It probably comes to no surprise to anyone who reads this blog that I would tend to believe a story coming from Fox News more than others in the contemporary media (such as NBC, MS NOW, CNN, ABC, CBS, and so on) simply on the basis that to me, Fox seems closer to the truth than the liberal media. And I admit this could be an "unhealthy" echo chamber move on my part. But it is what experience has led me to believe. But unfortunately, I find it more difficult to find details on breaking stories with Fox as the source than the others. It's quite possible that Alphabet could be lefties too, and purposefully boost lefty media in their Google Search results. The problem is, though I find Fox's reporting "better" in some sense, when I'm trying to find details of a recent event, it's easy to see what the lefties' takes are on it, but often challenging finding what a more right-leaning Fox has to "say." In that sense, it's inferior, and I often have to rely on organizations I'd rather not have to sift through their lefty takes on a lot of events.
Similarly, especially since John Stossel's video on Wikipedia bias, I'd much rather get my summaries of topics and information from Justapedia. But alas, because it is edited by far fewer people than its much more widely known source Wikipedia, it is often out-of-date. For example, after watching Oppenheimer last night, I wanted to read about Robert's life in more detail. It mentioned 'the upcoming American film." I also realized MSNBC recently rebranded to something else, although I couldn't remember its new name. I was certainly not going to find that on Justapedia. Also, so many pages are missing content, like images. I'm going to guess it was a forking not done right, or relies on WikiMedia instead of having their own equivalent. Mainly due to (I think) lack of publicity, it will always be inferior beacause of this lack of updates. Despite its very philosophy on editorial policy being far better in my estimation, it is difficult to rely on it the same way I read Wikipedia.
Also, open comment about you: You are contradictory. As of early 2026, you state your purpse as:
Justapedia exists as an encyclopedia of true knowledge, an ever-growing collection of human understanding, created, refined, and shared by volunteers who wish to contribute what they know to a freely accessible resource for the world, in perpetuity.
Why the prohibition on "original research" then? If you want to be the source of knowledge, why does everything need to be sourced? I guess I sort of get it, you don't want to be the conduit for the latest false "scientific" theory or conspiracy.
On another of your introductory pages, you state:
Justapedia is a fork of the English Wikipedia, but it is not a 'fork' in the traditional sense of the word.
By this statement, at least as I understand forking, you would seem to have little to no knowledge of what a fork is. It is literally what you did. You took the contents of Wikipedia, copied it, and began your work from there. There really are no traditional or other senses. That is what forking means, to copy then alter that resulting copy. From your own page on the matter:
In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct and separate piece of software.
I know of no other application of the word "fork" which would apply. The only subtitutions would be the concept of "content" for concepts of "software." As for your explanations why it is not a fork, they really aren't meaningful. That is the whole purpose of a fork, that the forkers don't like one or more policies of a project being forked. You might like to tell or convince me there's some subtle difference, which is why you go on for several paragraphs trying to explain yourselves. But it's just a fork, and you're just explaining how your fork's governance and philosophies are different from the original/source. So I fail to see why you don't just say it's a fork, full stop.
Anyhow...these are the two things I can think of at the moment that, in a more ideal world, would be far better if only enough general attention were given to them.
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when the speaker or writer chooses not to follow those rules.
"Jeopardy!" replies and randomcaps really suck!