This project page has been nominated for deletion since 11 November 2018.To discuss it, please visit the nomination page.
Do not remove this tag until the deletion nomination is closed.
Reason for the nomination: Though there is lots of flexibility for user essays in the Commons namespace to support discussion, this one about Everipedia fails to meet the basic requirements of Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories.
|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.
Kingdom: Their own
Species: N. Attributis
“What a mess.”
“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)”
“I'm of the position that someone should DMCA Everipedia over this”
“Another Larry Sanger project. Citizendium failed, but he seems to have taken the wrong lessons from its failure.”
“Wait, this isn't about Uncyclopedia? Are you sure?”
Everipedia is a wikiclone without notability requirements 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 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:
For real? They heard our cry though and changed it:
Note that you can also vote sources up and down!
Image and video
If you click the image where it originally appears in the article, it's just a deeplink to the image file (not page) on upload.wikimedia.org. So no attribution there.
"Attribution" in the image gallery below the article:
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:
Hidden in a long list of references we also find this. This actually doesn't attribute anything.
WAIT A MINUTE, 30 MILLION DOLLARS FOR THIS?
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.
- w:en:Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 57#Issue about Everipedia's contents brought from Wikipedia
- Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/02#Everipedia using multimedia content from this project
- w:en:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#Everipedia
- Really, none at all. Everipedia article about this essay. Everipedia (2018).
- De, Nikhilesh (8 February 2018). "Novogratz's 'Crypto-Bank' Is Backing Everipedia's Blockchain Pivot". CoinDesk. Archived from the original on 17 February 2018.