I have problems with the scope. A wiki with no verifiability cold easyly become a pool of ignorance instead of a pool of knoledge. With all respect, I think this project needs to redefine itself. Maybe a meta-guide directing readers to all the wikis where each topic is explored could be more useful.--T-man 20:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once words reach the status of "real words", I'm sure they could/would be included in dictionaries, or Wikipedia if the needed arises.
The other things seem more like forum-content. No?
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. What you suggest is not. Therefor it would be a new wiki project, not a Wikipedia evolution. In fact, why not just buy the domain WikiBrain.net/.org (.com is taken) and host it yourself and see what happens? As for WikiMedia Foundation hosting the project, I think it is perhaps too experimental and insane. I'm thinking brain drain and edit wars particularly. Tip: you better buy those .net/.org domains right now however. I sense they will be squatted on soon soon.
I Think This Suggestion IS A Wikipedia evolution. What I imagine is on every Wikipedia Page, there is a button you can push to reach all the "blogging" "opinions" and most importantly, "WISDOM." For example, I recently bought a really awesome, piece of crap, paper says 50cc but it's magically really fast imported motorcycle and it would have been GREAT if when I went to wikipedia and searched Motorcycle, I got all the info there, PLUS an option to get some organized wisdom at the push of a button. I imagine the organizing of this type of thing would be really different depending on the topic, but for my case I would have liked to click what I call the 'WIKIWISDOM' button on the corner of the Motorcycle article and Seen a nice page with topics such as : old manual, sticky clutch problem possiblities, other problem possibilities and remedies, and maybe like... uh I Dont know like.. stopping tips or something. Just whatever wisdom people want to share! It would be awesome!! I Mean, it would be better than having to search all these websites and youtube videos and how to's, but only if people tried to keep it Organized as MUCH as possible!! Well that's My input since I can't find the talking place and I only thought of this this morning on the pooper and I can't leave a message to the proposer of wikibrain because I got all confused with the russian letters But that's it! love, Angellesmelle
As fun as this might sounds to you right now, I can pretty much guarantee a flop. And it's just not useful. It's a communal blogging machine. I mean, you've basically described "an encyclopedia of everything that's useless". I'm not being boring, I'm pointing out that the Wikimedia Foundation is about spreading free knowledge, and this project is about spreading everything that doesn't go into an encyclopedia of knowledge. No, just no. No one really cares what your brain thinks about, but they will find it fun to write up what their brain thinks about: hence it's a blogging machine, not a resource of any kind. --Alfakim 16:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How would anything be useful? Not everybody acts in good faith, and instead of just putting non notable and unverifiable stuff there, they might even put things that are actually wrong. If you're not going to delete anything, it'll end up being a junkyard that's unusable. --Rory096 18:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like it - sounds like it's worth a go, though not through Wikimedia. I agree that it's suited to Wikia - at least unless it becomes a huge thing down the road. Have a look at wikia:List of Wikia in case there's others that overlap. If you want to, you can propose a new wiki, or start it up immediately at Scratchpad Wiki Labs. --Singkong2005 05:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A Turkish site with the same concept is very popular in Turkey. You may visit from here.--Ekarademir 17:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds a little like what everything2 was/is. However, perhaps it would be interesting as a shared scratchpad for articles, or as an overlay to actual articles where opinion could be expressed.
Quality is the problem. Either you have the rule that you can't delete content, which will be abused, or you'll have edit wars over what's worthy. Uncyclopedia suffers from a quality problem; there's plenty of genuinely humorous and intelligently satirical stuff, but there's also a lot of bollocks from people who think they're funny. If you can somehow maintain quality in what amounts to an encyclopedia of uselessness, go for it. It sounds useful but who knows. I'm thinking this is kinda like a Wiki personal website or Wiki blog, but we all know how MySpace turned out once it gave everyone easy access to creating a webpage. --en:Geoffrey
To expand on the WikiDump idea, isnt that essentially what it will be if your tossing everything in there that doesnt go into Wikipedia and Wikiopinion?
This could also be somewhat like Wikimedia Incubator, but with articles. Articles that are really bad could either be sent there temporarily, until they have been improved or permanently, as with the examples above. Just my 20 milles Alx xlA
This idea sounds as vast as the internet already is, what should be established is a wiki data base for navigating the internet, uncorrupted by profit seeking corporations.
Regarding the ideas expressed back in May 2006 by Naconkantari and Singkong2005... I understand that Wikia is a very welcoming site for content such as that described in WikiBrain. However, a key thing to remember is that Wikia is loaded with advertising, all of whose revenue is kept by the management. There is another wiki site where stuff like WikiBrain material would be equally welcomed, and -- here's the really nice thing -- the editors can add their own advertising to their pages and keep 100% of the revenue generated. Sounds like another option to consider, alongside the excellent recommendations above to consider Wikia, Incorporated. -- Thekohser 03:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My main concern with this is the guy's eagerness to promote this as a junk wiki. Rnddim 23:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]