Changes

::Aschlafly, Rutm's comment was what I planned to say - have you any good argument besides "it's obvious" that Wikipedia contains and, more ridiculously, encourages gossip? I don't plan on continually pushing against an ''ad hoc'' "it's obvious" argument, or vague references to long articles which might contain only a small percentage of "gossip" left over because the article is not policed strongly enough. Further, Wikimedia routinely publishes third-party audits publicly [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf], which doesn't quite seem in line with the dark for-profit agenda you allege they follow. I'm not counting on you responding, and less on acting (fixing the mistakes quoted), but you might do well if you can recognize that smears without context, references, and/or proof merely damage your credibility. How is this "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" if it cannot write about ideas, for example, Wikipedia's use of the GDFL, without misdirection? I'd like to see this fixed. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 23:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, Rutm's comment was what I planned to say - have you any good argument besides "it's obvious" that Wikipedia contains and, more ridiculously, encourages gossip? I don't plan on continually pushing against an ''ad hoc'' "it's obvious" argument, or vague references to long articles which might contain only a small percentage of "gossip" left over because the article is not policed strongly enough. Further, Wikimedia routinely publishes third-party audits publicly [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf], which doesn't quite seem in line with the dark for-profit agenda you allege they follow. I'm not counting on you responding, and less on acting (fixing the mistakes quoted), but you might do well if you can recognize that smears without context, references, and/or proof merely damage your credibility. How is this "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" if it cannot write about ideas, for example, Wikipedia's use of the GDFL, without misdirection? I'd like to see this fixed. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 23:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Comments ==

== Monitor blogs ==

6. Instead you allow the opinions of editors stated as they are facts. Especially if that editor is and admin, or somebody important for Conservapedia. Example: "The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned '''by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.'''" - [[Wikipedia]]

I know that, I wrote a blog about 3 days after they banned me about getting people together to get Wikipedia Shut Down and within 2 hours it was cross posted on Wikipedia and now every one on Wikipedia except a few editors have a negative view on me.--'''''<span style="border: 2px #000000 solid;background:#FFD800; font-variant:small-caps">[[User:FellowChristian16|<font color="#000000">Fellow</font>]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|<font color="#000000">Christian16</font>]]</span>''''' 19:01, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

<br>I'm not saying it's not true, it might be, as well as it might also be for Conservapedia, but where is he research that demonstrates that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'''If you have strong arguments against this, don't delete it, but instead state those arguments.'''

 

Addind anothe rone to the list: