1,263
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 22:
Line 22: + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 15:55, January 8, 2007
, 15:55, January 8, 2007no edit summary
Don't give in yet Mr. Schlafly :) I vote to definitely keep it Wackypedia. Who are we trying to appeal to here? The biased editors on Wikipedia? No, the Conservative editors elsewhere. We believe Wikipedia is wacky. Why try to sound nice? Also, why did we move all the examples of Wikipeda bias to another page? That is our view of Wikipedia. When people visit our Wikipedia page, we want them to see this. Don't put it someplace else that someone may not see it. Tim, who cares if Wikipedia puts an article up as Conserva'''stupid'''ia? Even if they wanted too they technically could not because of their no "personal attacks" policy. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 01:18, 8 January 2007 (EST)
Don't give in yet Mr. Schlafly :) I vote to definitely keep it Wackypedia. Who are we trying to appeal to here? The biased editors on Wikipedia? No, the Conservative editors elsewhere. We believe Wikipedia is wacky. Why try to sound nice? Also, why did we move all the examples of Wikipeda bias to another page? That is our view of Wikipedia. When people visit our Wikipedia page, we want them to see this. Don't put it someplace else that someone may not see it. Tim, who cares if Wikipedia puts an article up as Conserva'''stupid'''ia? Even if they wanted too they technically could not because of their no "personal attacks" policy. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 01:18, 8 January 2007 (EST)
'''Reply''': If we call it "Wackypedia we hurt our own credibility. If we have a valid poit to make, we can make it without resorting to "personal attacks." (For lack of a better term) It is just acting immature to use namecalling instead of logic or truth to make our point.
==Gossip and vulgarity==
==Gossip and vulgarity==