- It's really quite common for Nobel laureates to not have articles before winning. Just flipping through recent years, Benjamin List didn't, George Smith didn't, Jacques Dubochet didn't. Blythwood (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Our imprecise language about it (claiming someone gained an article or was granted an article) doesn't help. When the Strickland thing blew up, many commenters suggested that sexism was to blame, as if this website's aggregate don't do enough to praise women. Our notability criteria are designed to ensure a fulsome article can be written from deep-enough source material. When we, ourselves, discuss who "gets to have a Wikipedia article" we replicate this mind virus to our detriment.Chris Troutman (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The pen name "Shuichi Tezuka" sounded familiar. A quick online search took me to a heated talk page argument on another wiki which reminded me that the same author co-wrote an article for The Critic called "The left-wing bias of Wikipedia" in 2020. I responded to that article in the Signpost op-ed "Re-righting Wikipedia", which led a different site-banned Wikipedia editor to write a very defensive reply in a Breitbart News article. Shuichi Tezuka also published an article in the Journal of Controversial Ideas which compared people who dismiss a purported genetic link between race and intelligence to young Earth creationists. It will be interesting to see how a new fork of the entire English Wikipedia would fare in the long run, considering that the sites listed in the Alt-tech article vary widely in terms of success. — Newslinger talk 03:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Most (all?) Wikiforks have been very unsuccessful compared to the original, why should this one be different? (t · c) buidhe 21:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Far as I know the most successful fork was one of the first, the Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español. It did pretty well in its first few years but in the past decade it is often said to have stagnated. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Most forks of Wikipedia fail is because (IMHO) they fail to offer any significant improvement over the existing environment of Wikipedia. Not to say that Wikipedia's environment is perfect, but there are a lot of disgruntled former Wikipedia editors (some of whom should be able to play nice with others -- the major reason many become former Wikipedians) & the barrier to entry is (as Justapedia has shown) quite low that it's hard to find any other reason for this failure. And so far the most significant difference between Wikipedia & Justapedia is that the latter has no connection to the WMF; whether this is a decisive difference or not is enough of a reason this new online encyclopedia should be watched. -- llywrch (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
