Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
2 replies
Line 368: Line 368:     
:::::Please remove #3 immediately, it is just plain ridicules. Who ever wrote that was probably reading news articles with headlines such as "Wikipedia to launch search engine", many of those news articles were so inaccurate that they were not even revised, but taken off the web. I understand that you are referring to Wikia Search when you say search engine, but as one of three Wikia Search sysops I know that the biggest myth about it is that it is in some way connected with Wikipedia. We are constantly fighting this myth. Please make your site more credible by removing this factual inaccuracy off of it. Thanks! [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 10:07, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
 
:::::Please remove #3 immediately, it is just plain ridicules. Who ever wrote that was probably reading news articles with headlines such as "Wikipedia to launch search engine", many of those news articles were so inaccurate that they were not even revised, but taken off the web. I understand that you are referring to Wikia Search when you say search engine, but as one of three Wikia Search sysops I know that the biggest myth about it is that it is in some way connected with Wikipedia. We are constantly fighting this myth. Please make your site more credible by removing this factual inaccuracy off of it. Thanks! [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 10:07, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
::::: INTregued, your comments are an example of how a [[liberal]] can make an absurd argument with a straight face.  Countless articles on Wikipedia are filled with gossip and it's obvious that the gossip attracts visitors, just as the National Enquirer does.  This is not vandalism.  Do you think the National Enquirer is vandalized before publication???  To take just one example, check out Bertrand Russell's entry on Wikipedia.  I'll let you find the gossip.  There are thousands of examples like that, and it is not vandalism.  Conservapedia has a rule against gossip.  Wikipedia does not.  More examples are at [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
::::: Mschel, learn how to spell "ridiculous" for starters.  Then figure out how Wikipedia leaders were able to raise millions for their search engine project.  It was due to the actual and expected preferences in directing Wikipedia traffic to the search engine.  It's remarkable how many Wikipedia volunteers are fooled by this.  Perhaps you're one of them.  How about volunteering to work for Microsoft next?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,934

edits

Navigation menu