We are experienced former Wikipedia editors who created this site in the belief that it was time for a new approach to building an online encyclopedia than that which Wikipedia has to offer.
We are not alone in believing that Wikipedia has serious structural problems, not the least of which is that it is not designed to provide reliable information on any topic, but rather to focus on all major viewpoints while summarising any minor ones, a policy known as undue weight.
The risk of such an approach is that it can lead to the propagation of false beliefs based on incomplete information. Contrary to what some may believe, Wikipedia has no mechanism for checking on or maintaining the accuracy of the information it contains, allowing falsehoods, hoaxes and libels to exist on the site for years. This situation is compounded by a lack of accountability for anything published.
There is also the unanswered question of whether the wiki model of collaboration is an appropriate one for developing a reliable online encyclopedia, rather than quickly starting one; we obviously believe that it is not.
We do not have the hubris to grandly claim that we will ever be a repository of all human knowledge. But what we do aim for is to provide the best information available on those topics that we do cover, fully supported by good quality references to source material that provides the reader with opportunities for further research. And unlike Wikipedia, we have the advantage of being able to make use of newer technologies, so we use a consistent centralised citation system and are able to continuously monitor for link rot, so any broken links can be quickly updated.
Unlike other sites, we do not mirror Wikipedia’s content. More than ten per cent of our content does not exist on Wikipedia, and of the rest, much of which we ourselves wrote before the inevitable gray goo engulfed it, has all been improved in terms of accuracy, sourcing and general readability.
Please feel free to contact usGet in touch! with any comments.