Infogalactic

Infogalactic is a fork of Wikipedia. Therefore, you will find similar information there as on Wikipedia.

I think it's unfair to put only Infogalactic with a banner that suggests that many of its articles are politically spun. Infogalactic was created because the forkers believed that Wikipedia wasn't a truly free encyclopedia that anyone could edit. As for me, I think there's a bias towards one certain political leaning on Wikipedia, except in the hard sciences, so if Infogalactic has a flag for being politically spun, then so should Wikipedia.

You want examples?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul&oldid=848698655 . Read the bottom as you read https://archive.fo/udbAr .

Another example is https://archive.fo/5wGgh for the burning down of 'Cultural Marxism' as a page.

Here's https://archive.fo/fvoIB and https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/ about the incessant editing of one individual...or bot.

Maybe a video would suffice? (I know many are lazy, so timestamp 0:30 should be of interest here.) https://invidio.us/watch?v=wIYhE-hei2Y youtube link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIYhE-hei2Y . Don't be offset by the video's title and judge it. It's only 2 minutes.

Those were just some preliminary examples. Now for some comparisons. I pull these examples from this URL (https://saidit.net/s/InfoGalactic/comments/8xr/infogalactic_is_an_uncensored_deeplinked_wiki/ ). I leave here the infamous Pizzagate articles. Compare IG with Wiki, and see which one shows less bias.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Pizzagate (alternative version)

https://infogalactic.com/info/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory (Wikipedia version)

Perhaps we should also look at Russian interference in the 2016 US election?

https://infogalactic.com/info/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections (alternative version)

https://infogalactic.com/info/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections,_official_narrative (Wikipedia version)

If you bother to look at the Russia one, you will see that IG has opted to provide sources to the contrary of what Wiki's article says. Why don't those links appear in Wiki's article?

Don't misunderstand me and attempt to apply motive behind my writing. I'm only giving you what I have researched.

I'll quote some random on their thoughts:

"One of the most troublesome requirements of Wikipedia is for information to be sourced from secondary sources. In practice this means anything you add must come from a secondary source, or your change will be reverted. The existing page may itself come from primary sources, but will be left unchanged! Infogalactic's "verifiability" is a much better criterion than "secondary sources", but it leaves the door open to "original research", which might cause problems - it is an invitation to dump rambling essays on Infogalactic. Wikipedia's editors tend to litter articles with superscripts such as [who?], [reference required] etc. It would be more constructive if editors tried to chase up some of the loose ends themselves, instead of expecting someone else to do it. It will be hard to find a large number of editors who will work for free while not being control freaks. Perhaps there are not many pages where Wikipedia is positively misleading or non-existent. It may be easiest to curate these pages, and mirror Wikipedia for all the others."

Well that's enough ranting about that.

Compared to Wikipedia, there's no shaking you down for money every year. That alone is a 3 star rating from me.

Given everything that I've placed above, I think Infogalactic is set up to be a fairer curator of information, showing both sides. That's an extra star. It doesn't get 5 stars, however, because I find that many image links are broken on articles, and there are evidently less people contributing.

[Edited by TerrifiedTyphlosion, January 24] (fixed wording)

Many of their articles are right-wing conspiracy theories.