Talk:Main Page

General discussion

Is there somewhere for general discussion of how Ikwipedia works, similar to the 'Wikipedia' pages on Wikipedia? It seems like, there are a lot of things I can't quite make sense of that are general things rather than being specific to any one page - I know the basics of editing pages on Wikipedia and edit pages on Wikipedia sometimes, but there are some specific things I can't quite make sense of on Ikwipedia and wasn't sure whether they're intentional or things that just haven't been done yet. Millipede (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@EnWikiAdmin‎

Thank you for your interest and contributions, @Millipede! We've started to explain our overall philosophy and approach on these pages: Ikwipedia:About, Source transparency, Motivations for Ikwipedia, Acceptable sources, Evidence, Manual of Style, Neutral point of view, Notability, Published, Reliable sources, Replies to objections, Synthesis and interpretation of source material, Testimonial accounts, Article creation. We plan to update, expand, and organize these pages to be more clear, including, among other things, regarding how our approach differs from Wikipedia.

The recommendations and practices, like on article management, are still evolving and subject to change. Unfortunately, we don’t yet have truly exemplary articles to show what we think would be ideal. We are working on this.

In the meantime, I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.

EnWikiAdmin (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is an example that has multiple issues/problems but gives an idea of what an interesting article might include in that it synthesizes allegations regarding a common topic from a multitude of alleged witnesses, albeit from primary sources and testimonial accounts. Poseidon (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to add this as well for anyone looking for additional information. We see our current practice of "forking" articles from Wikipedia as a reasonable starting point, but we unfortunately haven't laid out how an article should evolve from there, and we're considering changing this practice anyway.

We want to cultivate a perspective that reflects what editors think a subject truly entails, including the choices of the article topics and the titles of articles.

For example, articles on alleged incidents for which the Wikipedia article title and/or lede describe the incident as a hoax can be edited to reflect a different (more credulous) perspective, including by changing the title.

As another example, I believe that in addition to — or perhaps instead of — the article on the Roswell incident, we will eventually have articles on subjects like

• the alleged Roswell craft (or "Roswell vehicles" because there were allegedly two that collided, or something like that, and the term 'craft' is the same plural and singular which may be confusing. Anyway...)
• the alleged history of trying to shoot down an alien vehicle using supposed scalar weapons
• the allegedly successful hit (the "operation to ensure recovery")
• the alleged Roswell craft retrieval operation (see also UFO retrieval program)
• alleged pieces of the Roswell craft

and so on. Some of these article titles are speculative, but hopefully people get the idea until things are more understandable. We are working on how to have standardized consensus terminology for different things including article titles. EnWikiAdmin (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)