It might pose a threat to Wikipedia, but only by being an even bigger threat to the whole concept of knowledge than Wikipedia is already: by being like Wikipedia, only worse in every respect. There is no single way in which Everipedia is more likely to produce a reliable compendium of human knowled...

It may pose a threat to Wikipedia, but it would be just as under threat from the technology I've outlined in here as Wikipedia is. I would see it as an opportunity! Get the AI to run around fixing all the things we know about so we can concentrate on finding and creating new things, which is the mo...

But what is the propose, to form communities? Yes, to quote from the Whitepaper "the Everipedia Network could support established media organizations such as the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedia), CNN, and NYTimes taking part in the editing and verification process by creating their own service...

Graaf Statler wrote:does Everpedia have a international ambition?

Yes, very much so. You can create pages in all different languages on the same system with Everipedia. I created pages on 中国, इंडिया and 대한민국, which although micro-stubs, show purpose.

Did you read the one about Larry Sanger's left thumb ? Pages like that and Putin's umbrella, which I made, are examples of what life's like when there's no notability requirements. Yes, it can be a joke. If it's sourced and neutral, Everipedia will absorb joke-a-pedia happily along with all the rest...

Every flood has to start with a trickle. Everipedia is growing to be a bit more than a few rappers and memes. We've got an astronaut doing science stuff, I'm updating archaeology, stake your territory while it's hot! https://everipedia.org/wiki/list-of-unique-content-on-everipedia-1/

I made Drmies an Everipedia page. Anyone can edit it (with neutral, sourced content)...didn't you know? https://everipedia.org/wiki/michael-aajj/

That really does suck. Dream Focus was always friendly and voted with me on issues in the old days.

The Wikipedia system isn't designed to reward fact-checking and getting things right. It's a fatal flaw.

I just don't get how about 50 editors out of a community of tens of thousands can decide for that community. It all sounds a bit Stalinist to me!