Talk:Everipedia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyright[edit]

Everipedia claims they are under a CC BY 4.0 license... But since they are mostly copied from EN WP they cannot be. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something worth adding to the article[edit]

Something that seems to be missing from this article is that Everipedia largely copypastas their articles from wikipedia. I know this claim is largely unsourced, however just go to there website, type any article, and compare that article to Wikipedia’s and you’ll see what I mean. They copy and paste articles from wikipedia into their own, with add very minor changes, and call it a “EveriWikipedia article”. Since the article is clearly made by Everipedians (or just anti-Wikipedians in general), it wouldn’t be surprising if they left this out. If someone can do something that’ll be helpful. 68.97.131.85 (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized this was already talked about, my bad. 68.97.131.85 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent move[edit]

I'm not convinced this should be a move rather than two separate articles, given that the new site isn't keeping old content it seems like two distinct related topics that are "rebranded" in name only. @GR86: thoughts? Has "IQ Wiki" received any significant coverage in third party sources? VQuakr (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The name has changed and so has the website but the ownership still remains the same. If that had changed then I'd understand the reason for warranting a new seperate article, however, I'll definitely be contributing to and cleaning up the article as it definitely needs that. GR86 (📱) 22:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A company can have more than one website. We currently define the article's subject as an online encyclopedia (website), not the company that owns/manages it but the categories are a little more ambiguous. Maybe it's time to decide what the actual main topic of this article is? VQuakr (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and contested the move. IQ.Wiki appears to be a completely different website that happens to have been created by the same company, whether or not that's how the company describes the situation. I doubt IQ.Wiki is notable at this point. And even if both are covered by one article, Everipedia seems like the most commonly recognizable name at this point per WP:UCRN. VQuakr (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This would probably need an RM to make a major name change. Does IQ still call itself a fork of Wikipedia? Randy Kryn (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: agreed that if folks still want an article at IQ.Wiki a move or split discussion is warranted. I don't see any mention of WP at [1]. VQuakr (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough under WP:UCRN, the change of name is recent (2 weeks) so understand the reasoning for not many mentions of the name change in WP:RS. However, in regards to primary sources - notably the old everipedia website 1 as well as almost all social media sites twitter, facebook, etc. they have stated they've rebranded as IQ.Wiki. Moreover, under the name of Everipedia the use of proprietary under the "IQ" name did exist - e.g. the IQ token launched in 2018 and "IQ points" being rewarded to editors. The site ownership, goals and structure is still the same however, the name, layout and edit codes seem to be the only change. GR86 (📱) 11:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GR86: The site ownership, goals and structure is still the same however you sure about that? Everipedia was a blockchain-based WP fork; IQ.Wiki says it's "The World's Largest Blockchain & Crypto Encyclopedia" and doesn't appear to contain forked WP content as far as I can see (for example, I don't see any equivalent to [2] on the new site). Having the same ownership doesn't make it the same site, and neither does the owner claiming it's just a rebranding. I'm leaning towards this article being about the now defunct web site and waiting to see if IQ.Wiki becomes notable before creating a separate article about it. VQuakr (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might join the discord to get more info regarding this from the team directly (if that is allowed).
But as far as my knowledge goes, I am pretty sure that they renamed the site to reflect their brand and products to be inline within the crypto/blockchain space. They already had a cryptocurrency called IQ token and may have decided to name the encyclopaedia to reflect this.
  • "Everipedia was a blockchain-based WP fork" - IQ.Wiki remains to be blockchain-based (as far as the coding for it goes it looks the same but no official statement on whether it is a fork or not)
the best info provided by IQ is available on their wiki pages (both pages seem to be created by the team kethar.eth - Cesar Rodriguez and Chief Brian - Navin Veth)
As stated by the company, "The original Everipedia name came from the original vision of creating an encyclopaedia of everything. After the launch of the IQ token (2018) and as Everipedia grew as a knowledge platform for the cryptocurrency space it made sense to create IQ.wiki a new crypto encyclopedia dedicated specifically to the crypto community with new technology and features."
Everipedia grew as a crypto knowledge platform in 2016 and the IQ token was launched in 2018, the rebranding is something that reflects the growth and direction which happened years prior to this rebrand.
n.b. my reasoning for this name change is based on WP:CRYPCUR philosophy. GR86 (📱) 20:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYPCUR is a wikiproject, and not even one that is particularly relevant to this article. Their "philosophy" isn't a major factor. We don't care very much what the group has to say about itself either on Discord or on their web pages/press releases since we rely on independent sources to build an article, but even your quote above seems to make clear these are very different web sites. I think the scope of this article should be solely the (now defunct) web site since it isn't clear that IQ.Wiki is notable at this time. VQuakr (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes based on WP:UCRN, I agree that this should remain as Everipedia for now until there is more RS on the name change. But the change of site to iq.wiki is a result of what everipedia became years prior, the information that was already included in this article signified this despite it being outdated. GR86 (📱) 21:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything at that link that supports what you're saying. VQuakr (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RE: blockchain section GR86 (📱) 21:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see there is a blockchain section there but it doesn't appear to support what you are saying it does. VQuakr (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is much more than just a brand change - it's a real content and focus change. That said, it appears it is "the same site", but the original mission has essentially been discarded, in that it is no longer intended to be used as a general-purpose encyclopedia, but instead to focus solely on cryptocurrency/blockchain/Bitcoin-related content. That's a significant detail that can't be ignored or downplayed; however, I'm not sure how it should be incorporated into the standing article best. 50.52.121.173 (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the content, goals, TOS, and web address have all changed then what makes it "the same site"? VQuakr (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be renamed IQ.wiki since Everipedia mainly became notable as a blockchain encyclopedia. From looking at the citations on this page it seems most of the media coverage and thus notability comes from the fact that it is a blockchain encyclopedia and its work with blockchain. The coverage and criticism are just as valid to IQ.wiki as to Everipedia since it’s the same site concept of a blockchain encyclopedia with crypto content. The first sentence of this Wikipedia page refers to Everipedia as such “Everipedia is a defunct blockchain-based and online encyclopedia.”
It makes sense to consider the move from Everipedia to IQ.wiki as a rebrand since the site is still a blockchain-based online encyclopedia. All the notability, coverage, and criticism that applies to Everipedia is relevant to IQ.wiki since it's the same site with the same concept and is run by the same people. Particularly, I think the most important thing to emphasize here is that the same problems that Everipedia had are still applicable to IQ.wiki and thus should be kept and expanded upon in the article after this rebrand (perhaps this rebrand proves the original concept of competing with Wikipedia clearly didn’t work out).
I took a look through historical independent sources like Wired, Forbes, Reuters, Verge, etc. All describe Everipedia as a blockchain encyclopedia. Now that the blockchain encyclopedia has rebranded as IQ.wiki it is essentially the same site and concept except the site focuses exclusively on crypto-related content rather than on everything.
While I do understand your point about the content of the Wikipedia article being “Everipedia” the blockchain encyclopedia, it is important to note the content of the article is not “Everipedia the brand” (which I would agree is now a defunct brand). Unless I am mistaken, the article refers to (and should refer to) the Everipedia project/product as a whole which is now called IQ.wiki. It is a little bit like the Ship of Theseus thought experiment where you replace pieces of the ship and continue to ask “is it still the same ship?” In the case of Everipedia, the only thing that actually changed from the project is the official moniker/name, domain name, and content scope. Everything else from the digital asset that runs it, the independent sources discussing it, the individuals involved immediately before and prior to the change are all identical. Thus, I think this is the most logical course of action per Wikipedia’s own policy of notability. Everipedia as a brand is/was never notable to have an article. Everipedia the project/entity is notable clearly (as we are discussing what to do with the title of the page). And that project/entity is now referred to as IQ.wiki in my humble opinion (backed up with independent sources).
The rebrand is now reflected in documentation from The Associated Press related to their elections API which used the Everipedia OraQles blockchain tech to publish data on-chain. AP now refers to it as IQ.wiki where it was formally known as Everipedia.
https://developer.ap.org/ap-elections-api/
This shows that the change in the brand is not only recognized by the company itself and crypto publications like CryptoSlate but also by institutions.
https://cryptoslate.com/videos/can-decentralized-site-iq-wiki-offer-a-better-knowledge-source-for-web3-than-wikipedia-slatecast-30/
The token has also not changed it is the same IQ token that was used on Everipedia and continued to be used on the IQ.wiki site. The change has been recognized by Coingecko and other token information sites.
https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/iq
For example, in 2018 a Wired article called Everipedia “The Wikipedia Competitor That's Harnessing Blockchain For Epistemological Supremacy”
https://www.wired.com/story/everipedia-blockchain/
Also in 2018 a Reuters article covers the company’s raise and focuses on its use of blockchain technology.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-blockchain-investment-galaxy/novogratzs-new-fund-others-invest-30-million-in-online-encyclopedia-idUSKBN1FS322
Also, a 2018 Nordic Business Insider article referred to the platform as a crypto-remake of Wikipedia.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180816093559/https://nordic.businessinsider.com/meet-the-22-year-old-swede-who-is-creating-a-crypto-twist-of-wikipedia--/
In 2018, an Inverse article also covered it as a blockchain encyclopedia
https://www.inverse.com/article/47948-everipedia-just-launched-a-blockchain-wiki-that-governments-can-t-censor
Later coverage continues this
In 2020, Forbes staff writer Michael del Castillo covers the platform for its use of blockchain technology in which The Associated Press used their data to publish election results on-chain.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2020/11/03/how-to-track-official-election-results-on-ethereum-and-eos/?sh=b59b2be32693
In 2022, Molly White criticizes Everipedia for being filled with crypto spam in an article by Casey Newton of the Verge.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/16/22936487/molly-white-web3-is-going-just-great
The criticism is still valid for IQ.wiki since it's essentially the same site in that it's known as a blockchain encyclopedia with crypto content. 45.50.174.212 (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it is essentially the same site and concept except the site focuses exclusively on crypto-related content rather than on everything no, that's a massive change. Listing sources talking about Everipedia don't support an argument that it's the same site is IQ.wiki. Whether criticism for the former is valid for the latter is original research. VQuakr (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest issue I see with keeping the name as Everipedia is the confusion it creates. The first sentence describes Everipedia as a defunct defunct blockchain-based and online encyclopedia. However the blockchain online encyclopedia isn't defunct if it still exists as IQ.wiki. Then the majority of the content focuses on the history, company, the team, the IQ token iself which have all not changed.
Wouldn't the most logical and clear thing be to update the first sentence and the title of the page to be IQ.wiki or IQ.wiki formerly Everipedia so that the Title and first sentence are consistent with the page? 45.50.174.212 (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the name change is recent and it seems that The Associated Press has recognized the change from Everipedia to IQ.wiki.
They now refer to the project as IQ.wiki
https://developer.ap.org/ap-elections-api/ 45.50.174.212 (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One, there's no indication that website has the same level of editorial review as an actual AP article; it's their corporate website not a news article. Two, just because a reference to IQ.Wiki exists on the internet doesn't mean they are the same topic as Everipedia. IMHO IQ.wiki is a separate, related subject, one that at this time is not notable enough to merit an article per the criteria at WP:NWEB. We are allowed to cover related topics in one article but at this time, I haven't seen sourcing that would indicate the IQ.wiki merits anything more than a passing mention. VQuakr (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining your thoughts on the AP corporate source, I knew generally editorial reviewed articles are considered more reliable but was wondering if corporate websites would be considered reliable sources for corporate matters? I assume not based on your response. 45.50.174.212 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a trivial mention. We can even use press releases for uncontroversial information but such sources don't establish weight for a viewpoint. And as noted above, it doesn't say anything about the relationship between the two websites. VQuakr (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to add, I did my best to include info on "IQ Tokens" and the "Brain DAO" intellectual properties which were prominent whilst Everipedia was still active, but these IPs have become more prevalent with the rebrand to IQ.Wiki. I think the info regarding IQ's IP is substantial in relation to Everipedia, if VQuakr and other users feel this article doesn't warrant a name change. GR86 (📱) 00:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good additions. Is there also a better way to phrase the intro. I'm not sure the best way to write the intro it seems that its inaccurate to say that Everipedia is a defunct blockchain encyclopedia if the site is still running as a blockchain encyclopedia with same IQ token and same DAO, BrainDAO just under a new name IQ.wiki.
All of the information in the page itself seems to contradict the assertion that Everipedia is defunct. 45.50.174.212 (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everipedia's own page notes that it's an archive. I took blockchain out of the first sentence. IQ.wiki is a distinct website. VQuakr (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article on everipedia and saw that rebranded to iq.wiki and so I moved it to iq.wiki before seeing the talk page here. After reviewing the talk here, I think moving the page was wrong and I'm not sure if clicking revert will be enough to return the initial name. If not, can someone move it to the initial name? Also, I know this is not the right place to ask but can someone help me know how I can remove a redirect after moving a page? Thank you Kelmaa (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelmaa: I moved it back. There is no need to delete the redirect. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Kelmaa (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr In my opinion, you now should remove the “DEFUNCT” comment on the page as it is no longer accurate as there are reliable secondary sources that prove that Everipedia has rebranded to IQ.Wiki. From your previous response, you were unconvinced that IQ.Wiki deserves its own article on Wikipedia. However, these sources demonstrate that Everipedia has undergone a rebranding as IQ.Wiki. 103.249.229.205 (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.entrepreneur.com/en-au/technology/is-ai-about-to-replace-editors-for-online-encyclopedias/447790
https://www.miamiherald.com/contributor-content/article272540559.html 103.249.229.205 (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Miamiherald "contributor content" section is a blog; entrepreneur is a PR front end. Neither is usable as a source. These are clearly different websites with different content sets. We don't care if the owner calls it a "rebranding". VQuakr (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a little confusing to write that it's "defunct", particularly given that IQ.wiki redirects here and is discussed in the page. If the approach is going to be to treat them as two totally distinct sites, maybe it could be somehow made more clear in this article that Everipedia is defunct, but that the separate IQ.wiki is operational? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr I am with @GorillaWarfare (an administrator on the English Wikipedia) by saying that calling Everipedia defunct creates confusion for readers. As @GorillaWarfare points out Everipedia.org redirects to IQ.wiki and is discussed on the page. Clearly, this shows that the site is not defunct. From reading the sources cited in this article and the talk page, it's clear that Everipedia became a blockchain encyclopedia in 2018 far before rebranding to IQ.wiki. Moreover IQ.wiki is the same blockchain encyclopedia (that contains all former Everipedia articles and more adding every day) it’s run by the same people and they use the same IQ token. It is more accurate to refer to the change as a rebranding since anyway former Everipedia articles have been moved to IQ.Wiki. While not from The Associated Press editorial articles - The Associated Press refers to IQ.wiki where they previously referred to the site as Everipedia in their developer documentation. https://developer.ap.org/ap-elections-api/ Basing on all of this @VQuakr , @GorillaWarfare, to ensure the accuracy of this Wikipedia page the first sentence should clarify that Everipedia is a blockchain encyclopedia that rebranded to IQ.wiki rather than referring it to as a defunct encyclopedia. Furthermore, it makes sense to also rename the article from Everipedia to IQ.wiki.FarahHaneef17 (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A website that previously was being updated and now is not can be accurately described as "defunct" even if it still exists as a link to another web site. I certainly can agree that there is still cleanup to be done here re confusion. VQuakr (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion is growing and growing. Everipedia (or IQ.Wiki) is a Company: an online encyclopedia. The Website everipedia.org is only one part of the Company (of the online encyclopedia). Whenever we talk in the article about Everipedia (or iQ.wiki) we need to be careful in distinguish what is the Company (the online encyclopedia) and what is its URL. I propose to start agreeing on the meaning of the words used in this article referring to the company or to the URL:
1.         Defunct, in a business context, refers to the condition of a Company, whether publicly traded or private, that has gone bankrupt and has ceased to exist, that is not more reachable. In the case of the Company Everipedia (or IQ.wiki) I can’t find anything in quoted primary or secondary sources, related to bankruptcy. On the other side, everything confirms its business continuity (same management, business idea, contents, street address, token, industry, blockchain, etc): only difference is in the brand name, used url and archive of content not crypto related. I also see that all previous crypto related contents produced are available and editable every day (reachable via URL redirection). We are clearly in a case where the company in object is not defunct but active.
The first sentence therefore, if it refers to the Company, is clearly not correct. The company is living and running under a new name and url (i.e. “Rebranding”)
2.         Redirect (of an URL): as you correctly say, everipedia.org redirects to IQ.Wiki: redirect again, for an URL, doesn’t mean “defunct”, here for everyone the definition of redirection and of its uses.
This is the case: “Moving pages to a new domain” cited in the quoted article. Again, moving page to a new domain, as per definition before mentioned, and in coherence with the definition of redirect, is not declaring a Company (an online encyclopedia) defunct, since it is very well reachable and editable.
So defunct cannot be applied neither to the Everipedia as a company nor to everipedia.org
3.         Deactivated: Deactivate means to turn-off, shutdown, desensitize, or otherwise make inoperable through software programming or other means during the actual life.
I see neither primary or secondary sources supporting the fact that Everipedia servers or URL have been deactivated or are not reachable. On the other side, I see that crypto related content in servers are available and editable via a new link IQ.Wiki (see point 2)
Finally I report here the list of online encyclopedias and their classification to take as best practice.
There is not one case for an online encyclopedia classified as “defunct” where the original url redirects to another url. Not one case where there are supporting primary and secondary sources mentioning a rebranding. Those are the best practices of “defunct online encyclopedias”. The case of Everipedia / IQ.Wiki is not associable to any example of defunct online encyclopedia listed because the reality is different, therefore in not defunct. It has been rebranded in IQ.Wiki. FarahHaneef17 (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare I see that @VQuakr is not answering. I assume he agrees with what I said. If you are fine with my observations as well, then I will proceed with editing the article accordingly. Awaiting your response. FarahHaneef17 (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to "defunct" being removed, if that's the edit you're planning to make. Were there other changes you had in mind? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A change from a Wikipedia fork to a crypto glossary isn't a rebrand. It's a different website run by the same people. If IQWiki becomes notable someday then it can have its own article. "Defunct" seems an accurate descriptor for a formerly user-editable website that is now a read-only archive. What would you call it? VQuakr (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I agree with @GorillaWarfare in deleting the word defunct, on the other side I understand @VQuakr's concerns about the confusion.
Anyway, as explained and agreed the common meaning of defunct is not applicable in this case, and well as “read-only archive” refers only to a portion of the content that was available on the site prior to the rebrand as all crypto-related content that was editable prior to the rebrand are currently editable on IQ.wiki (check primary and secondary sources above mentioned)
I have updated the text in the article with the hope to find a compromise with @GorillaWarfare and @VQuakr
Article:
Everipedia (/ˌɛvərɪˈpiːdiə/) is a blockchain encyclopedia that rebranded to IQ.wiki in 2022. Everipedia was founded in 2014 and was officially launched in 2015, as a fork of Wikipedia by Larry Sanger (who co-founded Wikipedia).
In 2018, Everipedia became a blockchain encyclopedia and launched the IQ token cryptocurrency. After Everipedia became a blockchain encyclopedia the readership and editorship on the site moved toward crypto content. In 2022, Everipedia rebranded to IQ.wiki redirecting the Everipedia.org domain to IQ.wiki and solely focusing on blockchain and cryptocurrency-related topics archiving previously produced wikis on unrelated topics. [3] FarahHaneef17 (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I have no objection to either the "defunct" label being removed and IQ.wiki described as a "rebrand" of Everipedia or the "defunct" label being retained and IQ.wiki being described as a totally separate project (to which the previous Everipedia domain now redirects). The confusion in my mind is using both "defunct" and describing IQ.wiki (not defunct) as a "rebrand" of Everipedia, since that implies some sort of continuation of the previous project into the currently active website. I don't know which the sourcing better supports (if there is even sourcing available on IQ.wiki). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your feedback @GorillaWarfare, I believe the sourcing better supports the fact that Everipedia rebranded as IQ.wiki and is not defunct.
The first primary source cited in this wiki to claim that Everipedia is defunct [3] is the IQ.wiki about page which explains the history of how Everipedia became a blockchain encyclopedia in 2018 with the launch of its IQ token and how its content shifted towards crypto after that before Everipedia then rebranded as IQ.wiki in 2022.
I also saw your interview with The Verge which is cited in this page [41] which supports this timeline since it describes Everipedia as a Wikipedia like project increasingly filled with crypto spam. It seems like IQ.wiki with it still being a blockchain wiki focused on crypto is an evolution of Everipedia rather than a completely seperate project.
The rebrand to IQ.wiki is also now reflected in documentation from The Associated Press related to their elections API which used the Everipedia OraQles blockchain tech to publish data on-chain. AP now refers to it as IQ.wiki where it was formally known as Everipedia.
I do not want to share too many external links however I believe these links are relevant to the discussion of sourcing
https://developer.ap.org/ap-elections-api/
There's also this recent article from CryptoSlate covering IQ.wiki
https://cryptoslate.com/videos/can-decentralized-site-iq-wiki-offer-a-better-knowledge-source-for-web3-than-wikipedia-slatecast-30/
The rebranding has also been recognized by Coingecko and other token information sites.https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/iq
I've also included some references to additional sources in my earlier comments
While there are several references that support the view that Everipedia rebranded to IQ.wiki it seems that there are no references to support the assertion that Everipedia is defunct. In fact the first primary source cited in the article directly contradicts the assertion that Everipedia is defunct.
Moreover please refer to the previous mentioned sources: Entrepreneur, MiamiHerald and NYweekly FarahHaneef17 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't usable links or reliable sources. Spamming the same links over and over is unhelpful. VQuakr (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main sources I have referred to is the first primary source [3] which clearly contradicts the assertion that Everipedia is defunct and explains the history of how Everipedia became a blockchain encyclopedia in 2018 with the launch of its IQ token and how its content shifted towards crypto after that before Everipedia then rebranded as IQ.wiki in 2022.
All the soruces I have provided are new, and are all primary and secondary sources, if not tertiary (see coingego)-
On the other hand you are not provided a single source supporting your thesis that is not a rebranding.
Please provide sources, otherwise your assertion are based only on your personal judgment or original research, not considering what is actually happening.
I kindly ask even @GorillaWarfare for a closing opinion in all of this. FarahHaneef17 (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AP's API, cryptoslate, the website's "about us" section, and coingecko have all been mentioned and noted as unusable in the discussion above so no, none of these are "new". An argument becomes less convincing each time it is repeated, not more. VQuakr (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources to show that Everipedia is defunct its clear that the company is still in operation as IQ.wiki. The citation used to show that is defunct does not say that it is defunct it in fact shows the opposite and explains that Everipedia was well known as a blockchain encyclopedia having launched the IQ token in 2018 and then as content shifted towards blockchain content they decided to rebrand and fully focus on crypto in 2022. 45.50.174.212 (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Already addressed above. VQuakr (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How have you addressed that I don't see any rss that the site is defunct? 45.50.174.212 (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Converted to a redirect to another website is pretty darned defunct. WP:REHASH. VQuakr (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's your personal opinion with zero sourcing WP:NOR and not Wikipedia:Neutral point of view the source you used to describe the project as defunct clearly explains that Everipedia rebranded as IQ.wiki. Prior to rebranding to IQ.wiki, Everipedia was a blockchain encyclopedia and it is still in operation as a blockchain encyclopedia as IQ.wiki. I wouldn't call that "damned defunct".
Calling a project defunct when it is clearly still in operation is not representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. 45.50.174.212 (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of this article is Everipedia. A website. Not a "project", not a corporation. IQ Wiki is a different website with a far narrower scope. We can write an article on it if it becomes notable someday. This is all covered above FYI. VQuakr (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is very much clear that the site is still in operation along with the project and corporation. Everipedia was a blockchain encyclopedia prior to narrowing the scope and after narrowing the scope it is still a blockchain encyclopedia as it was described in Forbes, Fortune, and Wired which are all reliable sources. Everipedia was clearly notable as a blockchain encyclopedia and company as the raise, Sanger joining the company, and AP using the blockchain technology are all documented in reliable sources. That company and the blockchain encyclopedia are still in operation, Everipedia was notable as a blockchain encyclopedia and stayed a blockchain encyclopedia when rebranded to IQ.wiki. There are no sources to indicated that Everipedia was defunct and citation used to justify the statement contradicts it.
Do you disagree that Everipedia was a blockchain encyclopedia as described in Wired, Forbes, and Fotrune before rebranding as IQ.wiki and continued on as a blockchain encyclopedia after the rebrand? Since the site has continued on with the same technology and same fundamental concept with the same team run by the same company it seems like it would be WP:NOR and not Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to say that the site is defunct especially when the only citation used contradicts the idea of it being defunct. 45.50.174.212 (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same concept or website. Those three sources you keep repeated were all written before the site was defunct, so I'm not sure what relevant you think they have. No, these are separate topics. It didn't start using blockchain until well into its life, BTW. VQuakr (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the proof that the site is defunct, you say that I am repeating but you have not included any sources. It is true of course that the reliable sources were written before the site rebranded however they clearly show that Everipedia is a blockchain encyclopedia and that it later continued as on as a blockchain encyclopedia as IQ.wiki. The only citation used to "show" that the site is defunct directly contradicts the fact that is defunct and even explains how Everipedia became a blockchain encyclopedia 5 years ago and then the content moved to cryptocurrency and then it rebranded to IQ.wiki. It's pretty clear that the concept and site are the same if Everipedia became a blockchain encyclopedia in 2018 (from articles it even shows the change began in 2017) as referenced in multiple reliable sources and continued on as a blockchain encyclopedia in 2022 and 2023. 45.50.174.212 (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Everipedia&oldid=1201862316"