Post: #1

I have joined forces with a supporter named Raymond, an expert on mediawiki (the software that runs Wikipedia), and created a masculine-themed wiki: Kings Wiki.

http://www.kingswiki.com

   

The plan is to have a wikipedia resource that presents truthful information from a masculine viewpoint. Instead of competing with Wikipedia, it will focus on subjects that are relevant to our sphere (this will include having pages on our enemies). When these subjects are Googled, the public will be able to easily find our take, especially since Google ranks wikis very highly in their results.

With Kings Wiki, the name of the game is long-term information control. This is different to the forum and ROK, which is more of a community and daily news source. To get it off the ground, we are running a contest for the month of April for forum members:

-If you create at least 2 articles, you will be entered to win one of 3 $20 gift certificates to Amazon.com

-If you create at least 5 articles, you will be entered to win one of 2 $50 gift certificates to Amazon.com

Here's a guide that helps you create your first article: http://roo.sh/wikiguide

Listing of all articles created so far (most are brief stubs): http://en.kingswiki.com/wiki/Special:AllPages

Regular security precautions apply, so sign up with your burner email address and a username that doesn't link to your real identity.

http://www.kingswiki.com

   

Share the link of the articles you created here so other members can take a look and add to them. You can also ask questions here.

Post: #2

This is an excellent development.

Post: #3

The first page had better fucking well be a discussion of Little Dark.

Post: #4

(04-02-2016 06:56 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  The first page had better fucking well be a discussion of Little Dark.

You are free to create a page on Little Dark. Just remember to use citations to his biggest threads here.

Post: #5

Wow great idea.
I could see myself putting a lot of time into some entries. I still haven't forgotten the entire battle for Toronto and Montreal saga's along with the Dr. Oz hit piece. ROK had a lot of great coverage on these but there's still so much information that needs to be included for historical purposes. So much work to be done

Post: #6

We run the massive risk of trolls destroying our pages. How is the administration handled?

Post: #7

The creation of this site will only cause me to be less productive than I already am. Dammit!

Post: #8

We have something like this already in Germany:

http://de.wikimannia.org/Hauptseite

There is an english version:

http://en.wikimannia.org/WikiMANNia:Main_Page

Quote:This Wiki is a knowledge base covering the topic of the discrimination of boys and men. Evidence for this kind of discrimination is scattered throughout the internet. Hence, the sheer amount of information can be overwhelming at times and different accounts of the same problem can be very confusing. This is why information about the discrimination of boys and men is collected, structured and inter-linked on this wiki. WikiMANNia is the antithesis of the feminist victim culture and hate ideology. 441 articles have been created since April 2011.
The aim of WikiMANNia is to deliver facts to MRAs, bloggers and journalists. To ensure a good quality of the articles, access to writing is restricted to our editors.
All entries must be based on reliable sources.

Post: #9

(04-02-2016 07:16 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  We run the massive risk of trolls destroying our pages. How is the administration handled?

Me and Raymond will give admin privileges to top contributors. The team will have a private area to discuss moderation matters.

Post: #10

If the goal is to present a sane point of view on the topics discussed in the manosphere then entries like this, in my opinion, don't serve that goal:

http://en.kingswiki.com/wiki/Feminists

It's funny to people already in the know but to an outside it will read like a farce.

A big part of the power of the manosphere is a commitment to objectivity, facts, and reason.

If the wiki becomes a big web of opinions, inside jokes and ad hominems it will lose credibility.

Post: #11

(04-02-2016 07:49 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  If the goal is to present a sane point of view on the topics discussed in the manosphere then entries like this, in my opinion, don't serve that goal:

http://en.kingswiki.com/wiki/Feminists

It's funny to people already in the know but to an outside it will read like a farce.

A big part of the power of the manosphere is a commitment to objectivity, facts, and reason.

If the wiki becomes a big web of opinions, inside jokes and ad hominems it will lose credibility.

Roosh, will the site have a code of standards as Wikipedia does for sourcing information used to create wikis?

Post: #12

This is a very good idea. It's part of that informational domination of space.

With factual articles like Donald Trump's, do we present facts with a distinct viewpoint of ours?

And aside from burner emails, what rules apply to creation and editing?

Post: #13

This is an excellent idea. A big part of the leftist' power has been a total domination of the information sphere. A site like this could help break that monopoly and present a legitimate landing for fence sitters and those with objective minds. By showing an alternative viewpoint, the window of discussion is forced open and the left loses total control over what can be broached.

Some things to consider

• I agree with Vincent about remaining objective and legitimate. Part of what won me over to the red pill was a recognition of truth. Growing up, the leftist worldview showed numerous inconsistencies and forbade many subjects from open discussion. By being open, presenting factual information, and showing less inconsistencies than our adversaries, we can win over the fence sitters easier.
• This site can be an excellent tool to save time. Many of us have had discussions where we've tried to convince family members or friends of the merits of our worldview. This site can allow the organization of information in a way that is superior to most off the cuff arguments we could generate individually. This will go a long way to preventing the duplication of effort. Instead of typing up arguments over and over, sending a link can now suffice.
• Those who are open, or at the very least intrigued, will naturally want to explore further once their appetite for greater knowledge is stimulated. Putting all the information on a central site will increase the bounce rate and allow people to understand and accept our worldview much more easily.
• For reporters, adversaries, or those who want to write up hit pieces against us, we can simply provide them a link to the wiki that discusses the topic. This will allow us to control the discussion in a clear and sober manner. It will significantly reduce the chances of being gaslighted. Alternatively, when our side of the story is not permitted, we can simply post a link in the comment section of the article, on twitter, or on reddit.
  

This has the potential to be a powerful tool. Again, fantastic idea.

Post: #14

(04-02-2016 08:29 AM)Libertas Wrote:  This is a very good idea. It's part of that informational domination of space.

With factual articles like Donald Trump's, do we present facts with a distinct viewpoint of ours?

And aside from burner emails, what rules apply to creation and editing?

With factual articles like Donald Trump's, we can just present the facts that we believe are most relevant to helping advance the reader's understanding of (neo)masculinity.

Roosh created a list of rules here: http://en.kingswiki.com/wiki/Project:Rules

Aside from those rules, I think a good content guideline would be that if a notable manosphere author (e.g. Heartiste, Roosh, Matt Forney, etc.) has written about body, culture, game, girls, history, language, lifestyle, manosphere, masculinity, mind, neomasculinity, news, philosophy, politics, science, the sexes, sports, travel, wisdom, or work and money, those opinions should be considered acceptable to cite on-wiki.

Opinions by less-famous manosphere authors are more of a grey area. There have been a lot of insightful, cogent, pithy, etc. posts that are probably worthy of inclusion in the wiki, even though no one ever heard of the author. We should still cite back to the thread, blog, etc. we're quoting from in those cases so readers can see the context.

What I want to avoid, though, is a situation where some random dude creates an obscure blog and/or forum threads about his views and then uses wiki articles as a platform for expounding on his opinions, theories, etc. that are mostly full of shit and/or irrelevant to (neo)masculinity topics; and linking back to his blog that no one cares about. Every wiki seems to attract a few people like that. We do have an Essay namespace on the wiki, though, where people can post their own original opinion pieces on (neo)masculity-related topics.

Rule 2 says to "stick to the facts" but it's still possible to include opinions by saying, e.g., "According to Roosh, one of the problems with American women is that they cut their hair short" because it is a fact that Roosh expressed that opinion.

Post: #15

This is a great idea! I hope I'll be able to find time and participate.

Post: #16

This has potential.

Post: #17

Quintus and Athlone... please create some new masterpieces for this platform!

Post: #18

There is already a lot of phenomenal content on this forum, it is just relatively disorganized and scattered in different areas.

One way to rapidly develop content for the new platform would be to search the topics in question on the forum, copy and paste (with proper attribution of course) the best content on the subjects, or fuse the best points into an article.

Post: #19

(04-02-2016 07:49 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  If the goal is to present a sane point of view on the topics discussed in the manosphere then entries like this, in my opinion, don't serve that goal:

http://en.kingswiki.com/wiki/Feminists

It's funny to people already in the know but to an outside it will read like a farce.

A big part of the power of the manosphere is a commitment to objectivity, facts, and reason.

If the wiki becomes a big web of opinions, inside jokes and ad hominems it will lose credibility.

What I've seen some wikis do is start out with a snarky point of view and gradually adopt a more dry and serious tone. An example would be the leftist site RationalWiki (which has morphed from a site devoted to pranking and trolling Conservapedia into a relatively humorless SJW and feminist wiki), or even Encyclopedia Dramatica (which got rid of its porn sidebar and started banning people for creating politically incorrect attack pages). Wikipedians too have mostly dropped their lighthearted approach (for example, articles for deletion debates no longer end in outcomes of "penis". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:...Penis_game )

Post: #20

This is a good idea, there's already RationalWiki which is SJW and Encyclopedia Dramatica which is /pol/. Both occasionally turn up in search results, but mostly RationalWiki.

Post: #21

Will it be optimized for mobile devices?

I'm browsing on my cellphone right now and I'm getting the desktop version. It's a little hard to navigate.

Post: #22

(04-02-2016 11:24 AM)Killer Joe Wrote:  Will it be optimized for mobile devices?

I'm browsing on my cellphone right now and I'm getting the desktop version. It's a little hard to navigate.

Good catch. I modified the configuration so that it will auto-detect if you're using a mobile device and give you the mobile version if you are.

Post: #23

Will we see datasheets on popular destinations turned into wiki-style articles?

If so, I suggest copying the methods of WikiVoyage and WikiTravel

Post: #24

Yesss! Finally!
(First page!)

Post: #25

If the trolling can be kept down that wiki site will be fucking awesome. There are young guys right now that are only 8 or 9 who don't like girls yet, when puberty kicks in at 10 or 11 they will have a resource to help them deal with the hormone rush and subsequent powerful attraction to females. This wiki would have been invaluable to me in high school if it is done right. I loved the manosphere when I found it in 2012, imagine if I had this shit in 1987- this wiki is a good thing, we cannot let it get fucked up by trolls and shit posters. All the quotes and resources gotta come from very established dudes like Roosh, Rossiey, Bone Cracker, So Suave, Jeriel, Althone , Anonymous Bosh, ect. , ect. When I say established I would not include me on that list, you gotta be years in the game with proven theory and multiple other established dudes repping your shit. This needs to be a resource I could turn my little nephew onto and have it be solid. This could be some good shit......