Talk:List of online encyclopedias/Archive 1

æ
encyclopedia dramatica doesn't get a mention? aw Faulty 11:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

i saw it somewhere and mentioned that it didnt have an article.

oops forgot to sign --KPF 04:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

An online encyclopaedia with a relatively high Google search is "High Beam". Does any one know anything about this one? I did not see it on the list here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"High Beam" is added now. :) Scapler (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia
Various people have tried to add it. Just wanted to put it out, editors to this page have decided over and over, Uncyclopedia, while amusing, is NOT an online encyclopedia. It is a parody of one, not a database of useful information of any kind. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Uncyclopedia  IS  an encyclopedia. It may not look like one but it is an encyclopedia of Humor.--86.154.122.106 (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC) or TheWikiMan026 as I am on Uncyclopedia.

Too positive?
While the description entry of most encyclopedias says something about the content or goals, wikipedia's says Largest encyclopedia in the world, with over 2,000,000 articles in the English version alone (including minor articles and stubs). This sounds too much like praise to me and it's not very informative about the content either. I'll change it to general interest and say something about the collaborative nature of wp. --86.88.18.236 (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC) It's mostly statistics that give it the status of being "Largest". RPGfanatic (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) As an aside, should conservapedia be on this list? On one hand the list should be NPOV but on the other hand listing it here could be NPOV itself. I've taken a quick look at encyclopedia and done a google search and while objectivity isn't mentioned per se, I do get such definitions as A work containing factual articles on subjects. Thoughts?--86.88.18.236 (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Column "license" lacking
While there is a column "Access" in which access and (sometimes) license are aggregated, there should be two distinct columns called "Access" and "License". This would me more useful and more convenient. (You can see an example here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liste_d%27encyclop%C3%A9dies_sur_internet&oldid=32375270 ) 80.13.67.192 (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No Uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica?
While they are parodies of information I'm surprised that neither are on this article or indeed on Wikipedia at all. Is there a reason for this? RPGfanatic (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Those 2 encyclopediae should certainly be added to the list, as they are 2 of the most popular encyclopediae on the Internets. However, Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica both have pages here on Wikipedia. Anyhow, Wiktionary defines encyclopedia as meaning "a comprehensive reference work with articles on a range of topics". Nowhere in that definition, or in the encyclopedia page on Wikipedia, do I find it saying that an encyclopedia necessarily has to be true. Also, check out Wikiality, another wiki encyclopedia, and arguably the largest in the world. The main page of Wikiality states that it has 10,186,999 articles, compared to 2,577,162 on Wikipedia. While this may be an example of truthiness, it should not be entirely dismissed out of hand, because that would violate NPOV rules. Since Conservapedia is included on the list, I think that demonstrates the fact that this is not merely list of factual encyclopediae, but a general list of encyclopediae, both factual ones (like dKosopedia) and ones full of blatant lies (like Conservapedia). --69.205.228.89 (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the Oxford Dictionary, an encyclopedia is a "publication giving information on many subjects, or on many aspects of one subject". Unencyclopedia is just not encyclopedic, it does not give information on any subjects, the "information" involved is false, and does not contain any actual facts. Conservapedia, though it is biased and certainly not very accurate on many subjects, contains factual information on subjects. It is formatted like an extremely biased encyclopedia. That being said, I have questioned its inclusion on the list, but have received little comment under the section. Scapler (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See below for my response. I felt no need to say the same things right next to eachother. ;) Azcolvin429 (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Political Encyclopedias?
I believe that Conservapedia and dKosopedia should be removed, because they are far more political than they are encyclopedic, what are everyone else's thoughts? Scapler (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ABSOULUTLY! Conservapedia is NOT an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. Encyclopedias are divided into articles with one article on each subject covered. This said, encyclopedias are designed to show bias, because bias is not necessarily fact. Conservapedia is plain and simply bias, and any one who’s anyone can see this. Conservapedia does not show enough citations and it lacks proper grammar, quotes, and factual information. For example: Conservapedia states that Barack Obama was “allegedly” born in Hawaii. Fact of the matter shows us that this was a lie perpetrated purposely to prevent Obama from becoming president. We know for sure that barrack Obama was born in The United States of America and that his birth certificate shows it. Also, being more for the Democratic Party, I believe that dKosopedia is also a bias encyclopedia. It may contain facts just as conservapedia, but is plenty full of over exaggerated, blatant lying.

On the other hand, if enough sites are compiled, there could be a separate list labeled “un verified encyclopedias”, or “bias encyclopedias”. It could contain both Unencylopedia and Conservapedia –and many more if available. If there are only two of these sites like this that consider themselves encyclopedias, I vote to have them removed and stay removed permanently. Azcolvin429 (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Need to mention...

 * Joepedia - all GI Joe encyclopedia
 * Monsterpedia - all about real and imaginary monsters 205.240.146.248 (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Uncyclopedia --86.154.122.106 (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

fear of competition
are you wikipedia people frightened for competition? Links to general interest encyclopedias are constantly removed (you find them so called non-notable). The last removal was the cakrapadia link with about 200,000 entries. Competition is good (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If we alllow competition, we might as well close shop. The 10 million $ per year will drop to 1 million, which can not pay the salaries of the core of copy writers. James XXXIII (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is the place for notable articles, and if an article is not notable then it is not in wikipedia. Thus, pages in other wikis are not notable, or are merely low quality versions of the corresponding more magnificent wikipedia article on the same subject. Thus logically all other wikis are merely collections of  non-notable pages that do not make the cut. Ergo other wikis will never meet the wikipedia criteria for notability. --Spud Gun (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, what? As ALWAYS, if another wiki meets WP:NOTE, then it may have an article. Talk pages are not the place to rant. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "all other wikis are merely collections of non-notable pages", maybe they are but they don't bore people to death like yous do here.--86.154.122.106 (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The Infosphere
Is The Infosphere worthy of this article? It would seem like a conflict of interests if I just add it, so I am asking before hand. Thank you. --Svippong 15:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If it has a Wikipedia article, it is notable enough. Scapler (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it doesn't, and I couldn't write it myself; it would be a clear conflict of interest. Although, I am not making a buck off people visiting the site.  I just get excited about it.  Does Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha have articles?  (I suppose I can tell by the non-red links)  But I never really thought about creating an article about The Infosphere on Wikipedia.  Who should I ask for its notability? --Svippong 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, Memory Alpha or Beta doesn't have articles, at least the links in this article simply redirect elsewhere (which may be worth taking a look at). So, even if it doesn't have an article, can it be on the list? --Svippong 01:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for checking, I had not realized that they were only redirect, I will delete them. Though you enjoy the site, I would encourage you to write an article on the site, just keeping the tone neutral, and using third party sources. Scapler (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to bring this up again. Now, I won't insert it myself, because I feel it would be a slight CoI, but if the Battlestar Galactica Wiki (Battlestar Wiki) is simply a link to the External Section on the Battlestar Galactica article, I fail to see why the Infosphere cannot be on the list. Hell, given h2g2's lack of real sources in its article and Wookiepedia's fairly short article, I think the bar seems to be set pretty low.

I may be ranting/rambling, but still... I may be biased here, but the Infosphere is one of the more decent popular culture wikis out there, despite the "minor" show that Futurama is. --Svippong 12:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I reopen this for discussion? Especially because our wiki have grown a lot since then and has been used quite some in the press. Unfortunately, there still remains no article discussing the Infosphere directly, but is that necessary? This is why I am re-opening this discussion. --Svippong 07:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Information
There is information about wikis here. A few are encyclopedias. Most aren't. Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Links?
Does anyone think we should add a column for external links to these encyclopedias? It would work better than an enormous external links section, and be more accessible. Thoughts? Scapler (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the idea, although I think it might make more sense just to put links in the column with the name. -- Truthful Cynic  04:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Organization
Should this pages subsections be organized alphabetically? -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable
How do you define notable though? 90.192.170.94 (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

downloadable
Which ones are freely available for download by anyone in their entirety? Please add a column for this kind of data. -96.237.10.106 (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible addition to list - the MYSTICA.ORG online encyclopedia
the MYSTICA.ORG - "An on-line encyclopedia of the occult, mysticism, magic, paranormal and more..."

However, no article (yet) for MYSTICA.ORG. Should we still add it as a redlink? -- OlEnglish (Talk) 01:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say we make the article first, as we should only really include notable online encyclopedia to avoid becoming a directory service. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Software column, formats
This is a very useful list, but maybe these extensions could be useful:
 * What about adding which encyclopedia runs on which software? E.g. MediaWiki or something else.
 * What about different formats these encyclopedias are available in: mobile device format (smartphones, PDAs), PC/laptop/computer format, reader format (eBook), other?
 * What about providing the information about the possibility to download all of encyclopedia in a specific format + the links provided (for offline use, very important for people without Internet connection)?

Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A license column would be great too. 150.214.75.121 (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia?
Why are they on this list? It's not an encyclopedia. Andrew Schlafly frequently insults anyone who has ever been to College because he thinks that Colleges are really concentration camps designed to give people "liberal bias." Almost every page on Conservapedia is factually incorrect. Almost everyone there who isn't Andrew Schlafly is a Troll, assuming the man himself isn't one. If Jack Chick made his own Wiki, would it be considered an "encyclopedia?" If we're going to include Conservapedia, we should also include other factually incorrect Wikis, like Uncyclopedia & Encyclopaedia Dramatica.TBone777 (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree that Conservapedia is inaccurate and biased (have you ever spent time on there? it amuses me with its ridiculousness), it is an encyclopedia, just one with an incredible bias. On top of that, the press most often refers to it as an encyclopedia, and we have to go with how it is refereed to in reliable sources, so as to avoid original research. Uncyclopedia and the like are not encyclopedia; Conservapedia claims that it is accurate, and is simply building knowledge from a POV, while those others are parody sites by design. In other words, Conservapedia expects itself to be taken factually and seriously, but Encyclopedia Dramatica expects people to view it as a joke. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Conervapedia is really more of a propaganda website, than an actual Encyclopaedia, they have articles saying that there is an ongoing study that will proove Athiests are mentally challenged, Communism is a form of Militant Atheism and other things like Evolution is thought of by many scientist to be "just stories". If not for the fact that I was told it was a serious Wiki, I would have thought it was a comedy site. There is a big difference between a Conservative bias and just making stuff up.
 * Once again, the press refers to it as an encyclopedia, albeit a biased one, and referring to it as something else on this page would constitute original research. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncyclopedia DOES contain facts like for example "Poitin is a strong alcoholic drink" (It is a fact)--86.154.122.106 (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC) or TheWikiMan026 as I am on Uncyclopedia

Copyright of encyclopaedias
It would be useful of the table included the copyright licence of the encyclopaedias. Some users here might want to look for creative commons non-commercial images or other content for the wikipedia. Snowman (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, it would be very useful. emijrp (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

city wikis?
Is this also for city wikis like Stadtwiki Karlsruhe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.208.69.180 (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Excessively English?
I've just come across this interesting list but it strikes me that it is probably excessively English. I frequently use a number of free, online Danish resources such as Kunstindeks Danmark which is an invaluable source of biographical information. There are several others just for Danish and I know they also exist for the other Scandinavian languages. Would it not be useful to try to go through the various wikiproject coordinators or members for the various languages to try to expand the list? - Ipigott (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The list seeks to list chronicle notable encyclopedia, so it is not just a case of whether or not they exist, but whether reliable sources discuss them. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, excessively English, through sheer Systemic bias.
 * Regarding additions, the maintainers of this article have settled upon the inclusion criteria of "[addition] must have an article in Wikipedia already", simply to keep the number manageable. So, writing articles on these unincluded resources would be one option.
 * I'd be interested in a discussion to expand that scope somehow, so that it could include a higher number of highly-notable (fuzzy definition!) foreign language resources. However, that discussion could be lengthy...
 * HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Quiddity for your supportive comments. One of the problems here is that many of the excellent non-English-language resources have not led to articles in the English encyclopedia, simply because they are not in English. This does not mean, however, that they have not been used as references in scores, if not hundreds of English Wikipedia articles. I myself have done a lot of work over the past 18 months or so on the biographies of early Danish artists, architects, photographers, composers, etc., and have found the Danish online resources invaluable. Even for those who do not read languages like Danish, the Google translation tools usually offer a pretty good level of assistance which makes them useful. There is of course one obvious solution and that would be to compile separate lists for other languages. I would suggest, for a start, European languages such as Danish, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swedish. With Danish and German Wikipedian contacts I could start the ball rolling for these two. One they are more or less complete (at least for the "highly notable" encyclopedic resources), they could simply be included in the main list under "See also" or perhaps as a "list of foreign-language lists". I know from my own experience how difficult it is to find some of these resources. They often appear by chance through searches or as references to other articles. But many of them never come up in searches because of their database structure and the cryptic nature of their websites. I know that people often give up on writing articles, simply because they cannot find pertinent resources. So would this be a reasonable way forward?


 * And what about multilingual search facilities such as the increasingly useful Europeana which you can play with here? But one thing at a time... - Ipigott (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick replies:
 * Whilst poking around, I found the Kunstindeks listed at WikiProject Intertranswiki/Danish/Missing articles/4. That might lead you to other helpful places, or suggest other potential places to list resources (at WikiProject pages, for example).
 * We also have a few other related lists, indexed at List of encyclopedias. Those other lists have slightly different, and perhaps more comprehensive (exhaustive), inclusion criteria than this list. [Some list-maintainers try to avoid redlinks, and some list-maintainers encourage them (until it becomes overwhelming, and/or discussion ensues).]
 * So I'm not really sure, but there are possibilities. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've seen some of the other lists and there are also the related categories. But in the past few hours, with the assistance of a Danish Wikipedian, we've already managed to identify about a dozen valuable Danish freely available online encyclopedic resources which could form an independent list. It should not take too long to put together. Once it's there, anyone could use it as a source for other lists, including yours. I'll probably have something in a sandbox so..on which I could share with you if you wish. - Ipigott (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just an interested onlooker. Don't wait for me, be bold! -- Quiddity (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The first draft is here. I've also included it under "See also" in the main article. As you can see there is quite a lot of useful stuff. For the time being, I have only included resources which can be accessed free of charge. There are also many others which require payment. Maybe later... The next job will be to write short Wikipedia articles describing each resource in more detail. But I'm busy with other things no.w and would also like to wait for reactions. - Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Quiddity for tidying it up. I had in fact wondered whether it would be a good idea to use references for pointing to the access addresses and I see you have gone along on that basis. Probably a more orthodox way of dealing with the problem although perhaps not so straightforward for the user. - Ipigott (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

H2G2 is General Referencw
According to H2G2 it is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a 'Pop Culture' reference. Should this be moved to the general reference section? Pop culture wouldn't include a recipe for ginger beer. ;)

94.196.104.206 (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Where are Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica?
We need to make another "Parody" section for them, because there's no shortage of works using the encyclopedic format that are meant to be entertaining to an audience they select. J390 (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * They are parodies; formatting like some well-known encyclopedias does not make one, by definition, an encyclopedia. Not every site that uses the wiki software is automatically an encyclopedia. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree joke pages and attack site or not encyclopedias. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Uncyclopedia isn't just a joke site, it is jokes mixed in with humour so people can actually read it and not die of boredom as they do when reading Uncyclopedia--86.154.122.106 (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Missing wiki
In the pop culture/fiction section I noticed that the Transformers wiki was missing. Should that be added? Altamara (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Computer Hardware?
Should http://computer.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page be included, and if so, where? Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Generally, encyclopedia are only included if they already have a seperate Wikipedia article. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

OVO
OVO or Ovopedia is a online encyclpedias. Only video (3 minutes max). You can see at http://www.ovo.com/ and for more information http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/OVO_(video_enciclopedia).

79.11.225.130 (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia
This has been seen to be a personal proprietoristic creation run by Andrew Schafly and sychophants. He is "it." I am a Biblcist. Biblical literalism is generally a misnomer. Serious Biblicists recognize figures of speech. The issue is whether or not the Bible is true and language is to be interpreted normally without imposed allegories that reflect the cleverness of the interpreter instead of what the original meaning was. As a Biblicist I found myself not at home & banned from the site for taking issue with Schafly. I was not edit-warring with him. But I did take issue with him in talk. I found an appalling NON-LITERAL Bible translation in progress. Having 5 graduate degrees in Bible & related areas I found that the Bible was being twisted to give highly allegorical or figurative modernistic translations to reflect modern political conservatism, without careful regard to what the Greek says in the NT. You have to distinguish between Roman Catholic political conservativism and Biblicism, which are not the same. Calling it "far-right" is a judgment, IMO, uncalled for. It is not factual. He doesn't advocate Nazi-ism. If you are going to characterize his POV, you have to take it piece-meal: Is it laissez-faire economics? Objection to baby-murder? Adherence to traditional American morality? Favoring the rich over the poor? Belief in small government? Belief in not helping the poor (that isn't Catholicism). International isolationism (Taft-Republicanism)? Concern over prayer in school? Throwing around "far-right" is not helpful way to categorize POV's. I recommend non-judgmental objective terminology. (EnochBethany (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC))


 * I find it very odd that you recommend non-judgmental objective terminology and that your idea of how to do that was to characterize Conservapedia as sycophantic. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside all the irrelevant comments, it is true that all statements about the encyclopedias should be attributable to a reliable source, and "far-right" is not consistent with the WP policy of neutrality. A few other descriptions in this list have similar problems. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

sites like Uncyclopedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica?
I think Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica are pretty well-known and high profile websites. They don't seem to be listed. Maybe the See Also section could have a link to, followed by - in brackets: (like Encyclopedia Dramatica and Uncyclopedia)". I was looking for Uncyclopedia and searched for Encyclopedia Dramatica to find it, since I didn't remember its name. And was surprised that I couldn't find either of these listed on this Wikipedia page. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about Encyclopedia Dramatica, but, concerning Uncyclopedia, its point is to make the reader laugh, not to tell lies. Truth can very often be funny, and so making truthful, informative and yet humorous articles is something many editors there are trying to achieve. Considering that the Oxford definition provided by Scalper above (Talk:List_of_online_encyclopedias) or any other definition that I know of does not state that an encyclopedia should be serious and that a lot of Uncyclopedia articles do provide real information, even if under a comic form, I agree that it should be included into the article, but possibly in a new section. 82.120.11.40 (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Some Encyclopedias missing
There are several encyclopedias missing. I add the Encyclopedia of Law, which is available in lawin.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.227.217.232 (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Centralizing this discussion: Inclusion criteria.
Encyclopedias can be:
 * 1) general or specific in subject coverage (general as in Wikipedia or Britannica, specific as in an encyclopedia of plants or music)
 * 2) general or specific in audience (written for anyone or specifically for biologists, Buddhists, or libertarians)
 * 3) founded on ideals of objectivity/neutrality or founded on some other ideology or purpose (as determined by how reliable sources characterize the encyclopedia) -- I would include humor/satire as such an alternative purpose

It's assumed that, as a list on Wikipedia, all entries should already have Wikipedia articles, so we don't have to talk about importance.

There seems to be agreement that (1) encyclopedias that cover both general and specific subjects should be included. (How to organize comes afterward).

There seems to be agreement that (2) encyclopedias written for a particular audience should be included. (How to organize comes afterward).

There does not seem to be agreement that (3) all encyclopedias should be included regardless of objectivity or ideology. Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica seem to be the ones that come up most frequently, but we also have to consider H2G2 for its use of humor. We also then have to consider those that push a point of view to the point of being inaccurate according to consensus among reliable sources (and therefore sometimes unintentionally humorous in their own right -- although it's the POV and not the humor that separate them from the rest in this case). Once we start down that road, we get into questions like whether the Great Soviet Encyclopedia and a host of others belong...

Proposal
I'd propose to explicitly state the inclusion criteria for this list as:

An online encyclopedia can be included if it (a) has a Wikipedia article about it already (no redlinks, no redirects), and (b) is described as an encyclopedia by sufficient reliable sources (which must be cited if not already accomplished in the Wikipedia article).

(Note that this does not mean encyclopedias are treated as equal -- organization of the article can make clear which are humorous/satirical/biased and which are not.)

Support - as nom. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  15:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

✅ Almost a year after this was posted, I implemented it. For now I was a little lax on (b). For example, if something contains the word (or part of the word) "encyclopedia", then it would likely be described as much. Similarly, where a site describes itself as an encyclopedia, even though it's a primary source it's indicative that secondary sources will describe it as much. Also removed several that had unrelated topics, redundant, etc. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Rational-Wiki is not an encyclopedia
I already removed Rational-Wiki from this list once, and someone has reinserted it. Rational-Wiki says on it's own site that it is not an encyclopedia, and it has said so for years. Anyone object to me removing it again? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 22:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur. Removed. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I re-added it! Then I saw this and took it away again. I guess it pays to always check the talk page! --Jobrot (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Linking Wikipedia
It's standard for a list item which has its own Wikipedia article to be linked from said list item. In fact I've never seen a reason given for not doing so, especially since having a Wikipedia article is part of the inclusion criteria for so many lists (including this one). It's not already linked (and would be double-linkable even if it were, since it's a list). I linked it and was reverted in good faith, but am struggling to understand what reason there is for an exception to the manual of style here? Surely there's no detriment to the reader by linking it, and I think that just as anyone want more information about any of the other encyclopedias, so they might want more background on Wikipedia -- i.e. not assuming that because someone is using Wikipedia they wouldn't want to learn more about it. And besides, an encyclopedic list is not simply a resource for people to find information about things they don't know about, and we don't make judgments about what is/is not subjectively useful as part of inclusion criteria. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Greetings! As I presented in my Edit Summary, I think Wikipedia shouldn't be linked since, after all, we are using Wikipedia right now and it doesn't really provide any useful further information for the readers or editors. "Wikipedia" is also generally unlinked in the popular Ohc script, so perhaps I am not alone with my ponderings :P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I feel like I addressed all of that above pretty explicitly in response to your edit summary. By your logic, Wikipedia would have no links to the article about itself because every page on Wikipedia is being read by people who "are using Wikipedia right now". Whether it is "useful" is not a relevant question. If a script is unlinking it, it's not because it's unlinking all links to the Wikipedia article but because, perhaps, it's overlinked. Please do not remove the link to Wikipedia in the list. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We do have many links to the sub-pages of Wikipedia (e.g. policies and guidelines). But linkng to Wikipedia in general, I don't think that adds any value for the reader. "Whether the link is useful", that's the most relevant question actually. Maybe our greatest disagreement comes with respect to that? Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayaguru-Shishya (talk • contribs)


 * The reason I say the question of whether something is "useful" is irrelevant is because the policies and guidelines were put in place with things like "usefulness" in mind -- to set standards so that one editor's determination of what is or is not "useful" is rendered [more or less] irrelevant. One of those standards takes the form of a manual of style, which covers linking. The basic idea is that if subject A is discussed in the article about subject B or in a subject-specific list, it gets wikilinked the first time it appears because it should generally be considered "useful" to connect readers to more information on a subject irrespective of an editor's opinion thereof.
 * You also have the kinds of links which are appropriate backwards. Linking to policies and guidelines is specifically what we shouldn't be linking in articles, but linking to other articles, regardless of whether or not the other article is Wikipedia, is good. See Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Internet encyclopedia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The above move discussion was about moving Internet encyclopedia to Online encyclopedia. Consensus was to move. For consistency, I'm going to move this one. I don't think it'll be controversial. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

How to classify Metapedia
Copied from my talk page.

Hi there,

Just a quick note regarding List of online encyclopedias. I understand why you would want to remove and/or separate Metapedia. It's an awful site. But since Wikipedia is not censored and defer not to the moral judgment of editors but categorization by reliable sources, and because sources do describe it as an encyclopedia, it should stay in the list. Making up a category of encyclopedia called "hatred" is likewise a moral judgment. I did move it to culture-specific rather than "general interest" -- maybe that's a little better? The sections are really about the subject-matter and scope rather than perspective, but it could be argued that Metapedia is an encyclopedia containing not general information from a white nationalist perspective, but white nationalist content? I'm not sure how best to handle it... &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 14:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Metapedia is clearly not a "General Reference" as it was classified previously. No sources say it is.  Including it in that list alongside legitimate encyclopedias like Britannica and Wikipedia was a moral judgement, and a wrong one.  It doesn't represent any major culture either.  "White nationalism" is merely a euphemism for racism and hate.  I'll recategorize as "Miscellaneous" for now. Sole Flounder (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "Legitimate" is irrelevant. "General reference" is about scope, not legitimacy or even audience. These are established types of encyclopedias: general reference, biographical, national, subject-specific, etc. "Miscellaneous" is not a type of encyclopedia. Neither is "hatred". Plenty of encyclopedias have terrible biases. That's why we describe them that way in their articles. This is not an article about Metapedia, though. This is a list of online encyclopedias. As sources call it an online encyclopedia, and as its scope is that of "general reference", that is the section it goes in. It was a mistake for me to move it to culture. That was an attempt at a compromise, but Metapedia does take a wide/general scope, and is not about a particular culture -- it's just written from a particular point of view, reprehensible as it may be. Less extreme, but also on the list, is Conservapedia, which likewise writes from a particular perspective and is hard to compare to "legitimate" encyclopedias. Why not move that one too? I've restored it again. Perhaps you'd like to copy this thread to the list's talk page to get others involved, but categorizing as "miscellaneous" or "hatred" constitutes WP:OR. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 17:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll concede it is an interesting question. Let's see. Sole Flounder (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I think Rhododendrites makes a good point here with his comparison to Conservapedia; although it might be written from an ultra-right wing Christian conservative POV, it doesn't mean that it'd necessarily be a general reference encyclopedia - like it or not. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok so what's your reasoning behind your list of "established types of encyclopedias"? Is there some source out there that says this is how you must classify encyclopedias? Sole Flounder (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The major distinction is between "general" and "[subject-]specific" encyclopedias. Robert Collison, Andrew Brown, and Tom McArthur's books are the first that come to mind which make that distinction. The sections in this article are "general" and then "specific" is broken up into many sub-groups that comprise the rest of the sections. Some of them are well known categories in their own right, but others look to be grouped according to some typical subject groupings. The issue here is that you're creating a section outside of that scope-based distinction. The scope of Metapedia is broad -- it's just written from a perspective that colors the content. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 19:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * So your sources only distinguish between general and subject specific. You previously mentioned that there were "established types" and made it seem like we had to shoehorn Metapedia into one of those or else put it in general.  Good to know we have some flexibility here.  I still see nothing wrong with putting it in a Miscellaneous category.  The category name doesn't mean Metapedia covers Miscellaneous topics.  It only means the encyclopedias in that category would cover topics that don't fit into other categories. Sole Flounder (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The major distinction is general vs. specific. Many reference guides break specific into other categories, or throw in things like "biographical" or "scientific". Then there are things like "practical" sorts of encyclopedias that get into more how-to stuff. But that's besides the point. Metapedia's scope is "European culture, art, science, philosophy and politics". Ditto most general knowledge encyclopedias, which have historically been limited in worldview to a particular region (often European) and cover "the arts and sciences". The atypical thing is the intentional political purpose it serves, which colors its content. That doesn't remove it from general. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 20:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense. I got your message loud and clear when you recategorized the Holocaust Encyclopedia at the same time you moved Metapedia to the top of the page.  If you're not some sort of neonazi you're either incredibly insensitive or a troll.  Either way, I'm not going to spend a hundred years arguing with you that an encyclopedia-like web page filled with fictitious fantasy ranting and hate speech is not the same thing as a general interest encyclopedia that seriously attempts to describe reality.
 * This article was a mess when I showed up, with miscategorizations everywhere and a duplicate entry. You'd think I'd be given some room to run here but you're sucking all the air out of the room.  How about you get lost for a week, quit worrying about what happens to Metapedia, and let someone else have a chance? Sole Flounder (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Holocaust Encyclopedia is an encyclopedia about the holocaust (that is the specific subject/scope). It's not a general knowledge encyclopedia. Metapedia is not about the subject of "hate" or "racism". It's a general knowledge encyclopedia through a white nationalist lens. The race connection between the subject of the Holocaust Encyclopedia and Metapedia makes for an unfortunate coincidence to move them both in the same edit, I'll grant you that, but the former was simply the only subject-specific work sitting there in the general category. If you really think I'm a racist or otherwise being unreasonable, there are noticeboards, etc. for that. If you're pretty sure I'm not, but you're frustrated, I get that. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 23:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. If you feel that I'm preventing you from improving the page, I'll agree not to edit it for the next day or two. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 23:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Great. Sole Flounder (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is Metapedia's own description from the Main Page of their site: Metapedia is an electronic encyclopedia which focuses on culture, art, science, philosophy and politics.

The word Metapedia is derived from two classical Greek concepts: μετά (metá) meaning outside or beyond and ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία (enkýklios paideía) that is encyclopedia. The name has a dual symbolic meaning:

Metapedia sets its focus on topics that usually are not covered in — i.e. that falls outside of — mainstream encyclopedias.

Metapedia has a metapolitical purpose, to influence the mainstream debate, culture and historical view.

The project is still in its early stages, but the database is growing every day and you are heartily welcome to contribute to the growth of this valuable and unique encyclopedia.

I also went through some of the sources on the Metapedia page. Most of them are throwaway but ones like the Southern Poverty Law Center make clear the site is a nonsense hate site. Sole Flounder (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * So to justify continuing to edit war over this, you cite its own website, which calls it an encyclopedia, and the SPLC, which calls it an encyclopedia. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 02:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are some more: The Register, Daily Star, Evening Standard, Der Stadnard, El Plural... &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 02:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll go ahead and bold the relevant part for you: Metapedia sets its focus on topics that usually are not covered in — i.e. that falls outside of — mainstream encyclopedias. Sole Flounder (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What makes you think this is a "List of mainstream encyclopedias"? It's a list of online encyclopedias. That's all. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 14:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Metapedia - POV tag
Including a racist, antisemitic website in a section for general reference encyclopedias is a really bad judgement call. User:Rhododendrites really likes Metapedia and will not let me remove it from the list or place it in a section lower down where it could be placed in proper context. As such, I've labeled this article with the POV tag, so that others may know there is a problem here. Sole Flounder (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you unable to contribute without being disruptive and making personal attacks? Do you really think this should be List of online encyclopedias except ones that Sole Flounder finds objectionable? I removed the POV tag because there's no POV. You're not even making a POV-based claim (not to mention any semblance of a policy-based argument throughout any of the threads here). In fact, NPOV would require that we not simply omit something because we disagree with its ideology. That is POV. NPOV is about reflecting what reliable sources say, fairly, proportionally, without editorial bias.
 * All that's needed to be on the list is it to be an online encyclopedia per reliable sources and to have a Wikipedia article. It has both of those. All you're doing is edit warring to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It's a despicable site, and it's an encyclopedia. One doesn't cancel out the other.
 * What certainly is up for discussion is where on the page it's listed. But creating a section called "Hatred" is ridiculous. You might as well create sections for "Grandiosity", "Propaganda", "Secularism", "Greed", etc. for various other encyclopedias, based on ideology/intention. The sections aren't about ideology, they're about scope. The scope of Metapedia is similar to that of many other general reference sorts of works, but with an obvious ideological bent. If the ideology causes its scope to change (it does say something about aiming for topics less covered in other encyclopedias), then we can talk about how to describe that kind of scope. Along those lines, I had moved it to a lower section, but you objected to that, too. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 18:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Rhododendrites. Just the fact that you don't like the encyclopedia, doesn't mean that we shouldn't include it. After all, what we care is the quality of reliable sources, that's all. So far, the only POV I can see is your obsession to remove the listing, Sole Flounder. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No reliable sources call it a "general reference" encyclopedia. That was your call, to intentionally miscategorize a hate site so that it would be at the top of the page. Sole Flounder (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

CEE
The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics may not have its' own WP article, but its' parent, the Library of Economics and Liberty does. And the LEL meets WP:N standards. With this in mind, the CEE is noteworthy and including it here is helpful/useful to readers. Moreover, some of the article authors are high quality economists, Joseph Stiglitz being one. – S. Rich (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability is not inherited and every other entry in this list contains an article link to the encyclopedia itself. Encyclopedias are REQUIRED to have articles as per consensus here in the talk page archives. Elizium23 (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but you fail to distinguish between notability-ness and noteworthiness. At the same time I failed to realize that The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics has an article. – S. Rich (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

ED again
regarding this, there's been some disagreement in the past about whether to include this. My own opinion is that it's difficult to articulate a clear inclusion criteria that doesn't have unintended consequences or rely on OR/JDLI. Pulling something I wrote a while back (now in the archive) regarding what to do about entries that are called encyclopedias but push an ideology, perspective, or some other goal other than objectivity: Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica seem to be the ones that come up most frequently, but we also have to consider H2G2 for its use of humor. We also then have to consider those that push a point of view to the point of being inaccurate according to consensus among reliable sources (and therefore sometimes unintentionally humorous in their own right -- although it's the POV and not the humor that separate them from the rest in this case). Once we start down that road, we get to Metapedia, Conservapedia, and possibly even e.g. the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (for which there are plenty of sources describing it/them as such). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 22:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * POV isn't the issue, it's the complete lack of any attempt to be anything that could reasonably be described as an "encyclopedia". To describe it as "General interest" is seriously misleading. Keep it out. Johnbod (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, POV was about the other examples in what I wrote above, but sure it's about POV. Not in way one might say particular content is "POV", but in the sense that it covers a wide range of topics, but writes about them from a 4chan/Internet culture perspective that entirely prioritizes humor and internal cultural references over objectivity, facts, etc.
 * But, again, what is the inclusion criteria for this list, without applying WP:OR/WP:JDLI? Is Metapedia an encyclopedia? Is Conservapedia? H2G2? Is it a list of scholarly online encyclopedias or something along those lines? Of course they can all be encyclopedias. Encyclopedias have long had connotations regarding objectivity, factual accuracy, etc., in no small part kept up by the encyclopedia publishers and editors, but for as long as its been a recognizable genre there have been extremely low quality encyclopedias, radically biased-to-the-point-of-inaccuracy, humorous, subjective, fictional, etc. ED doesn't purport to be an objective, factual source of information (which makes it a bit easier to deal with than, say, Metapedia or Conservapedia), but if it's a large reference work with entries explaining a wide range of subjects, with some sort of organizational scheme, it can make a claim to be an encyclopedia.
 * I've no desire to give our readers the impression that ED operates according to principles like objectivity, factual accuracy, peer review, etc. but I do care about presenting information without applying arbitrary rules based on editor preferences concerning what's proper. Changing the "general interest" designation is perfectly reasonable, but what would a better heading be? At one point it was under "pop culture" or something along those lines, but that wasn't quite right, and it was combined with encyclopedias about pop culture topics. A "humor" section might make sense, including ED, Uncyclopedia, and H2G2. And perhaps something like "ideological" for some others that are widely regarded as not adhering to typical standards for reference? Most are under general reference because the headings are about the subject, not the tone/perspective/principles, and sites like ED cover any and all topics its members want to cover (so long as they involve "lulz" and/or connections to cultural references).
 * Of course now that I've written all of this I'm having trouble tracking down the sources I found a couple years ago that explicitly called ED an encyclopedia (as opposed to simply going by its name or calling it a "website"), so this may be moot.
 * Tl;DR - Not restoring ED for now, given WP:BURDEN, but if there are sources calling it an encyclopedia, there needs to be a better reason not to restore it (i.e. there would need to be consensus for a clearly articulated inclusion criteria that's not simply notability + sources call it an encyclopedia). No strong opinion on "general reference" vs. some other. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 02:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. ED is a notable repository for a lot of material related to internet culture. An assertion that "encyclopedias [that]] push an ideology, perspective, or some other goal" should be excluded has no policy validity. All the online source has to do is fit the broad definition of being an encyclopedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Metapedia is not an encyclopedia
At least I think so. What do you think? It's been years since we last had the discussion and it's time to revisit. Sole Flounder (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Anyone? If no one objects by next week, I will go ahead and delete Metapedia.  Thanks.  Sole Flounder (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Obviously you are aware that someone objects, because your removal of Metapedia from the article was reverted only 2 months ago. Being deliberately obtuse is not going to make anyone more forthcoming. From the the zero new arguments for removal you have provided here I take it you don't have any.--Atlan (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "was reverted"? What's with the passive voice?  You reverted it.  I am trying to reopen a discussion.  Maybe there is someone reading this who can offer a fresh perspective.
 * You seem extremely hostile for no reason, from leaving a snarky comment about edit warring to calling me obtuse. Is there something wrong in your life that you start fights with strangers on Wikipedia?  I am sorry if things are difficult for you.  Believe me, you will be ok if you change your mind and remove the racist hate site from the list of online encylopedias.  You will feel better.  Hate is a huge burden and you do not have to live like this, blaming all of your failures and frustrations on others.  Open your heart and there is still time for things to turn around.  Sole Flounder (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, what's the objective of this article? To find encyclopedies, right? So the Metapedia entry − though its name is misleading, as 'Meta' means somrthing else: ecyclopedia on ecyclopedies −  should remain. Its classification is quite clearly given and leaves  no room to misinterpretation. Cdt AVS (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Very well. Thank you for your input.  It looks like we have two remains, one delete, and no real consensus. I shall leave the article as is for now, probably revisit in the future. Sole Flounder (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

U.S.. state encylopedias
I created for my own use a table of online U.S. state encyclopedias, all of which are free:

User:Deisenbe/sandbox

I think it should go in a subsection after the Regional interest, and U.S. states should be removed from there. Do others agree? deisenbe (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Great Medical Encyclopedia
Per the hidden note at the top of the article, does Great Medical Encyclopedia (Russian language) have to be removed? It seems to only point to a Russian-language WP article, with no matching English-language WP article. Unless someone can quickly create a matching English-language WP article. In the meanwhile I'm tagging it with. —DIV (1.129.107.175 (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC))

Hudong → "Baike.com (互动百科)"?
Please check whether Hudong should be updated to "Baike.com (互动百科)". —DIV (1.129.107.175 (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC))

Defunct sites
Is there a compelling reason to retain dead sites (with active en.WP articles), given that the lead sentence of the article reads, "This is a list of encyclopedias accessible on the Internet." [emphasis added] ? Special consideration may be due if an archived version is still available online. —DIV (1.129.107.175 (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC))

OrthodoxWiki
Is there any reason OrthodoxWiki did not make the list?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC) See link: https://orthodoxwiki.org/Main_Page
 * Yes: You did not enter it – that is the way WP works! Greetings. AVS (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks but my concern had more to do with reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

RationalWiki
 They specifically state that they are not an encyclopedia.

De facto RationalWiki is an encyclopedia, whatever the original intent was and the core operators declare. AVS (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What do reliable sources say? Can you provide a good reference to support this claim? PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 06:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But Nagle never mentions RationalWiki, another online encyclopedia AVS (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we consider that a reliable source considering how it talks about Wikipedia? (Sarcasm). Reinsert it under science and technology, not general reference. I don't know how much hope is left for humanity with encyclopedias like Uncyclopedia and RationalWiki joining the same ranks as respected resources like Encyclopaedia Britannica. (More sarcasm) PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 12:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * whether you (dis)like it or not, rationalwiki is frequently described as an encyclopedia:
 * https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3151?journalCode=pto "I suggest the encyclopedic resource http://rationalwiki.org as a starting point.
 * https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3329582 "RationalWiki (http: //rationalwiki.org/) is also a wiki encyclopedia project website, which was, in turn, created as a liberal response to Conservapedia"
 * and who here can't remember a teacher complaining about Wikipedia "entering the same ranks as respected sources like Encyclopedia Britannica". FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not about "liking" it, it's that RW has long established itself as not being an encyclopedia. Outside sources are calling it an encyclopedia because it runs on MediaWiki and people therefore think it must be like Wikipedia, alas, Wikipedia is wrong. Why are there certain people who always show up whenever something to do with RationalWiki is brought up on Wikipedia? Why is the majority of FuzzyCatPotato's edits related to RationalWiki? PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 21:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * claiming to know why sources classify RW is WP:OR, unless they explicitly state their reasons.
 * sources aren't citing WP, "Wikipedia is wrong" is irrelevant.
 * i've already made my COI clear. have you?
 * you classify RW as "science". what source classified it this way? no WP:OR, please.
 * FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We've pretty much decided to include RW several edits ago, so WP:DROPTHESTICK. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 17:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * good FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood that. I agree with including it under "science," and I think any reasonable person would feel the same way. This is not WP:OR as the WP:RS do not define RationalWiki as a "general reference" encyclopedia, whereas a primary source specifically says that it is not a general reference encyclopedia. please undo your most recent edit, I do not want to have to escalate this matter.  PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 11:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't care how it's classified, but it should at least be included. Benjamin (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI, there is a discussion about this at WP:DRN. At this point, there doesn't seem to be any objections to my argument here, so... PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 14:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Conservapedia
Encyclopedia says "encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article's title". Conservapedia articles, instead, focus on what the conservative editors believe about the subject named in the article's title - and they believe the shit out of some subjects. Examples abound for actual disinformation, as can be seen from our article Conservapedia.

Are there actually reliable sources calling that fake-olds website an "encyclopedia"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please define "fake-olds". I am not familiar with that term. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It was supposed to be a pun on fake news. Because the fakes they use are old instead of new. Sorry. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur that it's anything but an encyclopedia. Some parody, probably. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Must be low standards of inclusion considering RationalWiki and Uncyclopedia are also included here... As FCP said above, it's well documented as being an encyclopedia (see the sources on Conservapedia's article), regardless of whether or not you "like" it. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 21:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just for fun I thought I'd add, you picked Conservapedia to contest when METAPEDIA of all things is on here? Pretty obvious retaliation for me challenging Rational-Wiki if you ask me, which is disruptive. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 21:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The answer is simple. Because I saw the Conservapedia entry and did not read any further. Of course, about the same things are true about Metapedia. Same thing, pretty much. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Conservapedia is obviously not an encyclopaedia but fundamentalist Christian propaganda. Though it often reads like it was written by a satirist – or possibly Russian provocateurs?


 * Many encyclopedias have bias: under totalitarian regimes, the major German, Italian and Russian encyclopedias, for example, and similar ones today, In a list like this, comprehensiveness is important. People who see it, and either read our articles on them or go the the actual sites, will very soon understand what their nature is.  DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Relevance
My edit to insert freewiki has just been reverted. I understand that the criterion for relevance on this list is if the encyclopedia has an article on wikipedia. It would be helpful to mention this on the page itself to prevent reverts. --C holtermann (talk) 09:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)