Discussion > Infogalatic.com
Cheers I noticed the other day that WUWT entry
and Lord Lawson's entry also have been vandalised by introducing them as "denier" "denialist"
Of course I hope the neutral rational reader ..then realises how corrupt Green propagandists are.
I see your versions don't feature the namecalling smear word "denier"
stewgreen
Not very impressed. Started with Climategate and was met with
"The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as "Climategate")[2][3] began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker,[4][5]
If Norfolk's finest couldn't establish this, why is Infogalatic spouting this claptrap?
Supertroll
The point is Alan, that it's starts with Wikipedia content which is then edited by people like you
So to see how edits are in progress, you click the DISCUSSION button
\\Here it says "This article probably needs work.
Here is some more information: http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=28353 //
which is a copy of Delingpoles article saying how Connelly screwed up the page
stewgreen
Still not impressed. In fact I would not have allowed any student of mine near those contentious items. It is not obvious what parts were written by whom - its some form of horrible chimera.
On the other hand, it might might constitute an amusing puzzle for students to identify which parts are original wikki and which are modified.
Supertroll
infogalactic.com/info/Global_warming_controversy
Infogalactic is an attempt to stop the Wiloiam Connely's of this world, plus the 500 or so other admins who police wikipedia.
Basically a full fork OF THE CONTENT was taken last year, and now if infogalactic has not changed, then it is brought up to date with the latest wikipedia content.
A simple side effect of this is that for things wikepedia is good at, i.e. pop culture, basic historical info, there is NO negative aspect to using infogalatic.
But... the climate change content can be amended withtout fear of those admins and editors from overriding the changes without consequences.
For example the Skeptical Science page of Wikipedia is just a propaganda piece for the site, probably written in the background by John Cook. Infogalatic could be amended to include issues (97% etc) that throw a less positive light.
Of course the mainstream press tried to paint this site as alt-right etc. etc. It isn't. People should read the goals and the feature road map for how they solving the problems of wikipedia.
Rather than complaining about wikipedia, it would be possible to update infogalactic. Of course people will not trust it based on political persuasion. But it does give an reference point for people to either understand the issues, or promote an alternate view.
Note: Many of the parties involved in gamergate are behind this.