Vegan wiki?

[Kanade]

I've been thinking about making a wiki encyclopedia from mediawiki similar to rationalwiki, conservapedia and scholarpedia meant to educate people on a vegan/animal rights perspective. That said i have no experience with software, servers or any of that.

Would anyone be interested?

[Volenta]

I think that's a great idea! Great material for reference.

I've found this site, but looks very empty: http://veganwiki.info/en/Main_Page
Looks like this one also is focused on practical information, we need one that also presents the cases for veganism and dismissing commonly made arguments. Of course you could expand this site as well.

[brimstoneSalad]

I'm not so sure about a vegan wiki... I feel like regular wikipedia is fine on this front (covering important aspects of animal rights and nutrition), and editing it will actually get more traction, since it has a lot of traffic already.

Does PETA have a wiki?

[PrincessPeach]

You will be using free software from wiki I bet there's a wiki page for any problem you come in to..
As far as servers goes I wouldn't worry about them if you are using a good web hosting service...
It wouldn't be worth it to try host one site by yourself...
If you do end up making the site and need someone to host just PM me & I'll send you over the link to my family's web hosting site ........

[brimstoneSalad]

I feel like my last reply wasn't very good, and I should give you more explanation.

The reason I recommend Wikipedia first, is because it is going to be taken as a more neutral source, and they have strong positions against biases and 'original research', requiring a high standard for sources, which is about the best you can get on health and scientific topics, which are more than half of overwhelming vegan issues.

The articles on vegan nutrition are quite good, and any attempt to distance yourself from those standards is more likely to be damaging than not- introducing pseudoscience or alt-medicine concepts in force.

It's hard to imagine a specialized site would be able to outperform Wikipedia on this topic, and if there's more information to be had, it might make more sense to join the Wikipedia community, and expand on their articles on the subjects so they have broader spread and are more acceptable to a wider audience.

Wikipedia's policies may be less ideal for philosophical topics, where logic can stand on its own, but it works well by listing arguments with their criticisms and rebuttals- it's usually clear which issue wins out when they're put on common ground, and I don't find this to be a serious enough issue that necessitates separating them (as long as you're confident and honest in your positions).

The trouble with having a "vegan wiki" though, on the philosophical side is that vegans simply do not broadly agree on philosophy or politics. There is no "vegan stance" on any given issue.

Not even vegan atheists agree on those issues.

So, the question is: what would the articles be about, if not just a rehash of the same ones that work just as well in a competitive market on Wikipedia?

Because it's not possible to get a single vegan view on any given topic -- UNLESS you limit it to a particular brand of veganism as represented by a particular organization. Say, for example, PETA -- in which case you can get a consistent philosophical framework (watered down as it may be due to the diversity of membership, there is some editorial oversight there), but that would be a PETA wiki, and not a general vegan wiki.

Just as Rationalwiki is kind of a Freethoughtblogs wiki, and not an atheism wiki, or a wiki generally representative of skepticism- because it draws from that community specifically, with its particular editorial oversight and biases.
Many of the articles on Rationalwiki are also about personalities, or very niche- so it's hard to get noteworthiness on Wikipedia for those matters, and many of them are editorial pieces with personal research (creating a different standard). The articles that are about noteworthy topics usually aren't very different from Wikipedia articles, short the snarky tone which makes them more amusing.

Conservapedia is something special- they're not allowed on Wikipedia for obvious reasons; they don't want you to see the opposing position and theirs is not an evidence based position.
This is a common example of the wrong reason to start your own wiki- to deceive people without oversight and provide false information. I would be concerned that a veganwiki would be seen in that light; and might even become that if there were a surplus of uncritical editors. There are some very fundamentalist vegans out there, and if I had to guess, I'd bet they would be first to edit, and the most persistent voices.

Scholarpeia is something different, I don't think it can be compared.

I've found this site, but looks very empty: http://veganwiki.info/en/Main_Page
Looks like this one also is focused on practical information, we need one that also presents the cases for veganism and dismissing commonly made arguments. Of course you could expand this site as well.

The fact that is is nearly empty is, to me, a bit telling. IMHO Wikipedia already does the job. Any factual and unbiased site IS a veganwiki.
That said, if you really wanted to do this, combining your efforts with others who have come before is important; consolidation is the only way things get done.

But please heed my concerns re: the philosophical aspects, and be wary of cliquey dogmas and fundamentalism.