Ikwipedia:About

Ikwipedia/Equipedia extends Wikipedia's coverage into subjects that are notable but which are based on claims and perspectives that do not necessarily satisfy Wikipedia's criteria. These subjects include, but are not limited to, paranormal phenomena (such as aliens), speculative topics not proven to exist (such as exotic technologies), and instances of major wrongdoing of public concern (i.e., conspiracy theories).

Ikwipedia's approach is founded on motivations stemming from the hypothesis that certain counter-mainstream views may be excluded from mainstream narratives due to systemic biases, potentially leading to an under- or false representation of sound perspectives. This particularly extends to testimonies that receive limited professional scrutiny but are theoretically possible and, when provisionally accepted and combined into a broader theoretical framework, may have significant explanatory power.

Acceptable sources and contributions

Ikwipedia extends the range of acceptable sources to include testimonial evidence, direct primary sources, public interviews, podcasts, firsthand accounts, and other forms of testimonial accounts. This approach acknowledges that many topics within our scope lack secondary sources, highlighting the need for an alternative resource. As such, secondary sources are not mandatory.

Creating an article involves selecting a notable topic, gathering acceptable sources, and following the style guidelines, which are the same as those of Wikipedia.

We welcome all constructive contributions, from rephrasing content or adding a link or correcting terminology, to rewriting entire articles and/or importing articles from Wikipedia and modifying them. We are even using automated [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model LLM]-based tools for content development and source mining.

Editorial standards and source transparency

Ikwipedia strives for a neutral point of view, albeit with a broader inclusion of so-called fringe views than Wikipedia. Limited editorializing and synthesis of information bordering on original research is allowed to provide context or identify patterns, provided it is clearly identified as such.

Though we define reliable sources similarly to Wikipedia, we consciously allow questionable or unverifiable sources, as long as this is done transparently.