InfoGalactic - New fork of Wikipedia created by Vox Day

[StraightShooter]

So apparently back in 2016, an alt-right blogger Vox Day decided to create a new fork of Wikipedia to counter the progressive and "SJW" bias alleged in Wikipedia called InfoGalactic; basically all of Wikipedia's content was imported to the new website which claims its goal is to remove the progressive "ideological graffiti" that's worked its way into Wikipedia.

Allegedly IG has raised $25,000 dollars, and claims to want to rival or even replace Wikipedia (similar to how other "alt-tech" platforms like Voat are wanting to become competitors for Twitter), though whether it will actually live up to its hype, or just end up an echochamber in a similar vein to Wikipedia is anyone's guess, though from what I can tell this is the first attempt to create a complete fork of Wikipedia (while there was a project called Citizendum created by one of WP's former co-founders Larry Sangar some years back which flopped, it decided to just start over from scratch with its own original articles rather than fork Wikipedia).

While I'm not seeing any major drama so far, apparently the website may be attracting a fair number of alt-right extremists or "conspiracy theorists" who were banned from Wikipedia, similar to how RationalWiki ended up serving as a haven for SJWs who were too fringe even by Wikipedia's standards - this site might be worth keeping an eye on since it'll be interesting to see how things play out.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page

 

[AA 102]

alt-right extremists or "conspiracy theorists"

@Brandobaris I found a new place for you to post

 

[StraightShooter]

@Brandobaris I found a new place for you to post

I've been seeing some bizarre shit in some of the edits, such as a user adding some entry about how there is a "media conspiracy" to pretend that unicorns don't really exist; not sure if some of these guys are legit kooks or just parodists a la the guys who infiltrated Conservapedia.

 

[AA 102]

Also the seven rules they have or the "Seven Canons" are pretty fucking tryhard

https://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Seven_Canons

CANON ONE

Infogalactic does not define reality.

Infogalactic's Starlords are not the reality police. Infogalactic is not Wikipedia, it is a dynamic knowledge core designed to be a useful, up-to-date reference for the user consulting it. Only the user can define his perspective; no one else can define what is true for him or force him to accept their subjective interpretation of reality, no matter how reliable their sources might be.


CANON TWO

Infogalactic is non-ideological and seeks to present objective points of view.

Since no human being on the planet is neutral, objectivity is the most for which we can reasonably strive. Infogalactic is non-ideological and the Starlords will ruthlessly eliminate all ideological spin, framing, narrative, and context from the Fact-level pages regardless of whether they agree with it or not.


CANON THREE

Infogalactic is free content.

Anyone can freely use and distribute it. Since all editors freely license their work to the public, no editor or administrator owns a page and all contributions can be edited and redistributed at will. The exception is the advertising content, which is the sole property of the advertiser.


CANON FOUR

No griefing.

All griefers, which is to say trolls, vandals, rules lawyers, and ideological crusaders of every kind, will be aggressively anticipated, trapped, and removed. Don't bother playing word games or trying to hide behind pedantic interpretations of the rules. Infogalactic's Starlords are under direct orders to freeze any account that appears to belong to a griefer and to permanently ban those confirmed as such. Don't try to be sneaky. You're not going to fool anyone.


CANON FIVE

Play nice and play fair.

Be decent to your fellow Galaxians. There is no One True Page on Infogalactic and there is no need to engage in edit wars.


CANON SIX

Rules are guidelines for users, not chew toys for lawyers.

When in doubt about how to apply the rules or interpret the philosophy, ask your fellow Galaxians. If they don't know the answer, ask a Starlord. Don't play rules lawyer, or assume that because things were done in a certain way somewhere else, that is how they are done here.


CANON SEVEN

Facts are facts.

Facts are not context, they are not logical conclusions, and they are not justifiable opinions. Only externally verifiable facts belong on the Factual level of a page; if it is necessary for a Galaxian to explain, rationalize, or justify the presence of a purported fact on a page, then it belongs on either the Context or the Opinion levels. Galaxian's personal experiences, interpretations, or subjective opinions are welcome, but only on the appropriate level. That is not the Fact level. If there is any doubt, put it in Context.

 

[StraightShooter]

Seems some guy is sperging out over an admin named "Tears of Ovid":

https://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Galactic_tribunal

Spoiler

I am going to speak my mind on this one as there are some serious warning signs here.

1. Notice the description of my reply to Ovid's comment: "original response." It was written before he posted Vox's reply and got caught in an edit conflict as Ovid had supplied Vox's comments in the meantime. I preferred to post it as is before replying to any new posts.

2. Notice the tone of my second reply.

3. My "rudeness" seems to have triggered a disproportionate response as he left four different messages on two different talk pages accusing me of all kinds of malintent and even banned me temporarily so I could not present my side of the matter.

4. He then proceeded to lock various SJW pages even though it was he who triggered the warring without even replying to the message on the article's talk page. If I had any intentions of warring, I would have done it before complaining on Crew's page.

5. One of his replies is to this comment of mine, which, if he had bothered to read when it was left ten days back:

(I am very opinionated by nature and so often come across as very aggressive. I suggest you ignore that and simply concentrate on what I am trying to say.)

would have allowed him to concentrate on the points being made rather than the tone being used to make it.

6. As you are well aware, his final action was to ban me and leave a "Sorry, Charlie!" message on my user pages after my departure. What triggered it? Did I edit any articles after the 24-ban?

This is the vindictive act of a small-minded person. The entire series of events might have just as well taken place on Wikipedia with Ovid being one of the 532.

7. Ovid doesn't seem to understand SJWism and his edits, redirects, general comments and expectations from people only seem to underscore that. He redirects some articles to pages that link it to progressivism. In other cases, he redirects them to topics related to the alt-right. It is nonsensical, to put it somewhat delicately.

8. I would like to continue editing article on subjects that I am interested in, but this incident shows that there is a lack of clarity regarding which kind of articles are acceptable and which aren't.

If fear of self-promotion (or being labeled voxpedia, or altrightopedia) and excessive emphasis on "facts" means avoiding articles critical of SJWs or the left in general while still hosting ones on Sexism in video gaming and associated self-promoters, I might just as well wait till the direction in which IG wants to move becomes more clear.

Want to see what the opposition is up to while you guys are playing fair?

• http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kafkatrapping
• http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Kafkatrapping

Further, you have taken on board an admin who is quick to take offense to comments, assumes malintent at the drop of a hat, and cannot tolerate criticism of his actions. He abuses his newfound authority to indulge in petty and vindictive behavior. Banning someone for their tone? I am too old for this shit.

- Whitebeard (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Idris, I'll send an email to Vox Day and ask him to comment on this. Our policy says we ban ideological crusaders or 'griefers' of any kind, so I'm trying to enforce this, and Whitebeard's responses IMO showed he isn't interested in our policy of building a factual encyclopedia, but is more interested in just complaining about how biased he thinks Wikipedia is, and how we shouldn't be impartial. For example comments like "Want to see what the opposition is up to while you guys are playing fair?" and linking a RationalWiki article shows a likely incompatibility with our project goals, since I don't think Vox wants InfoGalactic to be a piss poor website like RationalWiki which uses rubbish like Reddit threads and "Tv Tropes" as sources. Whitebeard seems to not care about building a factual encyclopedia with marketing potential, simply soapboxing and promoting neologisms like "SJWism". If he simply wants to write his own opinions and thoughts rather than build an encyclopedia, there are other websites like "Conservapedia" or "Kings Wiki" which would be happy to accommodate him.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
which uses rubbish like Reddit threads and "Tv Tropes" as sources
In the modern world, programmers, gamers, chess grandmasters, scientists, politicians, celebrities and and even normal people communicate via Twitter, Hacker News, Reddit, Google Groups, Facebook and blogs. That is where a lot of knowledge and information exists. It looks like you are still beholden to WP:RELIABLE/WP:NOTABLE and won't consider something to be reliable/notable unless it is published by The New York Times or some worthless academic work by some two-bit Marxist professor.
promoting neologisms
If people are using it regularly on the internet, then it exists. Whether you want IG (your version of it, at least) to come down from the heavens and listen to the plebes is something IG policy dictates (or ought to dictate).
write his own opinions and thoughts
I sometimes do: User:Whitebeard/thoughts
ideological crusaders or 'griefers' of any kind
I don't try to hide the fact that I am opinionated or have certain ideological stances. But none of the articles I have created (and which you have issues with) suggest an "ideological crusade." Most of them have multiple sources to back them up. The list of SJW-converged organizations might require a better title to not sound too much like opinion, but there is a discussion to be had there (which you killed by edit-warring and taking offense to my tone).
- Whitebeard (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I think this post right here speaks volumes since it's more ranting rather than speaking in terms of facts; for the record this isn't an "anything goes" Wiki where anything someone posted on the internet is automatically considered reliable. For the same reason that an article called "list of right-wing nutjobs" wouldn't qualify as encyclopedic just because some left-wing blog like Daily Kos or a random "SJW" on twitter has coined the term "right wing nutjob".
I think it's pretty simple. This encyclopedia documents facts, you don't seem to understand the difference between opinions and facts. Calling an organization "SJW converged" is opinion, listing specific actions the organization has done is fact.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
We don't immediately discount sources as 'unreliable' as in Wikipedia's policy providing the content is factual and verifiable (e.x. WikiLeaks), but you don't understand the difference between opinion and fact to begin with. This is not a project which documents "any and every opinion the plebes" have, it's one which documents facts and provable information, so long as the information is factual it is allowed regardless of the "name" of the source, but a gamer posting his opinion on Twitter is not a "fact"..--Tears of Ovid (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"If people are using it regularly on the internet, then it exists" - Then you'll need to provide some facts or statistics (e.x. Google or Alexa ratings) demonstrating its relevence, not just "something somewhere on the internet said", if you take that route then you'll have to include anything and everything "someone said" on the internet, such as every individual reddit thread or Yahoo answers posted, and that rubbish is a dime a dozen. It's simple, do some research and provide facts, rather than try to equate opinions with facts. If you want to whine that "IG hosts all of Wikipedia's SJW propaganda articles", then nelp out like other editors are doing and fix the articles in question instead of having a temper tantrum.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
If you want to continue to argue, please take it to the Galactic tribunal. If you just want to rant about more about how "everyone and everything is liberal/SJW/Marxist/controlled by Marxist professors" rather than speak in terms of facts, then I think you will be incompatible with IG.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify the above, I think the key problem here is that Whitebeard views InfoGalactic as intended to be a "right-wing" version of RationalWiki; websites like that (e.x. Kings Wiki", Conservapedia) already exist. InfoGalactic's goal as stated by its founder is to be a professional encyclopedia and business. Unlike Wikipedia our sourcing policy does not value "sources" over facts. For example, on Wikipedia a blog may immediately be discounted as being an "unreliable source" regardless of the content, while a "mainstream" source such as Fox News or the New York times would automatically be considered "reliable" even if the information it provided was not factually provable or demonstrated to be false (e.x. referring to individuals as "white supremacist" simply because authors of "mainstream" publications described them as such even if the designation is ambiguous and factually debatable at best).
InfoGalactic's policy I believe is to value facts over sources; so for example an independent journalist who provides facts would be considered superior to an article by a "mainstream" journalist which is factually questionable. However this of course does not mean that "anyone anywhere on the internet who has this or that opinion" is allowed to create articles presenting it as fact if it can't be backed up by verifiable data.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Just to illustrate, here's my explanation of the difference between opinion and fact:

• ESPN fired Kurt Schilling over a Twitter post objecting to "gender-neutral" bathroom policies - Fact
• ESPN is an evil progressive SJW-converged Marxist organization - Opinion
• Donald Trump proposed building a border wall across the US/Mexican border to help curb illegal immigration - Fact
• Donald Trump is a racist Neo-Nazi fascist RWNJ - Opinion

--Tears of Ovid (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ovid I have already faced two edit-conflicts while trying to post a response. Not going to try again today. Once you are done with your responses, mark your final response as such so that I provide a single reply tomorrow (if this thing is still active). Whitebeard (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm done, I recommend copying your text before submitting so that it won't get lost, sorry about the inconvenience. If there is an edit conflict, you should also be able to scroll down and view the text you attempted to submit; copy it, and then re-paste it into the next edit.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ovid

This encyclopedia documents facts,

It tries to. All of the following are opinion.

• List of Islamist terrorist attacks
• https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=List_of_islamic_terror_attacks&redirect=no

The redirect from Islamic to Islamist on Wikipedia was deliberately done by a former admin because of "POV" issues.

So, what is factual? Is it Islamic terror, or radical Islamic terror? What if it's only "Islamist" (political, fake distinction) and not "Islamic" (religious).

Any one who talks about facts and objectivity has to take sides on such issues. Maintaining objectivity or sticking to facts is not as simple as it looks.

you don't seem to understand the difference between opinions and facts.

That is an insulting comment.

Some top-level articles are never going to be completely factual for the simple reason that there will be two or more sides to an issue. Often, arguments will arise over the very title of the article.

If and when left-of-center editors get on board, these wars are only going to get worse.

Unlike Wikipedia our sourcing policy does not value "sources" over facts.

Even "facts" have to be sourced and I am certain that the reliability of the source will matter when there are multiple editors involved and different sources say different things.

Whitebeard views InfoGalactic as intended to be a "right-wing" version of RationalWiki

I want you stop avoiding articles on "right-wing" topics and avoid making them sound neutral. All you have managed to do so far is make them factually incorrect.

You keep targeting articles created by me without knowing anything about the issues involved. In this instance, the initiative is actually one person. This person is involved in the activities mentioned. And this is verifiable. They is used in the article because I don't know (or care about) their gender. They are trans.

Further, your obsession with eliminating opinion and keeping only facts seems to be restricted to SJW-related articles. IG doesn't have the fact/context/opinion system yet. I wonder what you gain by such destructive editing when it is apparent that a lot of this material can easily fit within the upcoming system.

this isn't an "anything goes" Wiki where anything someone posted on the internet is automatically considered reliable.

You are attacking a straw man.

If Kasparov posts something on social media, it is reliable in so far as it applies to him or his opinion. If the developer of a game/software posts something on Hacker News/Twitter, it is reliable. This reliability can be determined from the surrounding context as well as secondary/tertiary sources.

If ESR coins a neologism that has found some usage on the internet, there needs to be an article on it. Do we wait till M-W/OED officially accept these terms?

For the same reason that an article called "list of right-wing nutjobs" wouldn't qualify as encyclopedic ... the organization has done is fact.

After I said this?
The list of SJW-converged organizations might require a better title to not sound too much like opinion, but there is a discussion to be had there (which you killed by edit-warring and taking offense to my tone)

In any case, "List of people Daily Kos considers to be right-wing nutjobs" could be an encyclopedic article because it is factual.

if you take that route then you'll have to include anything and everything "someone said" on the internet

As long as we can source an etymology for terms and neologisms, yes, an article should exist.

IG should not be elitist. Notability is often used by Wikipedia editors to scrap articles they don't like. Why should articles on terms in common usage be avoided while those on terms no one in their right mind uses be kept (Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis)?

"any and every opinion the plebes"

Never said that. How do you make the leap from articles on neologisms to documenting opinion?

every individual reddit thread or Yahoo answers posted, and that rubbish is a dime a dozen.

I said that a "lot of knowledge and information exists" in various comments/posts on the internet. I never said that crap doesn't exist. It's a question of choosing appropriate sources.

"everyone and everything is liberal/SJW/Marxist/controlled by Marxist professors" rather than speak in terms of facts,

You do love your straw men. Discussions and debates are about agreeing with/refuting points. How does speaking "in terms of facts" look like, exactly?

- Whitebeard (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Infogalactic is intended to be "elitist" in the meritocratic sense (we value fact over opinion), not an anarchy where any opinion anyone has is considered "equal". As I explained we don't document or create articles presenting opionions as facts simply because "someone" has this opinion. We only document verifiable facts; unlike Wikipedia we don't automatically dismiss 'non mainstream' sources so long as they document factual content. I gave you an example of facts versus opinion; giving specific examples of what an organization has done (e.x. donate to Planned Parenthood) is fact; calling the organization "SJW converged" is opinion. By that same logic then, because there are likely hundreds of Twitter accounts calling Trump a "misogynist" or a "racist", then this should be documented as fact in an article just because "someone on Twitter says so". --Tears of Ovid (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Likewise, if you are complaining about articles which already exist then what you should be doing instead is pointing them out, discussing them with others, and fixing them, which is what InfoGalactic's primary purpose is to do, to eventually remove subtle bias which exists in Wikipedia. And as far as neologisms go, again you don't seem to understand the difference between documenting neologisms and promoting them. The article on Vox's Day's book douments his terminology, but creating articles entitled "list of SJW-converged organizations" is documenting opinion as fact. Why is this so hard to understand? For example, an article documenting who coined the term "right-wing nutjob" is just reporting information; but creating articles called "list of right-wing nutjobs" isn't just documenting a term, it's promoting an opinion as fact.--Tears of Ovid (talk)
As far as reliability/notability policy goes, I believe that's still being worked on, but there is going to be some threshold by which the relevance of new entries is measured (e.x. possibly Google rankings will be used as a threshold of notability); IG is not a place for people to coin or promote new neologisms or opinions.
So how about instead of complaining about "why can't I write biased articles if bias exists in other articles", why don't you help out correcting those articles instead like others are doing?--Tears of Ovid (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

His profile seems pretty hipster:

https://infogalactic.com/info/User:Tears_of_Ovid

Spoiler

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core

Check out my unofficial InfoGalactic message board
I can be reached via email here
“I did not love cold harmony and perfect regularity of organization; what I sought was variety, mystery, tradition, the venerable, the awful. I despised sophisters and calculators; I was groping for faith, honor, and prescriptive loyalties. I would have given any number of neo-classical pediments for one poor battered gargoyle.” - Russell Kirk
Welcome to my harem
This user is a history buff.
This user is interested in
art history.
This user is interested in literature
This user believes pornography imperils society and is too easily accessible over the Internet.
This user practices Taekwondo.
This user is a philosopher.
This user is a linguist.
This user enjoys popera.
This user enjoys R&B and soul music.
CD This user likes the song "Chinese Democracy", by Guns N' Roses.
This user enjoys smooth jazz.
This user enjoys sacred music.

• Some useful templates

• Sandbox

Category:

• InfoGalactic Starlords

 

[GS 281]

You might want to use spoilers, quote boxes, links and screen caps rather than copypaste. It makes it hard to read. For content on websites, just archive and link. Salient points, just put in quote boxes. Image-laden stuff you can cap and put under spoiler. Also, just summarize content if its longer than a paragraph and source it somehow.

 

[AnOminous]

Considering it's Vox Day, it will end up a right wing RationalWiki grafted onto the corpse of current Wikipedia pretty quickly.

 

[LulzKiller]

I mean the article on Vox Day is pretty self-fellatory:
https://infogalactic.com/info/Vox_Day

 

[StraightShooter]

Considering it's Vox Day, it will end up a right wing RationalWiki grafted onto the corpse of current Wikipedia pretty quickly.

Probably so, sad though because Wikipedia could use a legitimate competitor to avoid giving it monopoly on the market; this is probably one of the reasons that WP itself has devolved into such a circle-jerking shithole; since as much as the community is reviled, it's the only game in town; if they actually had to worry about competition from other Wiki encyclopedias, then Jimbo and the powers that be might actually crack down on spergs like Ryulong and David Gerard infiltrating the adminship there and turning it into their own little playgroud.

Here's an earlier example of the type of new articles that are being created here; this "List of alt-right concepts" article was full of manosphere/PUA crap (I wonder how the author somehow comflated PUA "game theory" with the alt-right and Donald Trump); apparently Ovid deleted it though and redirected it to "alt right" article:

https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=List_of_alt-right_concepts&oldid=724677412

I mean the article on Vox Day is pretty self-fellatory:
https://infogalactic.com/info/Vox_Day

I wonder who the fuck wrote this in the opening paragraph; are these guys even trying to make a serious encyclopedia, or just make a "snark" website a la RationalWiki?

He is known as the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil by his supporters, who describe themselves as Vile Faceless Minions and the Dread Ilk.

 

[RK 672]

His profile seems pretty hipster:

https://infogalactic.com/info/User:Tears_of_Ovid

This guy seemed familiar.

http://archive.is/xy8kb

https://infogalactic.com/info/Matthew_Hopkins_News (http://archive.is/GJF6n)

https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Hopkins_News&action=history (http://archive.is/kmOwJ)

 

[StraightShooter]

This guy seemed familiar.

View attachment 192121

http://archive.is/xy8kb

View attachment 192124

https://infogalactic.com/info/Matthew_Hopkins_News (http://archive.is/GJF6n)

View attachment 192125

https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Hopkins_News&action=history (http://archive.is/kmOwJ)

So he wants to shut down KF, or is he just trying to recruit Vordrak into IG due to his "alt-right affiliations"? If IG is anti-KF I'm not sure why since as far as I know there's been no other mentions of them here, though there have been quite a few threads on "alt-right" lolcows and affiliated stuff such as Pizzagate.

 

[RK 672]

So he wants to shut down KF, or is he just trying to recruit Vordrak into IG due to his "alt-right affiliations"? If IG is anti-KF I'm not sure why since as far as I know there's been no other mentions of them here, though there have been quite a few threads on "alt-right" lolcows and affiliated stuff such as Pizzagate.

I'm guessing the latter. I can't find any comments from Tears about KF. Probably just familiar with Sam because of Sam's Wikipedia controversies.

 

[GS 281]

http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2017/02/dantes-inferno-and-the-coming-wiki-wars/
http://archive.is/MOnOC

Infogalactic?

Members of the alt right community have recently launched their own Wikipedia fork, called Infogalatic.

It does seem to have a lively presence and funding – but I don’t believe this will redirect the political tensions that exist on Wikipedia between editors for reasons stated below.

Infogalactic does appear to make a sincere appeal to objectivity and the removal of bias. I don’t see it going down the road of a Conservapedia or RationalWiki where abuses are tolerated, which at face value is refreshing. While Infogalactic claims their intention is to remove ‘bias’ creeping into a collaborative encyclopedia, which is at face value a worthwhile pursuit. However this is a bias the alt right objects to as enforced on Wikipedia, which has a more mainstream, progressive, or liberal group of editors.

Is there a mechanism in Infogalactic’s algorithm that can remove their (the alt right) own bias from editing?

This appears to be resolved as they introduce a relativity guideline, so those with one set of bias can read and edit one version of the article while readers of another point of view are shown one curated to their viewpoint. I’m not sure if that will ultimately be a productive solution or not, but I do admit I find that intriguing and I look forward to seeing how it plays out.

But unless Infogalactic has some special ability to leap frog Google page ranking, adoption to their platform by online readers will likely be dismal. This is primarily why I do not believe having a separate platform will resolve bias issues on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has an audience. And that is what the real battle is about, not about just having an encyclopedia article on the web that anyone can edit, but a platform that has universal adoption by hundreds of millions of global online users. That’s the real estate that wiki wars are fought over, and until then I predict the wiki wars on Wikipedia will still hold a prize for both the altright and the SJW’s who want to influence or correct public perception on various events and people.

 

[Feline Darkmage]

Infogalactic does not define reality.

I give them points for self-awareness in this regard.

Infogalactic is non-ideological and seeks to present objective points of view.

And then this took points away lol. I doubt Teddy "Vox Day" Beale is capable of running something without shoving his ideological biases into it.

 

[StraightShooter]

I give them points for self-awareness in this regard.

And then this took points away lol. I doubt Teddy "Vox Day" Beale is capable of running something without shoving his ideological biases into it.

Yeah, unless he basically takes a completely hands-off approach like Jimbo Wales; but even then that wouldn't necessarily stop a cabal of admins from forming and ideologically policing the website; would be interesting if there was more background out there on the top admins, but from what I can tell most of them don't have much of an internet presense elsewhere; at least a few of the admins might even have a business or technology background; since apparently I learned that Vox is the son of a former CEO who went to federal prison for tax evasion, with Vox's brother now running the family business, and apparently has a fair amount of family money at his disposal.