Main Page - Revision history

WikiSysop: /* A better platform for creating and debating content */

2021-09-24T17:06:33Z

A better platform for creating and debating content

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:06, 24 September 2021
Line 66:		Line 66:
	==A better platform for creating and debating content==		==A better platform for creating and debating content==

	[[File:Comment.jpg\|alt=Alternative text just comes up when a reader highlights the Counterpoint image\|thumb\|To insert a comment or counterpoint, go into Edit mode, Select Insert, select Image "Counterpoint text.jpg" or Comment.jpg and then enter your comment in the Caption area.		[[File:Comment.jpg\|alt=Alternative text just comes up when a reader highlights the Counterpoint image\|thumb\|To insert a comment or counterpoint, go into Edit mode, Select Insert, select Image "Counterpoint text.jpg" or Comment.jpg and then enter your comment in the Caption area.

WikiSysop at 17:05, 24 September 2021

2021-09-24T17:05:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:05, 24 September 2021
Line 58:		Line 58:

	The problem with Wikipedia is that its policies assume that editors can actually reach a "true consensus" that can fairly report what is true while keeping false viewpoints "in their place." From this perspective, it is right and just for editors to engage in endless arguments over giving more or less space to viewpoints that either confirm or challenge each individual editor's worldview. As a result, literally every article touching even remotely on a controversial issue is especially prone to "edit wars" designed to silence facts and viewpoints that challenge the "consensus" of the small group of editors who "control" the article.		The problem with Wikipedia is that its policies assume that editors can actually reach a "true consensus" that can fairly report what is true while keeping false viewpoints "in their place." From this perspective, it is right and just for editors to engage in endless arguments over giving more or less space to viewpoints that either confirm or challenge each individual editor's worldview. As a result, literally every article touching even remotely on a controversial issue is especially prone to "edit wars" designed to silence facts and viewpoints that challenge the "consensus" of the small group of editors who "control" the article.

	[[File:Comment.jpg\|alt=Alternative text just comes up when a reader highlights the Counterpoint image\|thumb\|To insert a comment or counterpoint, go into Edit mode, Select Insert, select Image "Counterpoint text.jpg" or Comment.jpg and then enter your comment in the Caption area. You can also insert links, such as this one: [[Global warming is mostly due to human activity.]] ]]

	Another problem with the core policies of Wikipedia is the ban on "original research." This rules blocks experts in a field from posting material based on their own expertise. FactnViews fixes this problem by creating an opportunity for experts to publish and control the presentation of their content, under their true names, while still owning the copyright to their own material, in order to obtain comments and feedback from others or simply to make their material more easily accessible to general readers.		Another problem with the core policies of Wikipedia is the ban on "original research." This rules blocks experts in a field from posting material based on their own expertise. FactnViews fixes this problem by creating an opportunity for experts to publish and control the presentation of their content, under their true names, while still owning the copyright to their own material, in order to obtain comments and feedback from others or simply to make their material more easily accessible to general readers.
Line 67:		Line 65:

	==A better platform for creating and debating content==		==A better platform for creating and debating content==

			[[File:Comment.jpg\|alt=Alternative text just comes up when a reader highlights the Counterpoint image\|thumb\|To insert a comment or counterpoint, go into Edit mode, Select Insert, select Image "Counterpoint text.jpg" or Comment.jpg and then enter your comment in the Caption area.


			You can also insert links, such as this one: [[Global warming is mostly due to human activity.]] ]]

	By contrast, at Facts-n-Views '''''we believe that controversies should be explored, not suppressed.'''''		By contrast, at Facts-n-Views '''''we believe that controversies should be explored, not suppressed.'''''

WikiSysop: /* What makes us different, and better than, Wikipedia */

2021-09-24T17:04:59Z

What makes us different, and better than, Wikipedia

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:04, 24 September 2021
Line 59:		Line 59:
	The problem with Wikipedia is that its policies assume that editors can actually reach a "true consensus" that can fairly report what is true while keeping false viewpoints "in their place." From this perspective, it is right and just for editors to engage in endless arguments over giving more or less space to viewpoints that either confirm or challenge each individual editor's worldview. As a result, literally every article touching even remotely on a controversial issue is especially prone to "edit wars" designed to silence facts and viewpoints that challenge the "consensus" of the small group of editors who "control" the article.		The problem with Wikipedia is that its policies assume that editors can actually reach a "true consensus" that can fairly report what is true while keeping false viewpoints "in their place." From this perspective, it is right and just for editors to engage in endless arguments over giving more or less space to viewpoints that either confirm or challenge each individual editor's worldview. As a result, literally every article touching even remotely on a controversial issue is especially prone to "edit wars" designed to silence facts and viewpoints that challenge the "consensus" of the small group of editors who "control" the article.

	[[File:~~Counterpoint text~~.jpg\|alt=Alternative text just comes up when a reader highlights the Counterpoint image\|thumb\|To insert a comment or counterpoint, go into Edit mode, Select Insert, select Image "Counterpoint text.jpg" or Comment.jpg and then enter ~~the text and link~~ in the Caption area.		[[File:Comment.jpg\|alt=Alternative text just comes up when a reader highlights the Counterpoint image\|thumb\|To insert a comment or counterpoint, go into Edit mode, Select Insert, select Image "Counterpoint text.jpg" or Comment.jpg and then enter your comment in the Caption area. You can also insert links, such as this one: [[Global warming is mostly due to human activity.]] ]]


	~~In the text box, you~~ can insert ~~a link by selecting the link symbol, then typing in the name of the article~~, such as [[Global warming is mostly due to human activity.]] ]]

	Another problem with the core policies of Wikipedia is the ban on "original research." This rules blocks experts in a field from posting material based on their own expertise. FactnViews fixes this problem by creating an opportunity for experts to publish and control the presentation of their content, under their true names, while still owning the copyright to their own material, in order to obtain comments and feedback from others or simply to make their material more easily accessible to general readers.		Another problem with the core policies of Wikipedia is the ban on "original research." This rules blocks experts in a field from posting material based on their own expertise. FactnViews fixes this problem by creating an opportunity for experts to publish and control the presentation of their content, under their true names, while still owning the copyright to their own material, in order to obtain comments and feedback from others or simply to make their material more easily accessible to general readers.

WikiSysop: /* What makes us different, and better than, Wikipedia */

2021-09-24T17:02:48Z

What makes us different, and better than, Wikipedia

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:02, 24 September 2021
Line 53:		Line 53:
	It may help to see why Facts-n-Views is needed by comparing it directly to the most popular encyclopedia on the planet, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikipedia].		It may help to see why Facts-n-Views is needed by comparing it directly to the most popular encyclopedia on the planet, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikipedia].

	In fact, this prototype of Facts-n-Views is built using the very same, open source software as Wikipedia. But our goals, policies and rules are very different. [[File:Counterpoint text.jpg\|alt=Counterargument\|thumb\| *Wikipedia's core team of editors defend this practice as necessary [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight to protect readers from minority views being given "undue weight."][[File:Comment.jpg\|thumb\|<span style="color:#800000">This box is an example of how sidebar counterpoints can be inserted into any article.</span> In the future, this box would only show three lines, with an option for the reader to open it to it's full length. ]]<p> <span style="color:#800000">This box is an example of how sidebar counterpoints can be inserted into any article.</span> In the future, this box would only show three lines, with an option for the reader to open it to it's full length. \|220x220px]].		In fact, this prototype of Facts-n-Views is built using the very same, open source software as Wikipedia. But our goals, policies and rules are very different. [[File:Counterpoint text.jpg\|alt=Counterargument\|thumb\| *Wikipedia's core team of editors defend this practice as necessary [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight to protect readers from minority views being given "undue weight."]<p> <span style="color:#800000">This box is an example of how sidebar counterpoints can be inserted into any article.</span> In the future, this box would only show three lines, with an option for the reader to open it to it's full length. \|220x220px]].

	Wikipedia has policies in place specifically for the purpose of '''restricting controversy'''.<sup>*</sup> Contributing editors are encouraged to develop a "consensus" of what like-minded editors believe is most commonly accepted and reliable information, while allowing "due weight" to minority views. Sounds great. Wikipedia editors are constantly fighting over what is truly verifiable, reliable, neutral, much less how much "weight" should be given to any or all "minority views." The result is that it takes only a few of the most active editors, especially those who have been granted administrative status, to unilaterally ensure material that challenges their "consensus." This is called "wiki-lawyering" and is '''a process that drives away most of the people''' who try to edit Wikipedia.		Wikipedia has policies in place specifically for the purpose of '''restricting controversy'''.<sup>*</sup> Contributing editors are encouraged to develop a "consensus" of what like-minded editors believe is most commonly accepted and reliable information, while allowing "due weight" to minority views. Sounds great. Wikipedia editors are constantly fighting over what is truly verifiable, reliable, neutral, much less how much "weight" should be given to any or all "minority views." The result is that it takes only a few of the most active editors, especially those who have been granted administrative status, to unilaterally ensure material that challenges their "consensus." This is called "wiki-lawyering" and is '''a process that drives away most of the people''' who try to edit Wikipedia.
Line 59:		Line 59:
	The problem with Wikipedia is that its policies assume that editors can actually reach a "true consensus" that can fairly report what is true while keeping false viewpoints "in their place." From this perspective, it is right and just for editors to engage in endless arguments over giving more or less space to viewpoints that either confirm or challenge each individual editor's worldview. As a result, literally every article touching even remotely on a controversial issue is especially prone to "edit wars" designed to silence facts and viewpoints that challenge the "consensus" of the small group of editors who "control" the article.		The problem with Wikipedia is that its policies assume that editors can actually reach a "true consensus" that can fairly report what is true while keeping false viewpoints "in their place." From this perspective, it is right and just for editors to engage in endless arguments over giving more or less space to viewpoints that either confirm or challenge each individual editor's worldview. As a result, literally every article touching even remotely on a controversial issue is especially prone to "edit wars" designed to silence facts and viewpoints that challenge the "consensus" of the small group of editors who "control" the article.

	[[File:Counterpoint text.jpg\|alt=Alternative text just comes up when a reader highlights the Counterpoint image\|thumb\|To insert a comment, go into Edit mode, Select Insert, select Image "Counterpoint text.jpg" and then enter the text and link in the Caption area.		[[File:Counterpoint text.jpg\|alt=Alternative text just comes up when a reader highlights the Counterpoint image\|thumb\|To insert a comment or counterpoint, go into Edit mode, Select Insert, select Image "Counterpoint text.jpg" or Comment.jpg and then enter the text and link in the Caption area.

WikiSysop: /* What makes us different, and better than, Wikipedia */

2021-09-24T17:00:33Z

What makes us different, and better than, Wikipedia

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:00, 24 September 2021
Line 53:		Line 53:
	It may help to see why Facts-n-Views is needed by comparing it directly to the most popular encyclopedia on the planet, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikipedia].		It may help to see why Facts-n-Views is needed by comparing it directly to the most popular encyclopedia on the planet, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikipedia].

	In fact, this prototype of Facts-n-Views is built using the very same, open source software as Wikipedia. But our goals, policies and rules are very different. [[File:Counterpoint text.jpg\|alt=Counterargument\|thumb\| *Wikipedia's core team of editors defend this practice as necessary [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight to protect readers from minority views being given "undue weight."]<p> <span style="color:#800000">This box is an example of how sidebar counterpoints can be inserted into any article.</span> In the future, this box would only show three lines, with an option for the reader to open it to it's full length. \|220x220px]].		In fact, this prototype of Facts-n-Views is built using the very same, open source software as Wikipedia. But our goals, policies and rules are very different. [[File:Counterpoint text.jpg\|alt=Counterargument\|thumb\| *Wikipedia's core team of editors defend this practice as necessary [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight to protect readers from minority views being given "undue weight."][[File:Comment.jpg\|thumb\|<span style="color:#800000">This box is an example of how sidebar counterpoints can be inserted into any article.</span> In the future, this box would only show three lines, with an option for the reader to open it to it's full length. ]]<p> <span style="color:#800000">This box is an example of how sidebar counterpoints can be inserted into any article.</span> In the future, this box would only show three lines, with an option for the reader to open it to it's full length. \|220x220px]].

	Wikipedia has policies in place specifically for the purpose of '''restricting controversy'''.<sup>*</sup> Contributing editors are encouraged to develop a "consensus" of what like-minded editors believe is most commonly accepted and reliable information, while allowing "due weight" to minority views. Sounds great. Wikipedia editors are constantly fighting over what is truly verifiable, reliable, neutral, much less how much "weight" should be given to any or all "minority views." The result is that it takes only a few of the most active editors, especially those who have been granted administrative status, to unilaterally ensure material that challenges their "consensus." This is called "wiki-lawyering" and is '''a process that drives away most of the people''' who try to edit Wikipedia.		Wikipedia has policies in place specifically for the purpose of '''restricting controversy'''.<sup>*</sup> Contributing editors are encouraged to develop a "consensus" of what like-minded editors believe is most commonly accepted and reliable information, while allowing "due weight" to minority views. Sounds great. Wikipedia editors are constantly fighting over what is truly verifiable, reliable, neutral, much less how much "weight" should be given to any or all "minority views." The result is that it takes only a few of the most active editors, especially those who have been granted administrative status, to unilaterally ensure material that challenges their "consensus." This is called "wiki-lawyering" and is '''a process that drives away most of the people''' who try to edit Wikipedia.

WikiSysop: /* What makes us different, and better than, Wikipedia */

2021-09-24T16:51:40Z

What makes us different, and better than, Wikipedia

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:51, 24 September 2021
Line 58:		Line 58:

	The problem with Wikipedia is that its policies assume that editors can actually reach a "true consensus" that can fairly report what is true while keeping false viewpoints "in their place." From this perspective, it is right and just for editors to engage in endless arguments over giving more or less space to viewpoints that either confirm or challenge each individual editor's worldview. As a result, literally every article touching even remotely on a controversial issue is especially prone to "edit wars" designed to silence facts and viewpoints that challenge the "consensus" of the small group of editors who "control" the article.		The problem with Wikipedia is that its policies assume that editors can actually reach a "true consensus" that can fairly report what is true while keeping false viewpoints "in their place." From this perspective, it is right and just for editors to engage in endless arguments over giving more or less space to viewpoints that either confirm or challenge each individual editor's worldview. As a result, literally every article touching even remotely on a controversial issue is especially prone to "edit wars" designed to silence facts and viewpoints that challenge the "consensus" of the small group of editors who "control" the article.

			[[File:Counterpoint text.jpg\|alt=Alternative text just comes up when a reader highlights the Counterpoint image\|thumb\|To insert a comment, go into Edit mode, Select Insert, select Image "Counterpoint text.jpg" and then enter the text and link in the Caption area.


			In the text box, you can insert a link by selecting the link symbol, then typing in the name of the article, such as [[Global warming is mostly due to human activity.]] ]]

	Another problem with the core policies of Wikipedia is the ban on "original research." This rules blocks experts in a field from posting material based on their own expertise. FactnViews fixes this problem by creating an opportunity for experts to publish and control the presentation of their content, under their true names, while still owning the copyright to their own material, in order to obtain comments and feedback from others or simply to make their material more easily accessible to general readers.		Another problem with the core policies of Wikipedia is the ban on "original research." This rules blocks experts in a field from posting material based on their own expertise. FactnViews fixes this problem by creating an opportunity for experts to publish and control the presentation of their content, under their true names, while still owning the copyright to their own material, in order to obtain comments and feedback from others or simply to make their material more easily accessible to general readers.


	Finally, Wikipedia takes not responsibility for its content. Responsibility for both the content, and decision making regarding what is both published and not published, is shifted to a diffuse, anonymous, and unreliably polled "community" of volunteer editors. FactsnViews is different because our staff is accountable to both the contributors and readers to ensure that everyone has a fair opportunity to present their material either as individuals or in a collaborative fashion. There will be public accountability for the policies and decisions made regarding published content.		Finally, Wikipedia takes not responsibility for its content. Responsibility for both the content, and decision making regarding what is both published and not published, is shifted to a diffuse, anonymous, and unreliably polled "community" of volunteer editors. FactsnViews is different because our staff is accountable to both the contributors and readers to ensure that everyone has a fair opportunity to present their material either as individuals or in a collaborative fashion. There will be public accountability for the policies and decisions made regarding published content.

WikiSysop: commented out the Main Page banner

2021-04-23T22:25:06Z

commented out the Main Page banner

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:25, 23 April 2021
Line 25:		Line 25:
	</ul>		</ul>
	</div>		</div>
	<!-- MAIN PAGE BANNER ~~-->~~		<!-- MAIN PAGE BANNER
	{{#if:{{Main Page banner}}\|		{{#if:{{Main Page banner}}\|
	<div id="mp-banner" class="MainPageBG" style="margin-top:4px; padding:0.5em; background-color:#fffaf5; border:1px solid #f2e0ce;">		<div id="mp-banner" class="MainPageBG" style="margin-top:4px; padding:0.5em; background-color:#fffaf5; border:1px solid #f2e0ce;">
Line 31:		Line 31:
	</div>		</div>
	}}		}}
			-->
	=Your Help is Needed=		=Your Help is Needed=
	<span style="color:black; background:yellow; font-size:16px">Help us prioritize the development of Facts-n-Views by '''filling out [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSePYSH2UwQOb33NO4mnEMrQEEhaR2nD-aO5dmPqpTM2uW5Ulg/viewform?usp=sf_link this survey]'''</span>		<span style="color:black; background:yellow; font-size:16px">Help us prioritize the development of Facts-n-Views by '''filling out [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSePYSH2UwQOb33NO4mnEMrQEEhaR2nD-aO5dmPqpTM2uW5Ulg/viewform?usp=sf_link this survey]'''</span>

WikiSysop: 1 revision imported

2021-04-23T22:05:44Z

1 revision imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 17:05, 23 April 2021
(No difference)

WikiSysop at 21:53, 23 April 2021

2021-04-23T21:53:25Z

Show changes

MediaWiki default at 16:47, 23 April 2021

2021-04-23T16:47:31Z

Show changes