From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Civility barnstar 2.svg This page may contain some profanity. If you are PC Principal you probably shouldn't edit this page. Or read it. Try going here instead. Everyone else should probably take this essay with a grain of salt.

Or a truckload.


All copyright to the text of this essay (minus quotes) is waived. (CC0)

For those without comedic tastes, the self-proclaimed experts at Wikipedia have an article about Everipedia.
Everipedia logo.svg
Status iucn3.1 LC.svg Just die already (IUCN3.1)
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Their own
Phylum: Ego
Class: Tripper
Order: None
Family: Leeches
Genus: Wikiclone
Species: N. Attributis
Binomial name
No Attributis

What a mess.

~ Dario Taraborelli

I hope rightsholders sue them into bankruptcy.

~ Jeff G.

It is a true work of art. (of the crucifix-in-a-jar-of-urine variety)

~ Animalparty

I'm of the position that someone should DMCA Everipedia over this

~ Nihiltres

Another Larry Sanger project. Citizendium failed, but he seems to have taken the wrong lessons from its failure.

~ JohnBlackburne

Wait, this isn't about Uncyclopedia? Are you sure?

~ Oscar Wilde

Everipedia is a wikiclone without notability requirements[1] for ego-trippers who think their pages and profiles on Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, Google+, Diaspora and Instagram just aren't enough. They fail to attribute content from Wikipedia and Commons properly. George Ho tried sending them a DMCA for his work, but Larry didn't care.

They believe the blockchain mothership will save them all in the near future and take them to a better place. 30 million dollars of wasted investment money[2] says this was a good idea. I say Everipedia will go down in flames. So who should you trust? The 30 million dollars? The Wikipedia page that is written like an advertisement? Or an essay that looks like it belongs on Uncyclopedia?


Why is that even a genuine question?



Everipedia attribution for text in 2017:

Everipedia believed this to be attribution. The rest of the world did not.

For real? They heard our cry though and changed it:

At least they mention the license now..

Note that you can also vote sources up and down!

Image and video[edit]

If you click the image where it originally appears in the article, it's just a deeplink to the image file (not page) on So no attribution there.

"Attribution" in the image gallery below the article:

Everipedia image attribution, image gallery July 2018.jpg

If you click the tiny blue info icon it takes you to the file page on Wikimedia Commons! That's attribution right??

"Attribution" in the references:

Everipedia image attribution, references July 2018.png

Hidden in a long list of references we also find this. This actually doesn't attribute anything.


Wondering how they convinced Mike Novogratz to open his purse? Here's my two cents: they didn't. Mike just gave them money he usually spends on caviar to unclog his toilet so he would sound more interesting at dinner parties. And investor meetings. Should've stuck with the caviar.



  1. Really, none at all. Everipedia article about this essay. Everipedia (2018).
  2. De, Nikhilesh (8 February 2018). "Novogratz's 'Crypto-Bank' Is Backing Everipedia's Blockchain Pivot". CoinDesk. Archived from the original on 17 February 2018.