different directions - I'm far Green, far Voluntaryist, and an Anti-Establishment Conspirophile. Would these "extremist" views be welcome here on IG and/or any merger? Also, how could/would you become more transparent here on IG and/or a merger so that folks would know it's legit free speech with open management (Unlike Wikipedia or Quora, where you have to bash your head against their walls before discovering how utterly rigged and censored they are.) ~ JasonCarswell (talk)
I don't have the details, but I understand that software is currently in development.
But it may not even be necessary.
Right now, all it takes to create a biased version of an existing article is to list the bias in the title itself.
So if someone wanted to create a left-wing version of the Trump article, they would only have to create "Donald_Trump_(left-wing interpretation)", or some similar title like that.
Jack-arcalon (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Like Russiagate verses Russiagate, official narrative, (reality vs Wikipedia echoing MSM's myth), assuming people are actually admitting their biases, much less including them in hat tags or article titles.
Without sounding too much like Bill Clinton (assuming that is his real birth name) trying to parse what the definition of "is" is, it's actually important to reclaim words and doublethink from MSM perversion and clearly define political stances. What is "left-wing"? Hillary Clinton is a corporate Democrat (like Barack Obama who admits his policies are right of center and Nancy Pelosi who craps on socialism because the USA is a capitalist society), a party that is bought and paid for and designed to fail preferring to lose to Republicans than adopt progressive social ideas. Hillary is in the left-wing party of the oligarchs' inverted totalitarian corporatocracy. Even Democrat Bernie Sanders claims to support many progressive policies as a sheepdog and social relief valve, yet he didn't fight the WikiLeaks proven corrupt biased rigging of Debbie Wasserman Schultz (who was scandalously forced to resign) when it was most critical, and he still supports all the wars - so he's not a legit representation for the people. He's the lesser of three evils. The news dynamic silence tactic kept The Green Party's Jill Stein and Ralph Nader as well as Ron Paul and The Libertarian Party suppressed, demonized, or absent from real debates, and she was even illegally detained handcuffed off-stage to prevent her from debating.
I think I'm "progressive" but I'm not 100% sure what all that entails. I despise SJWs and 3rd Wave Feminists and Hillary who may have claimed she's progressive but everything she says is a lie. They may call themselves "left" or even "progressive" but many won't.
The MSM can't even define what "collusion" is nor provide any proof of it.
So-called "fake news" is a brilliant turd. What is "fake"? Does it mean lying or made up or misinformation or disinformation or false or synthetic or... It's an excuse for censorship used supremely by Trump, inadequately by MSM, and Orwellian-ly by Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc (all deep state funded and connected) to censor any fucking thing they want... including InfoGalactic.
Wikipedia is very organized under their "neutral" official narrative. InfoGalactic is not as organized with a greater challenge with so many views. I guess that's the burden of freedom.
~ JasonCarswell (talk)
I used to read AlterNet a lot between 2004 and 2010 before I found other stuff and changed life patterns. They feature(d) stuff from all perspectives which I really liked. They're now under heavy attack. If you ever choose to fuse encyclopedias with a new name, I would avoid "Altpedia" which might alienate people avoiding the Alt-Right or Alt-Left but I would seriously consider "Alterpedia" or "Alternapedia" to alter history for the better. Alt may or may not be a good word but alternative media embraces the full word. And AlterNet's brand is so strong among those who've heard of it that I wouldn't worry about mistaken affiliations. ~ JasonCarswell (talk)

Cultural Authoritarianism

Maybe you folks can help me. I despise Cultural Marxism for many reasons. I want to bring your attention to the name/title/term/nomenclature. Why wasn't it called Cultural Authoritarianism, Cultural Totalitarianism, or Cultural Communism? Or even Cultural Fascism if you take the contemporary perverted defininition of fascism being about an evil violent dictatorship. It's as stupid as punching Nazis, becoming the thing you think you hate. I am not an expert on Marx but much of it I really like - with balance. (Marxism and socialism have many examples of oligarch rigged perversions communism or a bloated US military or militarized police force waging wars on drugs or in nations that the majority of citizens don't want much less want to be forced to support under threat of violence.) I like Yanis Varoufakis, though he fails to acknowledge the "New World Order" stuff above the governments. I really enjoy Richard D. Wolff and everything he says, especially about worker cooperatives/worker directed enterprises which IMHO is a decent regional decentralized solution to many of our problems the Neoliberals don't want the public to ever have. This tinfoil hat thinking also leads me to believe we're being culturally engineered to have a negative view of Marxism by this negative association to Cultural Marxism, a very different concept. On a grander scale this utterly retarded SJW crap from "lefties" is nonsense to any normal rational person on the left, right, or libertarian angle and if some people are alienated by this Neo-Left insanity that weakens the rational left, greens, progressives, etc that may have legitimate viewpoints and some good ideas - not to mention a much needed counter balance to the Overton window and other things going too far right too quickly. I also really enjoy Jordan B. Peterson and everything he says, even if I don't agree with it all. (Topically I do like this video[1] particularly at 1:52:50.) The point is, all the the centralized powers of banksters, the Washington consensus, Zionists, the Vatican, City of London, BIS, etc... not to mention socialism/communism, fascism/corporatocracy, inverted totalitarian capitalism... they all lead to totalitarianism of one sort or another. And I see that is what much of this SJW Cultural Marxism crap is about, plus the Hegelian dialectic and that as long as we're all punching down on the weaker minorities or fighting each other about whatever they trigger us with, then we're not fighting the elites who are exploiting and orchestrating all us debt slaves with their cultural engineering. Thoughts...? ~ JasonCarswell (talk)

Very little makes sense until one understands, at the macro-level, the class structure of America.--Froglich (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I like that. "Looters" is a kind way of putting it. I prefer to think of the obscenely rich as the protected spoiled hyper-exploitative war-happy extinction-enabling psychopath kakistocracy of polished tribal turds. ~ JasonCarswell (talk)
Follow the links in that article. Don't let yourself get dragged around by narrative-pushers. (In other words, attend to Francisco d'Anconia's quote on the sidebar in that looter's link from the class structure article, and also follow its Shadow Party link. Put the 2-and-2 together, and now come back and see how you're using the phrase "obscenely rich" in the preceding post. -- You're a fish on a hook, and they're making you flop just the way they like. Everybody: Get off your hook!) --Froglich (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Speak more clearly. What's wrong with calling them obscenely rich? Whether they inherited it or "earned" it in entirely rigged systems they wrote the rules for with unfair justice systems for the lower classes and barely any consequences for the elite class. Don't punch down on the weak, disabled, minorities, immigrants, "lazy" folks who can't afford "bootstraps", etc. That's easy and cowardly - and exactly what "they" want - us fighting each other - anyone but them. Punch up at the elite-rigged systems and their operators that oppresses us. ~ JasonCarswell (talk)
You request I speak more clearly, yet hinge upon undefined terms "them" and "they". --These are Ambiguous Collectives. You're using English words, but the dictionaries are so bloated with variant definitions that it's impossible to understand what you're railing against. "Obscene"? According to whom? Why is their opinion relevant? Envy? That's not a reason. The man who builds a better mousetrap should get rich. "...unfair justice system...." --well now you're talking government, and that's a different animal entirely.
Again, follow the links. It's all there.--Froglich (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Almost a nice point about "them" and "they" except I said they are "the obscenely rich" with their rigged systems. I am not envious of them - at all. "They" are the monsters who orchestrate wars, keep people in Venezuela starving, and the recent $160b addition to the defense budget could pay for all American health care AND free college. "They" are fucking us all over royally. I could spew speculative shit about the New World Order or the Illuminati or the Builderbergers but all of that is rumour of secret places we'll never know substantiated by cultural events and patterns that are undeniable yet obscured by the fog of plausible deniability and backroom proprietary knowledge. Instead of those mysterious vague associations I'll simply point to the corporatocracy in plain sight. Bill Clinton deregulated everything to set us up for the media monopoly, the financial disparity, prison industrial complex, etc... Jeff Bezos of got some CIA contract for $600m and bought the WaPo for $200m, and he's on the Pentagon board. Who needs enemies when you're in an inverted totalitarian oligarchy?
A dying man crawls out of the desert and another man with a water bottle stands over him. He has the "right" to not help his fellow man, but morally he's a monster if he doesn't.
I'm not against getting rich. Equality is nonsense. I'm for fairness, in most things. I despise government, but realize that Anarchy is a noble but impossible goal because there will always be tribal people. That's fine and a balance is necessary, and I don't care whatever the society of the day wants for government, big or small, I just want it better. But our voices have never counted.
How was I letting myself be "dragged around by narrative-pushers"?
~ JasonCarswell (talk)

YouTube Censorship of February 2018

This is not good... In Sept 2016 they started wide soft censorship based on polices from Jan 2016 and people have suffered demonetizations since. After the Vegas "shooting" thing they censored a lot temporarily. With this recent Florida school shooting they've ramped up the censorship another notch by banning conversations, low-traffic video producers, and some popular truther channels, like the UK's Rickie Allen Show, which was generally neutral but featured progressive, alt-right, and lots of truther topics (DuckDuckGo search Richie Allen Show YouTube censorship). If they clip off low-traffic users before they can build an audience then we're back at the legacy paradigm of establishment domination under the cultural engineering "official" narratives. If they aren't already, they'll start throttling InfoGalactic too. ~ JasonCarswell (talk)