Paganwiki!

[Bix]

http://paganwiki.org/

So, what do ya'll think?

[smckim]

WOW this looks like it's going to be great!!! I will definitely check it out.:)
This is a great idea.

[MelMullooly]

Great idea!

[Theres]

what's a 'wiki'?

[morningstar2651]

http://paganwiki.org/

So, what do ya'll think?
I think people on there ought to cite their sources and set a standard format for the pages, or that wiki will frustrate me to no end.

[BabyBird]

What was wrong with the regular Wikipedia that a pagan version was needed?

[morningstar2651]

What was wrong with the regular Wikipedia that a pagan version was needed?
It's a topic-specific wiki. There are lots of them. For example, Thelemapedia (http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Main_Page) & Star Wars Wiki (http://starwars.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page) (AKA Wookiepedia).

Wikipedia is npov.

I think that wiki would be a good way to make a collaborative BoS, granted that contributers knew what they were doing and cited sources.

[LostSheep]

Seems like a good idea... i think Wikipedia gives some quite fair coverage of Pagan matters, but something that encourages a nice warm huggy community kind of spirit is always nice.

Though I'm not sure about the grammar. Click here is enter the pagan encyclopedia.

[BabyBird]

It's a topic-specific wiki. There are lots of them. For example, Thelemapedia (http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Main_Page) & Star Wars Wiki (http://starwars.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page) (AKA Wookiepedia).

Wikipedia is npov.Eh. I guess I understand, but it does seem a little redundant. Whether you use paganwiki (or wookiepedia) or wikipedia, you're still just gonna do a subject search. All that's really changed is the name of the main site.

If there was a problem with wikipedia's coverage of pagan articles or something like that, I'd be all for it. But so far, paganwiki (or wookiepedia) just seems to be a paganized (wooki-nized) version of wikipedia.

I kind of like the fact that wikipedia has so many topics. If I click on any of the provided links in an article, who knows where I could end up? (ie, "Thelemy" eventually lead me to the comic book character "Moon Knight")

[Arion]

its bio for Silver Ravenwolf is rather nasty. How reliable are their sources?

[Tesra]

Hmm, not sure. I will have to look a little futher and deeper. Undecided at this point.:awilly:

[StarSpiral]

its bio for Silver Ravenwolf is rather nasty. How reliable are their sources?
As reliable as those who contribute to it. The point of the wiki projects is that anyone can edit and add to them. In some cases this leads to bad info or vandalism of pages but if enough people are editing these tend to get resolved quickly. It is a wonderful example of the prinicples of anarchism in action.

[Hærfest Leah]

I just came across this site for the 1st time yesterday. I love the idea of it. Haven't thumbed thru it much yet tho.

[mothwench]

Eh. I guess I understand, but it does seem a little redundant. Whether you use Peoplewiki (or wookiepedia) or wikipedia, you're still just gonna do a subject search. All that's really changed is the name of the main site.

If there was a problem with wikipedia's coverage of People articles or something like that, I'd be all for it. But so far, Peoplewiki (or wookiepedia) just seems to be a Peopleized (wooki-nized) version of wikipedia.

I kind of like the fact that wikipedia has so many topics. If I click on any of the provided links in an article, who knows where I could end up? (ie, "Thelemy" eventually lead me to the comic book character "Moon Knight")
i agree. i've always found all the pagan-related articles i needed in the normal wiki. with references.

[Nantonos]

http://paganwiki.org/

So, what do ya'll think?

Its another pointless fork that will have 0.001% of the content and 0.01% of thhe contributors, and will die out after 2 years.

If the Pagan-related articles on wikipedia are not good enough, then improve them. Anyone can. I do.

[RhiannynWildseed]

Not trying to start anything, but it's owner is the person that followed a link on my weblog and joined here a few days ago just to attack me. I've had quasi-dealings with him for about 2 1/2 years now, and recently it appears he's become my internet stalker.

He used to come in my site's chat room and promo his site so much (like 12 times in 10 minutes) that some of our members just got fed up. One of them asked him about the verification of sources. He got kinda indignant about it and said it wasn't his job to make sure that submissions were correct.

Now, I don't know what's to be said for this kind of attitude, but if I were doing a site like this...I would probably be on it everyday doing everything I could to verify the accuracy of its content. But that's just my personal opinion.

[Nantonos]

Its another pointless fork that will have 0.001% of the content and 0.01% of thhe contributors, and will die out after 2 years.

I forgot to mention divergence between well maintained articles on the main wikipedia and frozen snapshots that are not updated on the spin-off wikis.

Compare for example
http://paganwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Epona
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epona

[RhiannynWildseed]

I forgot to mention divergence between well maintained articles on the main wikipedia and frozen snapshots that are not updated on the spin-off wikis.

Compare for example
http://paganwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Epona
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epona

Also, how about Wikipedias policy about articles about living people? Going back to the comment about Silver RavenWolf...while I may not particularly like her and may even say so on a personal website, a wiki site isn't the place to bash a person. At least Wikipedia has a policy in place for this.

Writing style

You should document, in a non-partisan manner, what credible third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves.

The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated. There should not be any tone of either hagiography or hatchet job. Take care not to fall into either a sympathetic point of view or an advocacy journalism point of view.

There should be no hint of a gung-ho, publish-and-be-damned attitude. As editors, our writing may have real effects on real lives, and with that power comes responsibility.

Sounds like the SR bio was anything but non-partisan and neutral.

[Tigerlily]

Sounds like a cool site. *bookmarks*