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



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. doesn't capture everything. Hydrargyruum (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion. Tears of Ovid (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I love that idea. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Not a programmer but I found a website which does this - maybe you can connect to that or copy what it doesHydrargyruum (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Test thread

This is a test thread.Tears of Ovid (talk) 16:13, 8 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:

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
@Crew I have created a category to mark articles that originate here (Category:Infogalactic original articles). When categories do start working, maybe have a bot tag all articles created by Infogalactic users as belonging to this category? Whitebeard (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I emailed you on the new address. --Crew (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll reply to you there.Tears of Ovid (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I added 3 articles to the original category (not working). Is it "Infogalactic" or "InfoGalactic"? I prefer the latter. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 08:07, 25 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.

For instance, I thought the account creation was canceled because of my email provider or email alias. Whitebeard (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

-- Hmmm, good points. Creation is manual, but the messages can be improved to let people know what is going on. -- Crew (talk) 18:02, 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.

LGBT categories

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.

--Tears of Ovid (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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).

The blog post sounds like it might've just as well been written by the Daily Kos or RationalWiki.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Have Keyboard, Will Program

How can I help contribute to IG's codebase? --Activedecay (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Send email to ...
Address not found
Your message wasn't delivered because the address 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. 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)

Ping Wish

I know WP can ping notify other users when something was written to them. This would be great to have. ~ 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

~ JasonCarswell (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

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" (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.

Please let me know either way whether these are good suggestions or why they aren't so I can learn too. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

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)
Is it still blocked? -- Crew (talk) 17:01, 28 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!

--Less (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Also see discussion at Talk:Mike_Cernovich. Rectified (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
Continued. Example: If Plate_tectonics is X, then User:Rectified/Objections_to_plate_tectonics is Anti-X. Expanding Earth is an example of Alt-X. Rectified (talk) 21:27, 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,[22] 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)


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." [1]
~ 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)


Main Page ?

Should the InfoGalactic main page have a link to this Galactic boardroom? Or are we the founding elites conspiring in secret? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

As you might have seen, the main page has had an overhaul. There are still problems, and we will slowly improve things. Let us know what you think. -- Crew (talk) 17:06, 28 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

Pictures seem to working fine now but I've noticed some red errors appear in articles using LateX, e.g: Hydrargyruum (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

InfoGalactic - Pixel Banners 200%.png

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)

Great idea! Jack-arcalon (talk) 13:04, 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)

Mobile version of Infogalactic

I was wondering if Infogalactic could get a mobile friendly version of the website so that people on phones and other mobile devices could browse this site comfortably. Doesn't the Mediawiki engine (the engine that currently runs Infogalactic), allow for the easy creation of mobile friendly pages?

I believe that's going to happen in the coming future; in fact Wikipedia's outdated interface which isn't mobile-friendly is one thing that's helping to kill the site off with the rise of smartphones.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleting old sandbox articles

I have been blanking my old user sandbox articles, but do not see how to delete them. While I'm sure it is a drop in the ocean, I see no need to keep things around that may even partially slow the database and are no longer needed. Can I delete them, and how? -Deleted, thanks!

Email from Vox regarding context and opinion in articles

Hi, just to set the record straight, we've had some editing disputes over editors adding opinion to articles (e.x. Such-and-such organization is "SJW-converged"), and Vox replied back to me clarifying his stance on this issue.

Apparently in the future there will be sub-pages allowing the documentation of opinion and commentary, but we want to keep opinion off of the main articles and stick just to documenting and reporting facts.:

This mostly refers to features we have not yet incorporated. There will be two additional levels per page, which will permit Context and Opinion. Figure at least 9-12 months before they are available. We are eventually replacing everything, including the core Wikimedia engine, but this is a process that takes time. In the meantime, keep all Context and Opinion off the pages.

Thanks, Vox

On 1/29/2017 10:56 PM, Ovid's Tears wrote: Hi Vox, if you could could you please clarify Canon Seven on behalf of some editors

The Cannon mentions "opinion" and "context" levels - how does this work exactly? Do authors who want to write opinion pieces get a seperate namespace from the factual article for that, or something of that nature? Thanks.

--Tears of Ovid (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked Sites

I had a link to "Whale dot to", where ever and whatever that is, that was blocked. It happened before recently but I forget what site. I'd love at the very least for there to be a read-only list of what's blocked, preferably with correlating reasons why. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


The default additional source for SpamBlacklists list of forbidden URLs is the Wikimedia spam blacklist on Meta-Wiki, at m:Spam blacklist. By default, the extension uses this list, and reloads it once every 10-15 minutes.

The blacklist can be found at metawikimedia:Spam_blacklist. The Wikipedians maintain it, so their biases are incorporated into it. --Idris (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. That's a lot of info. I ran into another at "wanttoknow dot info". If it's okay I'll white list these two. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I spoke too soon. That's all for MediaWiki not InfoGalactic. Can an administrator please create InfoGalactic WhiteLists that overrides the MediaWiki BlackLists? I'd like "" and "" added please. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the team's planning on creating their own Metawiki replacement in the near future.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
So, it seems that the code does use Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist. does not seem to be on there, so some external source is also possibly being used. Let me check it out and try to white list those sites after reviewing them. --Crew (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── is on metawikimedia:Spam_blacklist:

Yes, I just discovered that, so I will have to whitelist it. In addition, we might be able to get rid of their whitelist. It's only code, after all. Its the editor extension code that handles that. --Crew (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, my attempt to whitelist whale dot to did not work so now I need to read the code to find out why. --Crew (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

--Idris (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the efforts so far. Still blocked. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, so, at least for version 1.27.1 of the SpamBlacklist extension it does not do what we thought and what the README says. That is, it does not read from the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist pages, however, it does read from the MediaWiki list on the net. I have a small mod that does force the first to be read from, and can add one to read the Whitelist, but I am wondering at the utility of being held captive by MediaWiki and their black list. I suspect we should skip that blacklist. -- Crew (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Just an update. I was diverted on getting the link to Infgalactic News going, but yesterday I discovered why the local whitelist (and blacklist) are not working. I also realized that since they always pull in the metawikimedia:Spam_blacklist which gives us no control over what they do on that list. So, I am planning on a change here to get rid of the remote spam blacklist and have our own. It reuses pretty much all of the code. --Crew (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK, I just installed a mod to the SpamBlacklist extension that:

  1. Gets rid of the upstream spam black list so we are not at risk of being screwed over by them, and
  2. It correctly reads the local MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and MediaWiki:Span-whitelist

If you see a problem, let me know.

You should be able to refer to or whatever. Note, the spam filter looks for links, so it will find http[s]:// but not (Heh, I had to remove from the blacklist. How many more?)

Now back to the main page stuff.


When will User:JasonCarswell/Pedophocracy be legally acceptable and moved to Pedophocracy? No pressure or deadline, I'm just curious about the process. People keep adding stuff to it, which is great, but I'm finally done with the terrible business. I really had no interest in doing this article, but as it keeps coming up from so many sources, it seemed to me there should be a list, which had to be split into "proven" and "accused". Then it turned into an article. Admittedly I wasn't taking notes originally (but narrowed one statement down to one of three sources). I didn't make anything up. It's all coming from somewhere, and everything is noted where I saw it in these last two weeks. I've not even considered anything before that. Now that it's established I'll continue adding as it comes up, but don't count on much. This is not my realm. Apart from eventually watching the two documentaries cited within, I'm pretty much done with this article, though it could potentially use more research, citations, and content someone else can add. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Watched the documentaries, added a few notes for one and added a summary for the other. I also added an item needing expansion and citations about systemic Native American child abuse which was widespread across USA and Canada until the 1960s or even 1970s by clergy and teachers. But I can't finish that item right now. Please feel free to expand upon it. I'm done with this shit. Please let your lawyers look it over. I feel it's great with a couple items that need expansion and worthy of being published as is. It needs to go public. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I plan on reviewing it this weekend and seeing if we can put a draft back in the article namespace.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
That's great and sooner than I anticipated. Sooner is nicer. I just don't want it forgotten. Take more time if you need, just keep me posted and/or don't forget. Also, if you have any constructive criticism I'm keen to improve. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

InfoGalactic Logo - a graphics experiment

Original - Infogalactic logo 003 125.png

As you may have noticed, the InfoGalactic logo looks a little wonky. I took the liberty of tracing it with vectors from that low rez image. It's not a perfect logo, but it is perfectly symmetrical. I can upload the InfoGalactic Logo Cleanup Outline + or make a vector file if you like.

I exported a PNG at 600dpi with a white background and uploaded it, and while the file size is small, InfoGalactic had an error creating a thumbnail from a file greater than 12.5mp. That 7000x7000 centered image on a white background shrunk is here. I exported a PNG at 600dpi with a transparent alpha channel and uploaded it, and while the file size is small, InfoGalactic had an error creating a thumbnail from a file greater than 12.5mp. That 6491x400 image with clear alpha is here.

Rebuild - Infogalactic Logo Rebuild +Alpha 155x125.png

It looks okay. However, when I shrunk the alpha version to 155 width and swapped it with the official logo, keeping the bottom text intact, to my eye some of it looks cleaner, but there's still a certain wonkyness to parts of it. Besides not being 100% accurate to the low rez logo I had to work from (unintentionally, now shrunken mine evidently has more curve), it seems evident to me that certain curves and angles do not work well with a limited number of pixels. I could give it a second pass.

I'm not wasting your time just to hear myself type. I'm interested in hearing what you think. I'm offering my design expertise for free. This is how the process works, if you want it, this is the start. Maybe you want a new logo. (I'd love to do variations for you.) Maybe you want it tweaked in certain ways. Maybe you want it left alone. Comment as you see fit. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup of Pedophocracy article

I tried to salvage what I could; some of the content I've removed can still be viewed in the history and moved to other appropriate articles (e.x. the lists of public figures convicted of child sex abuse), but the article as it was originally was full of original research and soapboxing, and some of the sources (e.x. Infowars; Wikia) are questionable, and have to be reviewed individually.

Since there seems to be too big an influx of original research on IG, I plan on reviewing Wikipedia's sourcing policy, as well as briefing myself on journalism guidelines, and see if we can draft a more clearly-defined sourcing policy which prevents issues like this from occurring.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

InfoGalactic news

Is there some way to integrate this with the News feed on the main page so that it automatically links stories?--Tears of Ovid (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That is going to be an interesting challenge ... what were you thinking of? -- Crew (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Infogalactic News 2017-03-02 AM

See (or, if archived,

One of the headlines

  • CIA pays Amazon $600 million - questions raised about Washington Post

links to a report from December 2013. If you want to point to old reports for some reason, the least you can do is provide some clarification about the report date within the sub headline. Whitebeard (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

So, all I do there is pull the material that is on the site and display it in the area provided after eliminating some simple stuff (like extraneous BR's in the HTML. The best way to complain about that is to send email to ... maybe they need a feedback link. --Crew (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Future directions on the front page

Here are some things I am planning to do. Suggestions are also welcome.

  1. Further modify the JavaScript that inserts the stuff to squeeze out more of the HTML BR's in there so it doesn't expand so much.
  2. Modify the Anniversary stuff so it randomly selects from the Events section of existing Anniversary articles. This will reduce the labor associated with creating that section.

-- Crew (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocking Outrage

User is blocked
Your IP address has been automatically blocked because it was used by another user, who was blocked by Idris. The reason given is:
Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Allbanglanewspaper".
The reason given for Allbanglanewspaper's block is "Spammer."
- Start of block: 12:28, 7 March 2017
- Expiration of block: 12:28, 8 March 2017
- Intended blockee:
You may contact Idris or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.

I don't know who "Allbanglanewspaper" is or why I got blocked with him/her.
This confusion cannot continue.
"Spammer" allegations without examples of proof.
The Idris and administrators links had no contact information or way to refute this absurd claim.
This is absolute bullshit and needs to be resolved immediately. Tighten up this shit.
And who gets blocked for one day. That's just stupid. This is abusive absurdity.
Your absolute power has corrupted you when you weren't bothering to pay attention.
~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Allbanglanewspaper was a spammer, and I blocked him and deleted the spam. Another sysop, Crew, also acknowledged Allbanglanewspaper as a spammer. The problem is that, by default, a checkbox known as Autoblock ("Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IP addresses they try to edit from") is ticked. Unbeknownst to me, the website assigns everyone the same IP address, probably as a privacy / security measure.
What happened wasn't the result of "absolute power corrupting"; it was a result of default options and what was then unknown to me. In fact, pretty much every sysop was guilty of what I did: all prior blocks were made without "autoblock disabled". I fixed the problem by disabling the autoblock feature on all blocks still in effect.
I'll see what I can do to ensure that this never happens again. --Idris (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt response.
Please see that you post some better contact information for yourself, the empty adiministrator's page, and/or create some kind of form or something to submit admin problems/queries/etc. I was locked out without recourse. If it had been longer than a day...
~ JasonCarswell (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The message you saw looked something like this: (meaning of the variables). I'll see if I can have someone add the contact Email address mentioned on Infogalactic:About added to it. --Idris (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Update: Crew is working on it. --Idris (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Infogalactic News 2017-03-22 AM

This is Infogalactic News:

   Shots Fired at UK Parliament
   (Officer Stabbed and Assailant Shot, At Least a Dozen Mowed Down on Westminster Bridge)

And this is Drudge:


Drudge has been doing this job for more than twenty years and thus has some advantages when it comes to quickly reading the situation and updating his headlines.

In comparison, I find Infogalactic News to be somewhat conservative when it comes to headlines as well as update frequency.

Whitebeard (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Infogalactic News : General suggestions

1. Can you remove the non-working link to the next/future twelve hours (top-right) on the default page?

2. The existing system with the page changing every twelve hours is functional. However, one has to keep clicking the link on the top-left to go to the previous page. Further, it is not apparent that the links function as prev/next buttons. Has thought been given to a "more" link at the end of the list of articles, or a never-ending list of articles where more articles are loaded on request/scrolling?

Whitebeard (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see this when you originally wrote it. What are you referring to? - -Crew (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I assumed you were referring to [ Infogalactic News] so I went and had a look. There is some weirdness if you click back enough times so I brought it up with the people doing that site. -- Crew (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

A Delicate Matter

Hello All Galaxians!

I am a newbie. First of all, I think the Infogalactic project is fantastic because Wikipedia sucks. And I am glad some people had the agency to get the infrastructure done. I am willing to help fork Infogalactic away from Wikipedia, which is where I think all its value-add can only come from going forward.

I have read the seven canons and all the onboarding materials. They are all pretty meaningful, but to some extent they are directed towards everyday topics. Some topics are slightly more controversial, and I would assume that special rules apply there; or, to put it better, that some of the official rules are enforced more ruthlessly. Having been a reader of Vox Day's blog for a while now, I have no doubt that Infogalactic will ban me forever if I do anything underhand, so that's why I want to come clean before I make my first editing.

I would like to edit the biography of Rudolf Hoess, the most notorious commander of the Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II. I think that the current version of the page is omitting certain significant and well-documented facts about the reliability of his testimony (extracted under torture, threats to the life of his son, etc) that would put his self-incriminating confessions under perspective for the average reader. There is even a mainstream historian who stated in print that the evidentiary value level of his confession is weak (I have the reference).

Essentially I'm just flagging out that I'm going to do it, so you don't have to respond if you don't care; but I am also fully cognizant of the fact that newbies shouldn't enter minefields, so I'd like to know if this is the kind of editing that the Galaxian community can accept. Any gentle advice beyond the seven canons would be appreciated. Basically, what's a newbie who enters a minefield got to do to avoid getting banned forever? I think there's the obvious: stick to verifiable facts - and I will; but maybe in this case the approach is more complex?

Ws48 (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no problems with you editing that entry as long as the changes are sourced and well thought out. Here's how to go about it to minimize issues. Copy the existing entry to something like User:Ws48/Rudolf_Hoess and make your changes there. That way we can see what your changes are likely to be and can give you advice along the way. When it is done, you can copy the completed article over the original. Perhaps you could also discuss the deficiencies you see with the current article in your user page: User:Ws48 or the talk page associated with you: User talk:Ws48. (Note, I have provided links to make it easy for you to create those pages where necessary. Some of them don't currently exist.) -- Crew (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My answer: Thank you for your help, and I have created the pages that did not previously exist. I would ask all further discussion by interested parties on this topic to be moved to my user page User:Ws48 so as not to clog up the Boardroom unnecessarily. Ws48 (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

re: delicate matter

If the current version of the page about Rudolf Hoess omits significant and well-documented facts about the reliability of his testimony, then the missing information should be added. All that matters is that it should be true, or at least verifiable through citations. Jack-arcalon 13:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree. -- Crew (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I also agree. May I also suggest that you consider another sub-title that openly admits that it is a non-mainstream corporate media perspective, alt-history, lesser-known facts, or something along those lines. If not in a dedicated sub-section, then at least declare it in a defensive sentence. Naturally well-sourced citations are important. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Is Infogalactic being blocked

I'm getting an

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?