FasciPedia:FasciPedia has no drum circles - Revision history

Deleted User: Archangel moved page FasciPedia:Fascipedia has no drum circles to FasciPedia:FasciPedia has no drum circles: Text replacement - "Fascipedia" to "FasciPedia"

2022-09-22T21:43:49Z

Archangel moved page FasciPedia:Fascipedia has no drum circles to FasciPedia:FasciPedia has no drum circles: Text replacement - "Fascipedia" to "FasciPedia"

← Older revision	Revision as of 12:43, 22 September 2022
(No difference)

Deleted User: /* Deal with it */

2022-04-05T06:21:28Z

Deal with it

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:21, 4 April 2022
Line 2:		Line 2:

	==Deal with it==		==Deal with it==
	We don't want Fascipedia to represent a flawed model for publishing accurate information. The theory that everyone’s contributions to a topic are equally valuable sounds good, but is clearly nonsense. It's hippie stuff. It should be obvious to any ~~thinki g~~ person that some people are better at some things ~~5han~~ others. FasciPedia says "Let's face that and deal with it." ~~Aftet~~ all, its how the universe actually works. Its natural law.		We don't want Fascipedia to represent a flawed model for publishing accurate information. The theory that everyone’s contributions to a topic are equally valuable sounds good, but is clearly nonsense. It's hippie stuff. It should be obvious to any thinking person that some people are better at some things than others. FasciPedia says "Let's face that and deal with it. "After all, its how the universe actually works. Its natural law.

	==Facts are important==		==Facts are important==

Deleted User: /* Fascipedia hates politically motivated "notability" */

2022-04-05T06:18:43Z

Fascipedia hates politically motivated "notability"

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:18, 4 April 2022
Line 27:		Line 27:

	===Fascipedia hates politically motivated "notability"===		===Fascipedia hates politically motivated "notability"===
	They claim 'pedia entries are meant to be "notable", but only their self-appointed editors have to think so. Is "Stroyent" really more important than [[Ursula Haverbeck]] ? You look up "Chevelle", and it gives you some lousy garage band instead of the car.		They claim 'pedia entries are meant to be "notable", but only their self-appointed editors have to think so. Is "Stroyent" really more important than [[Ursula Haverbeck]]? You look up "Chevelle", and it gives you some lousy garage band instead of the car.

Deleted User: /* What's Notable? */

2022-04-05T06:17:14Z

What's Notable?

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:17, 4 April 2022
Line 26:		Line 26:
	Other 'pedia articles only ever skim the surface. Which is fine, but they don’t ever indicate what might be below the surface either, leading people to believe that everything is as simple and uncontroversial as they make it appear, and this is usually done for political purposes.		Other 'pedia articles only ever skim the surface. Which is fine, but they don’t ever indicate what might be below the surface either, leading people to believe that everything is as simple and uncontroversial as they make it appear, and this is usually done for political purposes.

	===~~What's Notable?~~===		===Fascipedia hates politically motivated "notability"===
	They claim 'pedia entries are meant to be "notable", but only their self-appointed editors have to think so. Is "Stroyent" really more important than [[Ursula Haverbeck]] ? You look up "Chevelle", and it gives you some lousy garage band instead of the car.		They claim 'pedia entries are meant to be "notable", but only their self-appointed editors have to think so. Is "Stroyent" really more important than [[Ursula Haverbeck]] ? You look up "Chevelle", and it gives you some lousy garage band instead of the car.

Deleted User: /* What's Notable? */

2022-04-05T06:15:24Z

What's Notable?

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:15, 4 April 2022
Line 27:		Line 27:

	===What's Notable?===		===What's Notable?===
	They claim 'pedia entries are meant to be "notable", but only their self-appointed editors have to think so. Is "Stroyent" really important than [[Ursula Haverbeck]] ? You look up "Chevelle", and it gives you some lousy garage band instead of the car.		They claim 'pedia entries are meant to be "notable", but only their self-appointed editors have to think so. Is "Stroyent" really more important than [[Ursula Haverbeck]] ? You look up "Chevelle", and it gives you some lousy garage band instead of the car.

Deleted User: Created page with "Fascipedia is a very serious effort. We handle facts in a very serious way, like a real encyclopedia, or at lest like a real encyclopedia '''should'''. ==Deal with it== We don't want Fascipedia to represent a flawed model for publishing accurate information. The theory that everyone’s contributions to a topic are equally valuable sounds good, but is clearly nonsense. It's hippie stuff. It should be obvious to any thinki g person that some people are better at some thi..."

2022-04-05T06:13:46Z

Created page with "Fascipedia is a very serious effort. We handle facts in a very serious way, like a real encyclopedia, or at lest like a real encyclopedia '''should'''. ==Deal with it== We don't want Fascipedia to represent a flawed model for publishing accurate information. The theory that everyone’s contributions to a topic are equally valuable sounds good, but is clearly nonsense. It's hippie stuff. It should be obvious to any thinki g person that some people are better at some thi..."

New page

Fascipedia is a very serious effort. We handle facts in a very serious way, like a real encyclopedia, or at lest like a real encyclopedia '''should'''.

==Deal with it==
We don't want Fascipedia to represent a flawed model for publishing accurate information. The theory that everyone’s contributions to a topic are equally valuable sounds good, but is clearly nonsense. It's hippie stuff. It should be obvious to any thinki g person that some people are better at some things 5han others. FasciPedia says "Let's face that and deal with it." Aftet all, its how the universe actually works. Its natural law.

==Facts are important==
Popular communist encyclopedias have no way of recognizing expert knowledge over inexpert knowledge. The members with most authority are the ones who have spent the most time working on those feel-good, politically correct encyclopedias. Their “knowledge” is often just a combination of Google results and prejudice. At fascipedia, we vett our writers and editors. Facts are important, even if politically incorrect.

We don't give people’s opinions undeserved authority by virtue of our search engine rankings and holier-than-thou presentation and identity. Too many people (especially students) who use online encyclopedias believe the articles will be reliable, and the media encourages this misguided belief. Those money pits posing as information dispemsories are hardly ever correct at all, because they are communist in nature, and uphold a communist narrative.

==A beautiful building==
At the core of Fascipedia is the idea that bad articles will '''*NOT*''' eventually be edited by the "community" until they become good (i.e. factual and well-written). That is a pie-in-the-sky dream. In fact, they are likely to be edited until all but one member loses interest or gives up trying. Just because it sounds good does not mean it is good. There's reality again, getting in the way of what we want to do! Can you imagine building a sky-scraper in this manner? Just letting any random person come along and "help"? NO YOU NEED SOMEBODY TO BE IN CHARGE. That is how you get a beautiful sturdy building.

==Fascipedia is filled with hate==
''“If you don’t like an entry, you can fix it yourself”.'' <br>
'''But I came here for information, not to provide it.'''

===Fascipedia hates chaos===
Whatever-pedia pages have become increasingly complex and Whatever-pedia doesn’t support a WYSIWYG editor. This and other technical aspects of other online encyclopedias effectively prevent many people with valuable knowledge from participating.

===Fascipedia hates inconsistancy===
The lack of any required standard of writing, error-checking and apolitical fact-checking means that many entries in other 'pedias are poorly-written and contain factual inconsistencies.

===Fascipedia hates omission===
Other 'pedia articles only ever skim the surface. Which is fine, but they don’t ever indicate what might be below the surface either, leading people to believe that everything is as simple and uncontroversial as they make it appear, and this is usually done for political purposes.

===What's Notable?===
They claim 'pedia entries are meant to be "notable", but only their self-appointed editors have to think so. Is "Stroyent" really important than [[Ursula Haverbeck]] ? You look up "Chevelle", and it gives you some lousy garage band instead of the car.