An unexpected open source for intel

[Bill]

Whenever I read a non-fiction book, report or dissertation I often spend more time than it takes to read it researching the author's background and researching her/his chosen topic to put what’s written into its true perspective.

That may sound odd but it’s not odd in the "intelligence" arena I have inhabited for too long now. Indeed, it is particularly important in this era of deceit and disinformation as it helps to get one's facts right.

Out of several prima facie unlikely places one might look to do a bit of quick background research on people I have found Everipedia invaluable because it covers a lot in those grey areas where more staid encyclopaedic websites like Wikipedia don't venture given their old-fashioned rules about citations and notable persons. Interestingly, nowadays the FBI probably get more convictions courtesy of intel gleaned from social media and other data which Wikipedia still doesn't consider adequate to support citations. I'm not knocking Wikipedia, but it has its limitations even though I typically refer to it for quick guidance several times a day!

By way of example, if you are interested start with this short article on Steemit - https://steemit.com/introducemyself/@... - it explains how an intelligence agency tried to track down information about me over a ten-week period. Then look at one of my biographies released a couple of years later - https://everipedia.org/wiki/bill-fair... after their inept investigation.

If only they had waited! If that whets anyone’s appetite they can always read Beyond Enkription but do note it was written more along the lines of a scholarly film script with more layers than a Russian onion than a John Le Carré masterpiece … although some found that very refreshing!

[Feliks, Moderator]

I must say that 'Everpedia' site looks mighty leery to me. As for Wikipedia, yes it is staid (as all encyclopedias are) but not--I feel--due to its insistence on citations. I would lose whatever shred of reassurance Wikipedia has to offer it it didn't provide citations. Is this what Everpedia does? Then I'm wondering exactly why it deserves more esteem?

[Bill]

I think only time (eg a lustra or decade) will tell whether Wikipedia stays the course as the world's leading online encyclopedia. It needs to change its rules and platform to keep up with technological changes in the world we live in and its senior management know that. As for Everipedia looking leery or deserving more esteem, I can understand you thinking that but I don't see it like that.

Everipedia is based on and covers the whole of Wikipedia (in English) and is currently undergoing a sea change at present which I concur is mystifying but which will (and has to) be tidied up in the coming weeks and maybe months. An encyclopedia on the web is not like a speedboat you can just switch direction in with the flick of the wrist! It's more like a huge cruise ship.

Everipedia does require citations but unlike Wikipedia they can be from the web - eg a YouTube video with millions of views might get a reference on Everipedia but probably not on Wikipedia. On that basis alone it is forecast to get ever increasing traffic much of which may have been destined for Wikipedia. There are other differences especially in the way editors are paid but Everipedia looks as though it will eventually be more transparent about that which is a positive step given past allegations about just how Wikipedia editors have been persuaded to accept/reject articles and/or edits.

Both have their faults and estimates vary but roughly 20% of what is posted on both is questionable and/or inaccurate (as can be said of Encyclopedia Britannica I believe). Everipedia is currently changing platforms (to the blockchain) so it will take time to settle down but because of that and its developing rules, it looks as though it may have a chance to overtake Wikipedia in the long run. Nevertheless, Everipedia has a long way to go despite claiming it already has more English speaking entries than Wikipedia; its current global Alexa rankings puts it in stark contrast with Wikipedia which is still in the top ten websites while Everipedia a long way behind.

I'll diarise a revisit of this discussion in 2023 (!) assuming Everipedia gains the momentum many believe it will achieve before then.

[Feliks, Moderator]

Thanks for the overview. I agree that Wikipedia is not even as good as Britannica was.... but I definitely don't look forward to the rise of online encyclopedias in which 'hits' or 'traffic' count as a weighted factor. I'd rather hear that Wikipedia editors are standing fast and resisting slippery upcoming technological changes. What the web does now, or might do in future, is never an argument in my book. If Wikipedia management has any less-than-ideal methodology for dealing with entries (if they've ever been persuaded or suborned), I'd want them to deal with that using traditional face-to-face human problem-solving. They shouldn't back away from any messes.

My career has been in all these areas and I speak from what's been proven to me. Anecdote: an professor of mine moonlights for some of the biggest corporations in the country; when their corporate-culture breaks down he gets a call. His field? Anthropology. Human problems need human solutions...just my opinion...

[Feliks, Moderator]

p.s. by the way Bill, do you have a source for that 20% statistic? I'd like to pass that on to someone...

[Bill]

Feliks wrote: "Thanks for the overview. I agree that Wikipedia is not even as good as Britannica was.... but I definitely don't look forward to the rise of online encyclopedias in which 'hits' or 'traffic' count ..."

Don't disagree but the times they are a changing! Also by being on the blockchain obfuscation is made harder. Please see the links I have unearthed for your post script.

[Bill]

Feliks wrote: "p.s. by the way Bill, do you have a source for that 20% statistic? I'd like to pass that on to someone..."

A general article about reliability can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliabi...

This page was one that backs up my 80% estimate re web reference sites and encyclopedias in general https://www.livescience.com/7946-wiki... and states "A 2005 study by the journal Nature found Wikipedia roughly as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica, and a 2008 study in the journal Reference Services Review pegged Wikipedia's accuracy rate at 80 percent compared to 95-96 percent among other sources — not bad for a free, crowd-sourced encyclopedia.6 Nov 2009."

These pages are interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everipedia and https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-dif....

I could go on and on but one key deciding factor as to why I take Everipedia seriously and believe it has a future is that Larry Sanger (one of Wikipedia's two founders - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder...) joined it this year. If anyone should know about Wikipedia's shortcomings and ways to fix them he should!

PS I am not knocking Wikipedia and still visit it daily having visited it thousands of times since its inception for a quick understanding or simple verification of certain types of information.