# SH Wiki



## 6079SmithW (Dec 24, 2020)

Hello everyone,

I am greatful to all the contributors for making such compelling threads, but as I have so little time lately (I have a baby to look after, a girlfriend with mental health issues and a full time job to contend with) I keep thinking it would be great to have a wiki for our worldview here.

For example, I go to the wiki and look for a subject, say, out of place artifacts or lost technology - and itsead of having to slowly soft through threads to find examples - they are on the wiki. 

This method would mean we always have the facts close to hand and much more accessible than a fact being burried nine pages within a thread somewhere (and first you have to find the thread!).

Thanks

Smith


----------



## dreamtime (Dec 24, 2020)

Good idea, but a wiki is such an enourmous amount of work - that's why there are only a few big wikis out there, you need thousands of contributors, and even then it would appear empty. Wikipedia has more than 100,000 regular contributors. We had a wiki here but no one added content.


----------



## 6079SmithW (Dec 24, 2020)

When did we have one? Maybe people weren't aware.

Think of them what you will, but the flat earth society have a wiki and it's quite useful to find counter arguments to heliocentric religious arguments.

I daresay we would have as good a chance as they do at making a decent wiki.


----------



## luddite (Dec 24, 2020)

We had a wiki in the main navigation bar for about a month. It got used to help in the migration of missing content from search engine caches. Then it became dormant. Then we removed it. Personally I like the idea but dreamtime is 100% right I fear. I could have my mind changed if a sensible structure was proposed.


----------



## 6079SmithW (Dec 24, 2020)

We could have a subforum, submition to wiki requests, mods could approve and add them to the wiki?


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 24, 2020)

The forum truly is the wiki in reality All it needs is a search that works better than the built in version does. 
Trouble with wikis as wikis they always become the contributors baby and as such the contributors act to shut down critical discussion of the accepted content. This happens in forums as well but the beauty of forums is they are pure discussion unless they are controlled the FES forum being a prime example. 
Here disparate views on just about any subject with a historical bent are discussed in the eyes of the reader with little resort to name  calling, it is a haven and the resurrection crew are to be congratulated on their achievement.


----------



## luddite (Dec 24, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> All it needs is a search that works better than the built in version does


We stopped using the built-in search months ago. Search is now offloaded to elasticsearch server's. 

I'm offended you never noticed ?


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 24, 2020)

Well bugger me!
I hardly need to use it and when I did need to search I used, shh say it quietly, statrpage ad duckducjgo.


----------



## luddite (Dec 24, 2020)

I stopped using DDG when they started donating to the ADL


----------



## Referent (Jan 17, 2022)

Would it hurt much to turn the wiki back on?  Here is why the question resurfaces:

Yes, lots of info is in the threads (so one may think wiki is unuseful, or, even worse, detrimental).  *But, the info is largely spread apart and not very hierarchically arranged.* This makes quick lookups somewhat laborious. Compare a) search for topic, open each relevant message, skim them all vs. b) find well-worn topic in wiki, skim to find and read the relevant part, and then if not satisfied, search the forum and update the wiki if needed.
We are at a point where there is* lots of established back-content*.  It is by very nature not all coherent.  This makes intake somewhat difficult.  Laying out this content with the various perspectives and facts, with reduced repetition and greater delineation/organization, may be welcome.
There is, as observed, *not a ton of new incoming new topics.  This is fine.*  Of course we always want local history, boots on the ground, new avenues, etc.  But there is plenty still to do with what we have; there is a lot to wrestle with as it is.  Maybe no solid conclusions can be made.  But when we have time, we could try organizing what we do have more succinctly/organizedly.
True, *authorship can introduce bias, but I think many of us on SH are pretty good on the whole at watching for our bias* and having an open mind; we would still strive to over-include, cite primary sources and/or threads, etc.  IMHO moderation has been pretty perfect in every instance I know about so far (I know not everyone may agree with this, this is my honest opinion though), and this can continue in a wiki in some way in my view.  Simply as trusted members only, something like that.
It was understandable to turn off the wiki long ago when the wiki was getting slim to no traction shortly after SHnet launched.  *But, enough time has gone by, that I think we can see there may be opportunity to make use of time of members who may want to--at times (e.g., while doing their own revisiting of a topic)--help consolidate/organize the existing info to be more consumable*, even if we do not have new lines of research ongoing to post a lot. I think some are still trying to make sense of what has been discussed, even if we have already read it and determined that nothing could be determined--a wiki would help along these lines (as well as for the continuing newcomers).
*It is okay for a wiki to start out sparse and snowball over time.*  Absolutely no guarantee of completeness can be given, sure.  As I understand it, it would *not hurt* to start off again, even if small and over time.  *I do not think it would be too much of a turnoff for the site to have a wiki that is 0.01% complete for a while.*  The main attraction is the forum.  A wiki could be a passion project for those who are interested in topics and is more rote work anyway (though benefiting from certain basic skills).
This is all opinion of course.  Curious what others think.


----------



## dreamtime (Jan 17, 2022)

Why not, I would activate it again if we had at least one member who accepts responsibility to build a wiki over time.

Still, I doubt it will be a good idea. It would also require the users responsible for it to have a scientific mindset, i.e. compare different views on a topic.

Let's say we take the topic of reset, then one would need to compare different concepts of resets available in the community. Otherwise the wiki would come across as if we tried to sell a certain idea of something.

To my understanding this has never been done yet and would be a massive undertaking.

But yeah, we could start with wiki-sites of prominent topics like Reset, Mudflood, Architecture, Chronology, Tartaria and see where it goes.


----------



## Blackdiamond (Jan 17, 2022)

Old kd's spirit is well suited for this.


----------



## Referent (Jan 17, 2022)

While getting to a comprehensive level would be time-consuming for any given topic, I think it is possible to simply rough in sections and add content over time without any great time-pressure.

I guess I would not really seek the responsibility of being primary admin for wiki, but I would be willing to do an experiment where I start to fill in topics that I revisit as I go through them.  I do have some minor wiki editing experience, and feel I would not totally screw it up.  It would have to be something of an experiment.  I think it will take a long time to create meaningful sections, since the topics are both broad and deep.  But I also think it is worth trying.  (So, I would not want to commit to something like 1 hour a week of wiki build-out for a year, but that could be a personal goal in my head maybe.)
The hazards of poorly organized contributions definitely exist.  Sadly, my experience is that many people who are otherwise smart are indeed poor at organized wiki contribution, so I empathize with the risk of just opening it up willy nilly.
A wiki in my view would seek to capture _all perspectives_ on a given topic, without really drawing its own conclusions. The evidence would have to speak for itself, for each of the perspectives (sub-topics) presented. Taking a couple of topics:

For Resets, yes, a listing of all the different reset concepts would be created.  Worldwide catastrophic resets.  City level takeover/repurpose resets.  National destruction resets.  Cultural resets.  And each would need its own section within a page, with as much description as available, linking to individual, focused pages at appropriate junctures.
So, a page on Mud Flood would not be able to choose a stance such as either 1) "there was a giant mud flood, based on all these building photos", or 2) "there is no clear evidence of a giant mud flood, since all these building photos are explainable".  But rather, sections such as, for example: *Introduction* (what is the general mud flood topic), *Evidence* (what the purported evidence is), *Timeline* (various possible timelines with their reasonings), *In Literature* (talk about references in the Bible or other different books, etc.), *Refutation* (explain why any or all pieces of given evidence seem insubstantial). It may be necessary to have *sections that name and describe different theories, each with their own physical processes*, etc.


----------



## dreamtime (Jan 18, 2022)

@Referent that sounds exactly like how I would approach it, great! We can start it. Let's start with one or two articles and go from there. No time pressure, of course. Every trusted member will be able to contribute.


----------



## Citezenship (Jan 18, 2022)

luddite said:


> I stopped using DDG when they started donating to the ADL


What do you use know? I still DDG, mostly because I am lazy.


----------



## luddite (Jan 18, 2022)

Citezenship said:


> What do you use know? I still DDG, mostly because I am lazy.


Brave search.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jan 19, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> Let's say we take the topic of *reset*, then one would need to compare different concepts of resets available in the community. Otherwise the wiki would come across as if we tried to sell a certain idea of something.



Heaven forbid! 



dreamtime said:


> But yeah, we could start with wiki-sites of prominent topics like *Reset*, *Mudflood*, Architecture, Chronology, Tartaria and see where it goes.


...



luddite said:


> Brave search.



Have you tried the Dissenter version of Brave?


----------



## dreamtime (Jan 19, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> Have you tried the Dissenter version of Brave?



No idea what this has to do with search, since the default search engine in Dissenter Browser was DDG.

But the Gab people have long canceled that browser. They don't provide it anymore on their website, and anyone who still uses it, uses a Brave version from 2019 or 2020 (latest version was from March 2020), which means you expose yourself to lots of security and usability issues.

One interesting browser for privacy-conscious users is LibreWolf, although it has some very restrictive settings which limits some functionality on websites. But probably good for simple browsing.


----------



## luddite (Jan 19, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> Have you tried the Dissenter version of Brave?


I did until i began having too many compatibility issues. Now i use brave on linux.


----------



## dreamtime (Jan 21, 2022)

I think we should start the Wiki with summarizing Fomenko's books.

We start with a wiki page for book 1, and for each chapter we will provide a summary with around 5% of the length of the given chapter. This will make it possible to give an overview of each book in less than 30 pages.


----------



## luddite (Jan 21, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> I think we should start the Wiki with summarizing Fomenko's books.
> 
> We start with a wiki page for book 1, and for each chapter we will provide a summary with around 5% of the length of the given chapter. This will make it possible to give an overview of each book in less than 30 pages.


Why that book?


----------



## dreamtime (Jan 21, 2022)

luddite said:


> Why that book?



they are very dense books with lots of fundamental information on chronology criticism, and having an overview would it make it easier to reference and find specific topics diiscussed.


----------



## Referent (Jan 29, 2022)

Adding Fomenko summaries to a wiki would be very welcome material, I'm sure.

However, I am a bit confused on why we would prefer such *structured article assignments* as a required starting point, exactly. Is it mostly to ensure high standards of quality (relevance, comprehensiveness, and usefulness) in the wiki pages that would exist?

In contrast, in my view, wiki content might grow most _readily_ if people can *organically contribute piecemeal* as they come across (revisit) topics.

For example, when I came across a comment about the oldest known printed Bible, I re-read through a separate thread on the topic, and would have appreciated a pre-formed wiki summary outlining the information (and might have contributed the same, if it were possible).
In this way, some or most wiki pages might start as incomplete outlines or woefully limited descriptions, but this can be an acceptable aspect of new wikis.  Pages can have a known attribute of being "always incomplete" and always a "best attempt", without this being detrimental necessarily.
To draw an analogy, the first (more formal) approach sounds a little like an attempt at writing an *"Encyclopedia Britannica of Stolen History"* that happens to use wiki software as a publishing mechanism, whereas the second approach would be more like *"leveraging the wiki medium format for informal, ad hoc collaborative documentation"*.  Both are valid uses of wiki.  And, both usages (can) result in organized outcomes.

In any case, we have a good backlog of SH content to draw from already.  The entertaining of the idea and the discussion of how to get started is sincerely appreciated.


----------



## iseidon (Jan 29, 2022)

If you start a Wiki, it should be something relevant to the topic, neutral, 100% obvious, but which is still, nowhere, systematized.

I can think of cities with ancient architecture, star forts, historical sites outside cities, major urban fires or disasters (there is already a similar site in North America - gendisasters.com) after which cities were "rebuilt".

For starters, just create a systematic (cataloged) list (like the sections on Wikipedia) of these sites, cities, and fires. With a minimum of data. The official date (buildings, events, etc.), architect (if any), style, etc. You can even do without pictures. If the topic comes up, you can add media items to the list.

Already this will be a plus, as it will form a clearer picture of the real past.

Perhaps this will attract users. After all, it's interesting to fill in the blanks in the history of your city/region/country/continent.


----------



## dreamtime (Jan 30, 2022)

Referent said:


> Adding Fomenko summaries to a wiki would be very welcome material, I'm sure.
> 
> However, I am a bit confused on why we would prefer such *structured article assignments* as a required starting point, exactly. Is it mostly to ensure high standards of quality (relevance, comprehensiveness, and usefulness) in the wiki pages that would exist?
> 
> ...



Yes, you can do whatever you want with it. I will install the Wiki during the next days and give all trusted members access to edit.


----------



## dreamtime (Jan 31, 2022)

You can access the Wiki via the Library. Once there is enough content we can move it to it's own navigation entry. Trusted members can create and edit pages and see the entire edit history. I also added an example when you create a new page - chose "BbCode" as Page type.


----------

