Talk:Everipedia/Archive 2

Unreliable and self published sources
what sources do you think are unreliable and reference self-published sources? If you tell me, I could remove them and improve the article. 344917661X (talk 18:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for volunteering to look over the article. The sources that I believe are unreliable include Prsuit (prsuit.com), Wefunder (wefunder.com), Hacked (hacked.com), CryptoDigest (cryptodigest.com), FT Reporter (ftreporter.com), and ChannelVision Magazine (channelvisionmag.com). There may be more, and I didn't examine the foreign language ones too closely. —  Newslinger  talk   19:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed all of them. Also, I would suggest examining the foreign languages ones more closely as well. Just make sure to copy and paste the article text into Google Translate so you can understand them better. 344917661X (talk 20:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! By the way, I'm not receiving any of your pings, but I'm not entirely sure why. You can turn on "Successful mention" notifications at Special:Preferences to find out when your pings are successful. If you don't get a notification after pinging someone and then refreshing your page, then the ping didn't go through. —  Newslinger  talk   21:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I turned the "Successful mention" notifications on, so that hopefully shouldn't be a problem anymore. Is there anything else wrong with the Everipedia page that I could fix? 344917661X (talk 01:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Since you addressed the issues that I raised, I've removed the cleanup templates from the article. Thanks again! I didn't receive your last ping. Perhaps it has something to do with your signature? I'm not sure, but the help desk might give you a better answer. —  Newslinger  talk   03:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem! And I'm not sure why you aren't receiving my ping. 344917661X (talk 02:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Everipedia in contrast to Wikipedia
Editors are not required to independently verify each statement an independent source stated. There is not need verify each claim twice. The claim is independently sourced using a WP:SECONDARY source. More than one independent source verifies the same claim:

See "Everipedia is the largest online english encyclopedia in the world,..." — The Next Web

See "With six million articles, it’s the world’s largest English language encyclopedia, bigger than English Wikipedia itself." — Inverse

See "With over 3 million unique monthly users and 6 million wiki articles, Everipedia already has more content than English Wikipedia." — The Block

See "Oggi, con oltre 6 milioni di articoli, è la più grande enciclopedia di lingua inglese ma ha ancora un pubblico ristretto di editor." — Money.it (In Italian)

See "Everipedia — самая крупная онлайн-энциклопедия в англоговорящем мире, частично благодаря тому, что использует ресурсы Wikipedia, которая, в свою очередь, основана на базе Британской энциклопедии." — High Tech (In Russian)

See "Everipedia, atualmente, já tem mais artigos em inglês do que a Wikipedia.." — Nexeo (In Portuguese)

I have edited many Wikipedia-related articles. Is Wikipedia the world's greatest or largest encyclopedia" or does Everipedia have more English-language articles than Wikipedia? Is this article the place to debate this if the sources are accurate or parroting the press release? Remember, we are not using a primary source or press release for the claim. I think we can stick to using one citation for each statement in accordance with "Citation underkill". I have not found a single source that states the numbers are wrong. That means there is no serious dispute. See WP:ASSERT. The dispute should be among or between sources rather than an editor thinking the independent sources might be wrong. We do not need to double verify each statement. That would be counter to Larry Sanger's Verifiability policy. Editors are not supposed to be journalists. We are not supposed to claim the sources could be wrong, especially when there is a consensus among sources for the same claim. Larry Sanger maintains he is the co-founder of Wikipedia. But it is more than Sanger who maintains he is the co-founder of Wikipedia. There are independent sources that verify he co-founded Wikipedia. Same situation here. If Everipedia states that have X number of articles we can report it. But when independent sources also state that the site has X number of articles, and it is surpassed Wikipedia's English-language Wikipedia we can state it in Wikipedia's voice until there is a serious dispute among sources. I'd rather focus on improving the page than question the consensus among sources. I checked every edit made to the Everipedia entry and I checked all the sources to make sure the information is properly cited. Violating original research or replacing sourced content, with content that fails verification is against verifiable policy. Pseudo-facts is like fake news. We don't have different rules for different pages. Wikipedia's WP:sandbox is for test edits or fake information. It may or may not be true but our position as editors is to not takes sides or speculate if it is or is not true. According to Citation balancekill, "Placing a citation after each idea or concept does not guarantee the content is verifiable. Consensus on Wikipedia does not magically generate accuracy." Wikipedia seeks verifiable, not truth. As a compromise, we can state "According to". QuackGuru ( talk ) 14:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Does Everipedia still exist?
Does Everipedia still exist? The link to its website takes you to a blank page. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently, but functionality is very intermittent, and it's so heavy with buggy JavaScript that it frequently just doesn't work in Firefox and often not in Chrome - David Gerard (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I see I can access it when I use Chrome. (Not that I wish to use it, I was just curious to see if it still exists.) Sweet6970 (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)