Infogalactic:Galactic boardroom/Archive 01
- 1 Pictures
- 2 Test thread
- 3 A modest proposal
- 4 Categories not working
- 5 Censored alternative media category
- 6 Delay in creating account
- 7 Guidelines for sourcing
- 8 "This article's content derived from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia"
- 9 LGBT categories
- 10 Catholic blog "Nightwind777" publishes false information about InfoGalactic
- 11 Have Keyboard, Will Program
- 12 Ping Wish
- 13 For Name's Sake
- 14 InfoGalactic Censorship Transparency
- 15 Dealing with Varied Viewpoints
- 16 AD/BC vs. CE/BCE
- 17 Main Page ?
- 18 Steemit & Gab & Mind
- 19 Some red errors
- 20 Article Origins Banner
There seems to be a problem with some images from wikipedia not showing?
Also would like a button to sign our name in talk pages. Maybe a button for references and fast templates (e.g. chembox).
- Most likely that will be implemented, I'm not aware of the specific steps being taken, but IG's plan is to eventually update the software. In the meantime you can sign just by typing four tildes (<nowiki>Tears of Ovid (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)<nowiki>).Tears of Ovid (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
In the long run, I think anytime a webpage is linked (e.g. in a reference), Infogalatic should automatically snapshot the page and link it. Archive.org doesn't capture everything. Hydrargyruum (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
A modest proposal
The Wiki framework does not currently lend itself to BB-style communications where people can post thoughts and ideas in a stream-of-consciousness fashion. (Only joking about that last part.)
That is because if the encumberances:
- You have to click the Edit button above
- You have to add a new section or reply to an existing posting by using other markup ...
- It doesn't provide useful ways to follow conversations other than scrolling down the page
- The old stuff has to be archived in some way
- Other reasons.
However, if we:
- Used a separate namespace (The PanGalacticTalk pages or something), which keeps it separate from the main naamespace and allows the code to do different things (although it might not be simple)
- Wrote some separate PHP for handling such pages we might be able to provide some interesting benefits.
Here, I think we would provide post-new-message and reply buttons and a few other UI niceties to make it easier to handle the BB style of communication while retaining Wiki markup (if that is a benefit) so that you could easily link to existing articles and so forth.
The biggest issue here is that this will take effort to produce. Design work and development that must fit into the existing framework. TANSTAAFL.
However, at the moment, I'm all out of thoughts, why can't I have more?! -Crew 17:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- That I agree with, that's why I proposed an off-site message board in the meantime for more streamlined communication, but the ideas above definitely intrigue me.Tears of Ovid (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I noticed an edit by one of the editors from wikipedia showed up on Amy Grant. I cannot remember if some of my edits went away since the last time I went there and somehow the edits I did reverted back to what it was when I first opened it. I am assuming that there are basic articles from Wikipedia that show up when a new (for Infogalactic) subject is searched. Is there a way to lock an article to only open what has previously been edited by Infogalactic?
- I'm not sure on that one; InfoGalactic is a 'fork' of Wikipedia so the original Wikipedia versions of the articles have been transferred here, but I wasn't aware that the edits by WP editors would show up in the history. As far as the dates, I'm not totally sure on that one, but IG was founded on October 2016 I believe, so anything showing up after that date should be IG edits rather than WP edits.Tears of Ovid (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Crew: Using wiki syntax for discussions has always been a stupid idea. I prefer a threaded talk page so that multiple conversations can be carried out with ease. Whitebeard (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Categories not working
I've noticed that new categories which are created are not showing any pages under them even after they've been added to pages, such as an "alleged murder victims" category I added to Tom Clancy and a few other pages.-- Tears of Ovid (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, so there is a saga here. I noticed this a while ago when someone tried to set up a category the wrong way. Then I found out categories were not working and investigated and spent a whole weekend looking into it. It's on the back burner at the moment. Needs work. --Crew (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Censored alternative media category
Hi, I noticed a new category on articles like David Seaman referring to "censored alternative media".
Was just curious what IG's definition of censored is going to be; just hoping that we can come up with a factual definition which won't end up just becoming POV. (e.x. Censored by a certain country? Disinvited from a certain news network?). Thanks.Tears of Ovid (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hey. I "rescued" that article from Wikipedia before they deleted it. While I don't agree with everything David Seaman says, I don't think he should be censored/deleted. The Corbett Report and James Corbett (journalist) were likewise deleted and rejected. (Full disclosure: I wrote the JC article, which included some TCR article material - both censored from Wikipedia for being "fringe".) Also, compare the Lionel (radio personality) article which is mostly the same as it was on Wikipedia before they recently butchered it. I think I created the "censored alternative media" category and likely some others to throw against the wall to see what sticks. This one in particular I am passionate about and feel we should celebrate not censoring or being censored. All ideas, good or bad, not equal but fairly should be on the table for all to determine for themselves. There's a long history of censored media that deserves acknowledgement. I don't know if this helps much. To your point, I don't think a definition for the category is necessary so long as the article mentions a time, event, or instance of censorship (and mention alternative/independent media) - thus the category. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Delay in creating account
There is a noticeable delay (measured in hours) between the time the email confirmation is done and a password is sent. I received the password after performing a reset ("Forgot password") and providing my email address (system did not recognize my user name).
Perhaps the user account creation is a manual process to better deal with trolls and spammers, and hence the delay. In that case, the confirmation message should provide some kind of warning about the delay to assure the user.
- Sorry, are you talking about receiving account confirmation after submitting your 'resume'? Right now accounts have to be manually approved by the administrators, so do you mean something else?--Tears of Ovid (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I received a confirmation email which said: "If the account is created, only you will be emailed the password."
- But nothing happened for the next two hours. I then tried a password reset and got a temporary password via email.
- Perhaps my reset action and the manual approval occurred near-simultaneously.
- I suggest that the confirmation email explain that the account creation process is manual and that the user should be patient. Otherwise, the absence of any indication creates unnecessary doubt regarding the successful creation of the account; moreso when the email uses "if" as opposed to "when." Whitebeard (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Guidelines for sourcing
I understand that IG wants to avoid Wikipedia's 'reliable sources' model which can be gamed in favor of discreting sources which are "non-mainstream" regardless of whether the content is factual or not. Was curious if IG's staff had any other ideas for sourcing guidelines without it being overly-rigid; I guess I'm leaning toward the view that there needs to be some level of filtering to prevent anyone from just coming here and linking their favorite blog or clickbait website as a source.
Maybe some guidelines for establishing notability based on Alexa or Google rankings, or the identity of the originator of the content; I'm just brainstorming here--Tears of Ovid (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would go with best effort for now as there aren't many contributors. Once the Fact/Opinion demarcation process is initiated, sourcing can be figured out. Whitebeard (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
"This article's content derived from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia"
This is a false declaration in case of new pages created here (such as Avian (JVM)). Is this general CYA legalese or can this be tuned on a per article basis? Whitebeard (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Will reply later in more detail but we are trying to fix that.
I'm thinking the categories should eventually be renamed (e.x. homosexual, bisexual, transgender) since not all homo, bi, etc people identify with the "LBGT community"; the way these categories are worded does seem to be conflating LGBT identity politics with homosexuality itself, so this could definitely use correcting in the future.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Tears of Ovid
"Community" cannot be forced upon anyone. However, that is precisely what identity politics is about: categorizing, branding and dividing people.
So, yes, use LGBT only for those who identify as part of said community or claim to act on behalf of said community. Everyone else is to be referred to according to what they believe their sexual orientation is. Whitebeard (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Catholic blog "Nightwind777" publishes false information about InfoGalactic
So I came across this blog, apparently written by a conservative Catholic woman, and unfortunately it seems full of misinformation and generalizations about IG and Beale.
Seems she's somehow associated Beale with the "pick-up artist" community and objects to its reductive views on women and sex, and is therefore trying to mischaracterize the entire IG project as just a Wikipedia for "pickup artists", or "game cultists" as she calls them.
What's extremely naive of her is how she seems to blindly trust that Wikipedia is "unbiased", especially coming from a person who is conservative and Christian.
I responded to her misinformation and also gave her examples of Wikipedia's flawed community, such as how the articles on homosexuality omitted many sources from professionals which didn't tie in with the narrative of it being completely biological and immutable. As well as the fact that Wikipedia has employed a convicted felon, and a 'pedophilia-tolerant' board member.
I also pointed out that Vox/Beale is not a pickup artist and that sexual promiscuity goes against his Christian beliefs from what I've heard of him; I'm aware he's interested in some theoretical aspects of evopsych (which some "PUAs" hock sort of a 'dumbed down version' of), but that's of course just guilt by association, not much different than saying that Donald Trump is a fascist because some "Nazi internet troll" likes him.
But she ignored me and just deleted some of my comments... sigh.
- Religion does not automatically bestow anyone with intelligence, wisdom, or a healthy dose of skepticism. I found this Night Wind when I was looking for more information on Infogalactic and that particular blogpost is idiotic and very SJWish. My thoughts: "Only if you are building an SJWpedia". Whitebeard (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Right, I just think it's pretty sad that a "conservative" is whitewashing Wikipedia despite it's pro-LGBT bias, and reputation for having staff and editors who promote 'pedophillia acceptence', yet slandering this entire website just because of a supposed tie to "pickup artists" which is actually pretty fictitious to begin with. (Other than a post about evolutionary psychology I don't think Vox has ever had anything to do with the PUA subculture).
Have Keyboard, Will Program
- Send email to CarbrorundumCrew@infogalactic.com ...
- Address not found
- Your message wasn't delivered because the address CarbrorundumCrew@infogalactic.com couldn't be found. Check for typos or unnecessary spaces and try again.
- Hi, you can email me and I can forward it to Crew. firstname.lastname@example.org--Tears of Ovid (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have my own personal ToDo list on my Userpage which includes some template ideas if anyone's interested. I am not a coder but might take up that up in order to make it happen. However, I am a professional graphic designer and animator and would be glad to design icons, buttons, badges, or banners specifically for InfoGalactic, templates, or other uses. I'd also really like to clean up the existing wobbly IG logo, if I could, and if you would point me to the best or largest version of the logo image (an SVG?). ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
For Name's Sake
Hi gang. I'm thrilled there's a group discussion area. But Village Pump sounds like the Town Whore. Is there any chance of changing the name to something else?
- community brainstorm
- community center
- community chat
- community discussion
- community forum
- community hall
- community mingle
- community roundtable
- community soapbox
- community square
- community symposium
- community water cooler
- galactic brainstorm
- galactic forum
- galactic roundtable
- town square
- cosmic brain trust
- pitch & bitch
- Yes, we can think of an original name for it, sure.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- I really dig "Galactic boardroom". Well played. --Activedecay (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed, much better. "Village pump" conjures up images of gossipy crones in backwards areas without indoor plumbing. Also, the Wiki picture was inaccurate- that was a bucket for an unpressurized dug well, not a pumped well. Rectified (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
InfoGalactic Censorship Transparency
I discovered that "Want To Know.info" (without spaces) is site-blocked. It looks good. I thought it was a good site. I've never read anything there nor have I delved into it, so I'll change my opinion with good reason. Please let me know why it's blocked.
That said, it seems to me, if you really want an opensource transparent community, it makes sense to make the block-list available, either to be seen and discussed and edited, or simply edited but monitored. Also, it would be nice to have the link-block warning refer to the black-list.
It would be nice to have non-article things like this in a list (perhaps large), something like a site-map, so a perusal may be an option to the search tool if you don't know what it's called, and for general knowledge sake.
- I do not know why that site is blocked. I will have to look into site-blocking. There is probably a table in the database for that. I will get back to you. Sorry for the delay. --Crew (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Dealing with Varied Viewpoints
I have read Infogalactic:Seven_Canons, infogalactic:roadmap, and infogalactic:editors'_guidelines. It seems that the future vision for this wiki is that pages will have three levels -- "factual", "context", and "opinion" levels. And that within these three levels, there will be some kind of "preference filtering" provided through which you can choose to see information from different viewpoints. We do not have those technical features yet, but in the here and now we still have vastly different viewpoints. And, just as the wikipedia admins' viewpoints come out in their tone-policing of articles, I think some of the edits we are doing today are doing are also "tone policing" -- but instead of enforcing perhaps an SJW viewpoint we might be enforcing another non-mainstream viewpoint. My question is -- how are we to to deal with the question of content selection, organization, and tone as we write and edit articles today?
I read in the Editors' Guidelines "Do not use weasel words. Make direct and correct statements. Do not use words that suggest that you, the author, do not believe the claims." I also read "Do include a criticism section where appropriate." Does that mean that the general directive is to approach each article in a positive manner, and reserve criticism for a dedicated section near the end of the page? How should we deal with differences in viewpoint relating to the general content and tone of an article?
On wikipedia, the admins ultimately enforce their point of view I suppose. But here, it seems that the goal is to allow both sides to express their point of view. What does this actually look like in an article?
One example I will raise is the difference between the articles Peer Review and Peer Review. On the wikipedia side, you see wording and content which unreservedly applauds peer review and does not mention a single problem with peer review. On the infogalactic side, on the other hand, in my opinion we have gone to the opposite extreme and inserted language which constantly questions peer review throughout the entire article, and we have even included a Miles Mathis quote arguing against peer review in the introduction. (note user:rectified and my difference of opinion on Miles Mathis which you can see here: talk:Miles Mathis). I have a third, somewhat different viewpoint on peer review which I suppose you could say is somewhere in-between Wikipedia and Rectified. How should, in an ideal world, we organize that article to express our three viewpoints? What about when we get to considering 100 people's different viewpoints?
It seems to me that almost every article in infogalactic probably will have this issue to some degree if it attracts the interest of multiple people. How should we choose what viewpoint gets in to the body of the article, then? Should the editors' with different viewpoints take turns expressing their opinions?
Thanks for any feedback!
- Rectified did both edits at Peer Review. The first was some time ago, before the edit guidelines were refined. The latest edit is a move towards what Fenris and Crew recommended.
Criticism and skepticism NEVER belong in the main body of the article. An article is about what something is, not whether it is true or not. They belong in a Criticism section at the bottom. Moreover, it is not appropriate to have an entire section entitled "Arguments against X" in an article defining X. That belongs on its own page. - Fenris, Dec 28, 2016
- Ok. So is the goal that the body of articles should have a generally "positive" tone towards their subject matter (the POV of proponents of the article), while the skeptical or negative POV towards a topic should be reserved for A: a criticism section, or B: one or more standalone critical articles which can be linked to from the original article? --Less (talk)
- Not so sure about "positive" as a criterion. How would that work on the pages about pedophilia? A brief criticism (or alternate view, etc.) section in the original article about X is much less work than creating an entirely new Anti-X page. The ideal would be both. Any sane one who wants to know about X should also want to know about Anti-X, so the criticism in X serves as a launch point, either to external sources and/or to the Anti-X page. Rectified (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Here's a meatier article Scholarly_peer_review. It has a fat criticism section not too far from the Rectified edits, though SJWed- "The publisher is typically under no obligation to accept the opinions of the referees, though she will most often do so." Rectified (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- These ideas depart from the Wikipedia model yet might suffice for contentious articles:
- Split the page in half down the middle with the table and clear labels. On one side feature the official "establishment" stance or stances, while on the other side are the "alternative" stances. Some sections may remain blank on a side which speaks for itself, "nothing to say here". Some contentious articles may have all sections "divided", while other articles may only have a few or even just one section that is divided. If there are no divisions, then it's not a contentious article.
- Alternatively to splitting, maybe there's a way to add more tabs than just: "Page, Discussion, Read, Edit, View History, Star, More". The front page would unfairly get more traffic so make it an automatic default disambiguation page of sorts. Maybe call it a "contentious split" page that simply states the article topic is contentious and there are two versions, the "establishment" and the "alternative" tabs. If this is a good idea then I'm sure there'd be 1) a way to make it happen, and 2) a way to make it easily editable. I would also really like to see one or two more more tabs, but no more. "Fancruft" and "Opinion" tabs, or maybe just one called "Extras". Of course you may have more tabs worth adding, but I'm trying to keep it minimal. Why add these tabs / this tab? Because it's what's driving people away from Wikipedia as "fringe", "fancruft", and "opinion/synthesis" are censored - as is Facebook. InfoGalactic could potentially be a different form of info-social-media. Maybe I'm a dreamer.
- ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
AD/BC vs. CE/BCE
Date standards--the imported articles use the CE notation instead of the traditional BC and AD. Which are the standard here? Or will it vary once the new non factual levels are added? ~ ?
- After discussion in the council, it was determined that we use BC/AD. New articles and edits should use that style. If you are quoting material, use the quoted style (perhaps with a [BC|AD] after dates in the [BCE|CE] style). -- Crew (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- If I'm not mistaken, the BC and AD are old fashioned so now CE Common Era and BCE Before Common Era are what the kids are using. I didn't look this up and could be wrong. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- There is actually controversy over their use, with people like Albert Mohler stating that "The invention of B.C.E. for “Before Common Era” and C.E. for “Common Era” is nothing more than an attempt to avoid any reference to Christ." 
- ~ JustAHomeschoolMom
- I'd personally prefer using the BC and AD dates because the dates in question do refer to the birth of Jesus, who (regardless of whether or not one is a Christian) is a prominent historical figure (the theories that a historical Jesus never existed are fringe beliefs and contradict most of what historians have to say on the subject), so I see no reason to change it to something vague and ambiguous.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- At least one editor has been going around changing CE and BCE to AD and BC. I am sympathetic to that. CE and BCE are nothing more than an attempt to eliminate terms than have been in use for 1,200 to 1,500 years (depending on whether you date from its popularization or its inception Anno Domini).
- ~ Crew
- For the record, I don't care which is used. I prefer the modern version because a) it's modern (not always a good reason), b) anno Domini and before Christ is mixed up Latin and English which is not as clear as Common Era and Before Common Era, c) the date is actually arbitrary, not precisely dated to the alleged birth of Jesus Christ, who's existential debate is far from "fringe" (feel free to watch The God Who Wasn't There and Zeitgeist (film series), just to start, to have your mind blown), and d) I'm an atheist and don't need monarchs on my money or messiahs on my dates. But that's just me - and the rest of the non-Western/non-Christian world. Regardless of how it's decided, it might make the most logical sense to try to determine which is already actually used more within the volumes of InfoGalactic and "conform" them all to that. Or just leave it and ignore like I will. If someone wants to change it all, whatev. One last note, you should also know about "no year zero", if you really want to get e) technically accurate before the Christ era. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- It's not a hard and fast rule in my mind. If your source material predominantly uses AD/BC you should probably use that. If it uses BC/BCE, use that. I am sympathetic to changing what was probably AD/BC back to those. I am also comfortable with leaving those out where it is clear. No on needs to say that the Industrial revolution occurred around 1760AD to ... --Crew (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- "Mohler and the BC and AD or BCE and CE use battle". Retrieved February 4, 2017.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
Main Page ?
- There's a link to the boardroom on the Main page's talk page.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Better than on the main page would be to have the boardroom, jazz lounge, tribunal, FAQ, and todo lists, etc under the left side margin menu, perhaps even with [+] and [-] folding/collapsing functions if these useful links fill up the currently mostly wasted space (just 9 links). ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Steemit & Gab & Mind
People are upset with Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, and other platforms looking for alternatives. I'd like to draft something up to post to these three alternatives that are full of anti-establishment folks, from alt-rights to anarchists to alt-progressives, to alt-whatevs. If the IG community says yes, then I'll draft something up and put it here for your constructive criticism. After we reach a consensus I'd like to post it. This doesn't even have to be this week, especially if the infrastructure is not set up for an onslaught of new members, etc. I'm not a tech guy so I don't know what's what.
Things I'd like to promote:
- Not a Wikipedia mainstream media echochamber
- "Fake news" content is not censored
- "Fringe" content is not censored
- "Fancruft" content is not censored
- Opinions and original synthesis are limited by supported citations
- Self promote on your User Page
- Express opinions and original synthesis on your User Page
- Living persons must be respected
I know there are potentially more that I've missed or neglected. Please add your own and sign your name. Please let me know if I've got anything wrong with how I perceive the potential of InfoGalactic. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm not sure that's entirely the jist of it. Essentially the reliable sourcing policy will be getting a major overhaul so that it can't be gamed into discrediting factual and verifiable content simply by declaring 'non mainstream' websites unreliable sources
- Perhaps I wasn't clear for brevity. I think everything should be sourced, except user pages and user sub-pages which would be the responsible of the user and where they might post their blog-like opinions, which should not be cited in the main articles. Assuming people would be allowed to do so, along the lines of a personal Facebook page. It could bring people to this IG project.
- Also, I believe I agree with you. Citing credible non-mainstream media should be allowed. On Wikipedia an article about religion can cite Fox News or a professor of religious studies, but a 9/11 article cannot cite RT News, professors, architects, established independent journalists, eye witnesses, etc. because they are not "official" or "mainstream". ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Beyond that however I do not believe we want pure opinion or self-promotion of original ideas as a fact, we want simply to report facts, not promote viewpoints.
- I completely agree, in respect to the main articles, not the user pages. I thought I recalled that IG was going to try to attract businesses to present their public version of themselves, or something to that effect. Why not people too? Like narcissistic Facebook? Though apparently Mind is the new Facebook. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- As far as 'fancruft', I suppose that would depend, but we probably wouldn't want 10 separate articles dedicated to every facet of an obscure video game from the early 90s; that's the kind of stuff that belongs on Wikia. InfoGalactic is intended to be a work of professional journalism and factual encyclopedic reporting above all else, something which Wikipedia has in many ways failed to do because of it's dysfunctional community and policies.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, but when you add limits you add problems that become arbitrary and political. Which is worse: some fools go overboard with details about something few care about (ie. William Shatner's favourite food, music, etc.), or people don't feel free and welcome? You can always demand citations from the excessive detailers and trim it back. The Evel Knevel article is ridiculously long on Wikipedia. It's wonderful for those who care. Wikipedia will never allow long articles about PizzaGate, CIA operations, massacres, or anything politically sensitive no matter how many cited details you have. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Some red errors
- I'll make sure to let the tech team know about this, thanks.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Article Origins Banner
I whipped up a few quick banner image ideas. I don't expect these will be accepted as is but they start the discussion. Obviously the first is an attention grabbing caution bar. After I did it I realized I was going waaay overboard. It's still interesting so I kept it for now. The next three are pretty much self explanatory. I considered making little image icons but think the colours are more effective. I also considered mirroring the first letter "R" with the second, for fun. My hopes that we can settle on a better design with your input, and every article would feature one of these indicators at the top.
In addition to this 200% version, there are 100%, 300%, and 400% versions. Also, I'd really like to clean up the wobbly InfoGalactic logo if someone could point me to the file. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'd also like to update the list:
- "Mirror: This article was directly copied from Wikipedia."
- "Mirror Update: This article was directly copied from Wikipedia and updated on YYYY-MM-DD."
- "Fork: This article has been modified since being copied from Wikipedia."
- "Uncensored: This article was heavily censored or deleted from Wikipedia."
- "Original: This article was originally created and published on InfoGalactic."
- "Mirror: This article was directly copied from Metawiki / RationalWiki / etc."
- ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'd also like to update the list: