🌐 EndMyopia Wiki Thread


Been talking with @jakey about an EM Wiki, and basically, it’s happening.

The Endmyopia Wiki (and getting ideas on how to run it)

Not everyone will know what a Wiki is. A Wiki, is a website developed collaboratively with sometimes hundreds or thousands of contributors, who can all edit pages to produce the best content. It’s a highly delegated, contibution-oriented way of producing really indepth content. If you go to Wikipedia, you can edit and improve nearly any article! The only limit, is yourself.

It should be hosted on https://wiki.endmyopia.org/. It will be freely accessible by all, with the intention of building the best resource for eyesight improvement, and can be expected to appear next month.

This is 100%, through and through, a community project. Everything about how this wiki will work will be decided by the community, which is why I’m jumping the gun a bit and putting this thread out there so we can crowdsource as many ideas as possible :heart:

It will run on MediaWiki. The same wiki software that powers Wikipedia and loads of other wikis. The content will be available under a CC Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.

Articles on EM concepts, guides written on how to do things, articles about optometry and questioning things. A one-stop shop of sorts for a lot of mainstream questioning, and indexed information. Citations from the blog, and clinical studies on the articles. As helpful as possible, zero arbitrary limits on helpful information. What will be deemed good and bad information to have on here will be weeded out through trial and error, but the idea is as comprehensive as theoretically possible. Anyone can create an article with any title.

The Policies :books:

Very interested in getting opinions on policies, requirements and stuff. What would your requirements to become an editor be? Do you think there are any content policies that need to be in place regarding what to be written about or how it’s written? Bureaucracy will be kept to a minimum wherever possible, and to begin with there will be a period of lassiez-faire expansion, with no limits on who can create what articles. It’s going to have to move fast and break things, that’s how you cook up a good wiki :fried_egg:

Policies for a wiki are found tucked away in something called a namespace, which is a place for a particular kind of content. For instance, Wikipedia has many namespaces, images, templates, talk pages, special dynamically loaded pages, you name it. Technically articles themselves are in the Article namespace. Policies will be hosted in the Endmyopia namespace, or EM for short. For example, here’s one of my favourite policies from Wikipedia, WP:Ignore all rules.

Here’s ideas for policies that will definitely exist:

  • EM:No medical advice: the most important one. No content that could pass off as medical advice will be allowed. This will be accompanied with a different medical disclaimer which can be found at the bottom of every webpage, telling people to go to the optometrist, this isn’t medical advice etc.

  • EM:No unicorn farming: policy against things that don’t work. Articles like Palming, Bates method, Ayurveda will be allowed, but any palming advocates here will be distraught to hear the content will be critical, not positive. Stuff like Bates method will have tact though, allowed to have all of the positive features of what Bates did, but modern day Bates method is up for scrutiny. A full picture approach, with EM bias toward what we know works and what doesn’t.

  • EM:No contemporary scutiny: policy against articles that scrutinise modern vision improvement methods aside from EM. Bates’ and Ayurveda, up for articles. Articles about that other guy and insert Bates teacher here 100% disallowed. Just causes drama, opens up liabilities for defamation, no good

  • EM:No optometry bashing: likewise, we don’t want to poke the hornets nest of mainstream optometry. We want to win friends and influence people, not steer them away and give them more reasons to sue us. Being critical of mainstream optometry w.r.t myopia is all okay, but no shirt-tearing hate pieces.

  • EM:For human beings (policy names all liable to change, suggestions welcome): policy that heavily encourages the technical, sciency content to be independent from, practical ‘tha steps’, or ‘how to reduce’ articles. Citations from clinical studies heavily encouraged all over the wiki (just like how Wikipedia does it), but there should not be a heavy and detailed discussion of the mechanism of axial change with diagrams in the middle of the ‘Where to start’ article (brief mention fine).

  • EM:Mandatory fun (@Viceroy.Sam’s suggestion): articles will be written in a light and comical tone, but not forced way. Articles try to get to the point, but they are not written to the dry and formal style of Wikipedia. Funny images and maybe memes where appropriate will be included, inline in articles. This policy is far more important than people think: information by default is not fun to consume. People don’t want to read information, by at least making it mildly entertaining and keeping newbies guessing what they’ll read next, this will help things along. So, a balance between straight to the point stuff, and whatever good quip or lighthearted gag that can be put into place. Visual gags important. :slight_smile:

Any more policies, seriously get in here and let’s thrash it out. Policies that will be lifted from WP include: WP:Ignore all rules, WP:Be bold and WP:Assume good faith, because they’re the pillars on which successful communities are built, and the last one is a maxim for life IMO.

WP:Be bold in particular: Wikis develop faster when people move fast and break things, and make the best changes that they think are possible, instead of fretting over whether something is or is not a good change, and worrying about what others think. ALL changes are backed up in history logs, it’s always much better to risk making a mistake and go for it (to have it reverted), than to not edit at all. The same goes for suggestions on how the wiki will work, and ongoing critique of how it’s structured.

Nothing will stop editors from writing their own policies, which will be dropped/approved as appropriate and on consensus of the community - so alternatively save thinking about policies for when the wiki exists. There will be a ton of boring and more assumed policies regarding use of copyrighted material from other people, article styling, how to treat other editors, how admin tools should be used. All completely editable, this is your wiki.

Why so much thought about policies? The community is sized ~16,500 in the FB group at the moment, Jake’s got 25.3k subscribers at the moment. Hypothetically imagine those numbers at orders of magnitude larger, and you realise the importance of rules in such a project when scaling the number of contributors up.

Criteria to become an editor :unlock:
The criteria to become an editor should be as easy as possible, with minimum bureaucracy in the way. With that said, it can’t be ‘make an account and get editing’, as we’ll spend all of our days reverting vandals and dealing with trolls.

Current idea to become an editor: a brief questionnaire (questions definitely not set in stone).

Can be answered in either the Forum, Discord chat, the wiki itself, or by email, getting the basics of who an editor will be. For example:

  1. How much EM experience do you have, where are you at with reductions, if any?
  2. What areas are you interested in contributing to the Wiki? (foreign language contributors will be very handy)
  3. Have you read EM:No unicorn farming and are you aware about what it means?

Anyone with a good trust level in the forum can skip the paper-pushing and get instant access on request. Admins can deal with editor requests. Speaking of which

Requirements to become an admin :policeman:t4: :oncoming_police_car: :police_car:
Vaguely trusted people get admin rights, with huge decentralisation of admin powers as it’s no big deal. The bottom line is that ALL changes are backed up, no one editor can ‘delete the wiki’. It’s far better to have a load of admins that can perform the myriad of tasks that need the powers (approving new members, moving pages, deleting articles, blocking vandals) than to be a bureaucratic monstrosity where everything takes forever to get done.

Adminship does NOT imply authority, or automatic victory in content disputes. It’s just a set of tools.

The actual content, the actual articles that will be written :keyboard:

Completely leaving this up to everyone else.

That’s it :white_check_mark:
EM Wiki with the intention of being the best free resource for vision improvement. Annihilate all basic questions once and for all. Information wants to be free, and indexable.

Really want everything to be torn to shreds and scrutinised. Success will lie on everyone being on board with one platform, with a solid consensus on how this will all be raun :sunglasses:

Particular areas to draw attention to for scrutiny:

  • What policies there should be regarding content, policies I’ve mentioned above and any emphasis to put on them. The policies themselves will be editable by everyone, except the legal ones.
  • Who is eligible to become an editor. Should there be a questionnaire, what questions should be on it.
  • For the English version of the project (primary focus to begin with, naturally), should we use British English or American English? Or all of those other variants…
  • Other concerns about the project
  • Ideas for essential articles we should make ASAP
  • Anything the wiki savvy @Viceroy.Sam can come up with is bound to be good

Will probably produce a nice video series on how to contribute, once it’s up and running.


I would only be able to do a little shredding. :wink: I would be happy to get involved in language editing

will be run

1 Like

Introducing, @Ursa, the chief copyeditor of the wiki


This is GREAT news!!! I’m currently outlining an article on Cataracts and collecting as many studies on potential non surgical treatments as I can find. I was planning on posting a “living post” on here to act as a Wiki. A complimentary post to the Wiki article to get personal experience on treatments will still be very valuable.


@NottNott is applying to run EM in the future! Joking aside, awesome work man


Unsure what people think of cliffgnu’s no BS guide to vision improvement. It’s licensed under CC-BY, so it’s free to distribute with attribution. More interested in the Korean, French and Japanese translations he managed to get made to be honest, the English no BS guide would easily be supplanted by our efforts (although he seems to have written a good thing! 0.50 reduction intervals are a bit quick though).

There can be several versions of the wiki in different languages, e.g. https://de.wiki.endmyopia.org and so on so on. The focus should stick to English initially, but it can scale.

I really like this. I downloaded it early in my EM journey and it was a lot more user-friendly than wading through the website and the forum posts. I was also initially put off by the tone of many of Jake’s earlier posts, and the BS Guide did more to convince me of the validity of the method than Jake’s anti-optometry rants and fake guru joking. Once fully hooked, of course the website and the forum discussions provided me with much more information and detail.


I found the cliffgnu’s guide helpful and have referred others to read it too; but I always indicate to them that it is more of a rough crash course for what we do and jump off point, because his larger reduction rate and lack of diffs aren’t as practical as EM methodology. And I love the wiki concept, I frequently find it difficult to relocate stuff I read/watched before and then I can’t fact check if I remembered things right…


You’ve already said no medical topics and we already have a volunteer for cateracts topic. You are going to need a lot of moderation to enforce the “don’t cover this topic” rules.

Copy over the glossary?

I’d like to contribute. I’m not an EM expert, but I can definitely contribute on links to conventional sources.

Not really. Sorry @JeremyCouch, we can’t have a cataracts article where we advocate Endmyopia as a treatment for cataracts. We can have a cataracts article discussing the correlation between myopia and cataracts. #moderation

All articles with a medical condition name will have a crystal clear template at the top reminding the reader the wiki is not medical advice, and that endmyopia is not, and does not intend to be a substitute for the medical advice of a licensed practitioner. Any articles w.r.t medical conditions only can discuss the science of risk factors of the condition, and for all intents and purposes can go a bit general info, similar to the exact same Wikipedia article on the topic. Anything that directly implies ‘Endmyopia -> cure your non-myopia condition’ is revert on sight. Citations and sourcing requirements on any information regarding medical conditions in these articles will be stricter, no source = revert.

Definitely. Is there a glossary section of EM I’m unaware of? The Endmyopia FAQ (which we all love) can be displaced with the hivemind of the wiki, sorted into helpful categories and information expounded on, with loads of wikilinks. Infinite human hours to throw at the problem :stuck_out_tongue:

Is anyone an EM expert? Feels like you always know everything and then wham, you missed this basic thing you should have been doing all along.

1 Like

@NottNott just so you know, you’re going to ruin our gainzzzz with all this extra screen time! :scream:


@jakey, can you manifest a country by country breakdown of visitors to EM? Whatever the majority of visitors use/whatever is best for SEO is a good idea. The EM blog itself seems to use American.

This could get messy. My suggestion would be to use only standard British (or ‘Commonwealth’) English and standard American English, but to be consistent within each article. Most of the differences would be in spelling, as there are only a very few grammatical differences between these two versions of English.


That’s the English Wikipedia’s policy as well. Probably for a reason.

Article titles? Normalized or normalised?


Even in British English the trend is now to use the z. I think there is no need to be too picky about this, again as long as it is consistent within an article. I use the s, as it is so ingrained that the z just looks wrong to me. The problem is that normalized has become a technical term in EM, is likely to come up very often, and is abbreviated to norms, rather than normz.

I will never conform to this

Probably best for the ‘article consistency’ thing, so whoever makes the article first gets to lay a claim to their respective country. Article titles should match what Jake uses in the blogs.


Probably a good idea, but does the spelling have to be identical?

Like normalised vs normalized? I figure it might be better for consistency between blog readers and the wiki :slight_smile:

OH, by the way, redirects. So there’s a normalized article, and a normalised redirect for example.

I know nothing about the technical aspects of how a wiki would redirect. I am truly an IT dinosaur.
By the way, my English is standard South African English, but unless you hear me speak, you wouldn’t know it.

1 Like

Your normalized article:

Blah blah blah

Your normalised article:

#REDIRECT [[Normalized]]