🧠 Wikipedia alternatives? 📚 - Serious answers only.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
NuII's Clitty💦

NuII's Clitty💦

Junior officer of the Niggerwaffen
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Apr 17, 2025
Let's say I want to research some topic, and I have reasons to believe that information on Wikipedia might be censored. Where do I look?
I'm mostly interested in natural science, not in politics or history, so identifying falsehood should be possible via experimentation.
This question was raised before, but most answers were hee hee ha ha jokes. Let's try this once more.

Proposed alternatives:
-Wikipedia in other languages (for example, Russian or Chinese Wikipedia).
-Encyclopædia Britannica.
-Chat GPT as a search engine, request multiple sources and compare (won't work for information that's internally censored by Chat GPT itself).
-Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1926, obviously outdated).
-Conservapedia (might be useful for Americans interested in politics, very limited usefulness for those interested in natural science).
-Manual literature review via library (local or online). Allows for great diversity of sources, but is labour-intensive. Anna's Archive is my personal online library of choice, there are other repositories and databases such as ResearchGate, JSTOR, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and so on.
-Word of mouth (effective only if you have a contact with an expert in the relevant field. If the information you're looking for is being suppressed, asking people about it might be dangerous).

Contribute additional options & insights below.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
While Wikipedia is good for general overviews, smaller wikis are usually better because they can go more in-depth on their subjects than Wikipedia.
Handwiki (computer science wiki) is pretty interesting because the editors need to have at least 1 publication in a well-established peer-reviewed journal. I haven't used it too much so I'm not sure how good it is.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Wikipedia is okay for most natural sciences. The main issue is that some articles have needless technical jargon and aren't organized well. As long as it doesn't have the slightest whiff of politics. So you'll only tend to get in trouble when it gets into subjects like those touching on gender politics like women inventors and sex biology.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Most all in one sources for information are kinda dogshit. It's best to just look for wikis with a certain specialty or sorting through academic papers.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
NuII's Clitty💦 said:
Let's say I want to research some topic, and I have reasons to believe that information on Wikipedia might be censored. Where do I look?
I'm mostly interested in natural science, not in politics or history, so identifying falsehood should be possible via experimentation.
Click to expand...
Any physical work that has been published before 2016-2017 (This is how I check for any information regarding anything transgender related.)
NuII's Clitty💦 said:
-Conservapedia (might be useful for Americans interested in politics, very limited usefulness for those interested in natural science).
Click to expand...
Bullshit advice. Don't look at any politically biased wiki for anything related to politics ever. For all its faults, Wikipedia tends to be more neutral on certain political subjects, and there is a way to backtrack articles before ~2016 and read those articles.
NuII's Clitty💦 said:
-Word of mouth (effective only if you have a contact with an expert in the relevant field. If the information you're looking for is being suppressed, asking people about it might be dangerous).
Click to expand...
Last time I tried this with a historian, they just looked it up on Google and gave me an AI generated answer.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom