Justapedia, a Wikipedia alternative and aspiring replacement, has gone public
justapedia.org
justapedia.org
The point is, he never said that. So how can you place a fake quote on your main page of this kind of project?
Perhaps some authors quoted an English translation which caused the variation. All anyone can do is use what RS publish. Our Quote section changes frequently, so there is really not enough time to prepend or follow-up on the exactness of a quote, especially if it's not a recorded original, or it was not written by the speaker...which is why it's referred to as a quote. There is no way to possibly know if the author quoting a person actually got verbatim.
WikiQuote delves into it in more detail: A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move toward higher levels. From "Atomic Education Urged by Einstein", New York Times (25 May 1946), and later quoted in the article "The Real Problem is in the Hearts of Man" by Michael Amrine, from the New York Times Magazine (23 June 1946). A slightly modified version of the 23 June article was reprinted in Einstein on Peace by Otto Nathan and Heinz Norden (1960), and it was also reprinted in Einstein on Politics by David E. Rowe and Robert Schulmann (2007), p. 383. In The New Quotable Einstein (2005), editor Alice Calaprice suggests that two quotes attributed to Einstein which she could not find sources for, "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them" and "The world we have created today as a result of our thinking thus far has problems which cannot be solved by thinking the way we thought when we created them," may both be paraphrases of the 1946 quote above. A similar unsourced variant is "The world we have created is a product of our thinking; it cannot be changed without changing our thinking." In the 23 June article Einstein expanded somewhat on the original quote from the 25 May article: Many persons have inquired concerning a recent message of mine that "a new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels." Often in evolutionary processes a species must adapt to new conditions in order to survive. Today the atomic bomb has altered profoundly the nature of the world as we knew it, and the human race consequently finds itself in a new habitat to which it must adapt its thinking. In the light of new knowledge, a world authority and an eventual world state are not just desirable in the name of brotherhood, they are necessary for survival. In previous ages a nation's life and culture could be protected to some extent by the growth of armies in national competition. Today we must abandon competition and secure cooperation. This must be the central fact in all our considerations of international affairs; otherwise we face certain disaster. Past thinking and methods did not prevent world wars. Future thinking must prevent wars.
I wish this platform luck. It will be hard and might take ages to take up speed and maybe it will fare better here.
Teaching about evolution is controversial because it pokes holes in certain commonly held beliefs. That doesn't make any of the actual underlying facts controversial.
No, you wish it was uncontroversial. Or it is uncontroversial within a carefully chosen subset of the society that agrees with the idea an its implications, but that's cherry-picking and does not actually mean it's uncontroversial (without qualification).
> Teaching about evolution is controversial because it pokes holes in certain commonly held beliefs. That doesn't make any of the actual underlying facts controversial.
How can you say that? The idea isn't controversial, but somehow only teaching it is? That's pretty obviously not true: the people who object to teaching evolution almost certainly object to the idea itself. I'm pretty sure they also dispute the "actual underlying facts" (at least historically).
A course-grained "controversial" tag will either apply very broadly or be inaccurately used (out of parochialism or other bias).
> Evolution is completely uncontroversial.
Perhaps it should be uncontroversial is what you mean, but it certainly isn't, which makes that statement wrong.
Still, not a 'controversial' topic unless you participate in scientific seminars.
At least be consistent, I mean, please.
I've read an article from a Hindi that basically explained how their religion was much more science-proof than the monotheisms. Also, looking into Ramadan for weird reasons, I recently found an article about how the Coran was more scientific-friendly than the bible, with example from the new testament.
Both where cherry picked bull* but I should have kept the links, it was quite fun and I probably would have had more examples.
If God can create matter and energy ex nihilo, why would He have any difficulty with setting a moon in motion to have a stable orbit? This feels like arguing that humans break the laws of physics every time we lift an object and throw it.
That's an unfair criticism. Wikipedia itself started with a "miniscule amount of editors compared to" its competitors at the time.
> i would say this looks like a waste of time and people behind it should rather invest time in "fixing" wikipedia articles and potentially work with wiki foundation on some rules and techniques to prevent manipulation rather than start their own project
That idea obviously fails if the problem is a personal/social one (e.g. you fork because the maintainer keeps closing your bugs as WONTFIX). Wikipedia's culture is dysfunctional in many respects, and there are arguably many problems with it that it's maintainers are fine with and will not fix.
It's now 2023 and certificates are still a pain in the butt.
The web needs a better solution than Let's Encrypt.
We need a certificate authority to which you can prove control over a domain by putting a file in:
domain.com/.well-known/root_ownership
And get a wildcard cert this way.
Let's Encrypt's approach to require changing DNS entries for this is not the way to go.
Their argument seems to be that user generated content might end up in a file. And therefore file authentification is only good for individual hostnames. But which website let's you put user generated content into /.well-kown/ on the root domain?
The "identity" market with their dubious ideas would currently ensure that we end up with a worse solution than we have now. Wildcard certs for every subdomain can be a bad idea if we look at the numerous cloud services that provide subdomains to their clients.
It sounds a bit like they disagree that wikipedia is "neutral" and want to do their own thing with the exact same goal maybe filtered through their own unconcious biases instead.
Regardless, this is how right to fork is supposed to work. If you think wikipedia is doing a bad job, then try and do a better one and see what happens.
I do get an implication that they think wikipedia is too woke or something like that.
> From Justapedia
> Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarianism that first emerged in Italy under the leadership of Mussolini, who coined the term to describe his political movement in 1919 during World War I.
> (...)
> There have been attempts by media and some scholars to equate nationalism with fascism while discarding its Marxist "anti-capitalist economic, philosophical and political framework."[3] George Friedman opined that in 2016 a number of articles and statements asserted that "fascism is rising in Europe, and that Donald Trump is an American example of fascism." Friedman denounced such beliefs as "a misrepresentation of a very real phenomenon", and that the nation-state is once again becoming the most important part of politics. He went on to say that people simply don't consider multilateral trade treaties and international organizations like the European Union to be in the best interest of their respective countries, and that the idea that fascism is on the rise "derives from a profound misunderstanding of what fascism is." He views it as an attempt to "discredit the resurgence of nationalism and to defend the multinational systems that have dominated the West since World War II."[4]
-
> From Wikipedia
> Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[14][15][16] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[15][16]
So, that's Justapedia main selling point? Removing the "far-right" label on the goddamn article on Fascism, and associating it with Marxism?
I don't like the Wikipedia article either tbh, as in my opinion it doesn't go in details about what Paxton means (to avoid defacing I guess?), but Friedman as a source on fascism...
I will stay polite, but this kind of stuff is why I'm becoming more and more elitist when it comes to discussing political ideologies. I can discuss with an edgy fascist who just read Nietzsch (or even internalized him) and historian's books on WW2. I actually did, multiple times (the same one). I can discuss with a priest who is a theology major (and minor in history). I feed from their knowledge and interpretation.
What can I get from people this ignorant? 'je parle pas aux cons, ça les instruits' wrote Audiard, I thought it was just a funny line, now that I'm older I see what he meant.
For example "...[facism is] a fear-built society based on the “common will” of the people, the stifling of dissent and persecution of minority groups, and militarism and imperialism by conquering and ruling weak nations." doesn't exactly sound positive to me.
- Global warming - Covid lab-leak stuff - Jimmy Wales being mean to Elon Musk (Really?)
On the valid side, we have: - Holocaust minimization (this is a valid complaint) - Systemic bias at wikipedia (even linking to [2])
So their solution to this is... copy wikipedia, but add more rightwing bent?
Maybe the reason wikipedia seems left wing is something to do with the fact that a lot of right wing talking points fail apart under scrutiny.
The fact that their "improved" fascism example claims (without citation) "Corporatism became one of the main tenets of fascism" makes it a farce.
They also link to [3], which is (unintentionally) farcical site that makes the tired argument that fascism is left-wing as a useful source, which should tell you everything you need to know about this place.
1: https://justapedia.org/wiki/Justapedia_Foundation 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias 3: https://c2cjournal.ca/2022/01/left-wing-fascism-and-its-war-...
I hear people say stuff like that a lot (e.g. reality has a X bias, where X is some identity of the speaker), but I'm convinced it's a flattering fiction. When someone disagrees with something, it often appears to "fall apart" to them when scrutinize it using their incompatible assumptions (e.g. the source of the disagreement). When someone agrees with something that's weak, they tend to avert their eyes from the problem. The end result is people feel they they couldn't be more righteously right, that their opinions are "objective truths," and that their opponents couldn't be more wrong, but the feeling is just a self-serving bias. That bias tends to go unchecked and unmoderated when the opponents are remote from one's day-to-day life and can be thoroughly othered.
Justapedia believes in "context matters", we support "truth", and the inclusion of all significant views (diversity). Our readers will be well-informed to make their own decisions. An encyclopedia is not supposed to make decisions for them.
As for journalistic opinion and mainstream media, read CJR's 4-part review: https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-p... Science even sees the politicization in mainstream: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190813130431.h...