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
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 16:
Line 16: + +
Conservapedia talk:Quality (view source)
Revision as of 03:10, April 21, 2007
, 03:10, April 21, 2007junk on Wikipedia
How were the "random" articles choosen? Random page link? If I preform the same thing, with say 20 random page links I get a WHOLE lot of rubbish, nothing approaching 50 percent "good" I think this wasn't truly random. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 21:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
How were the "random" articles choosen? Random page link? If I preform the same thing, with say 20 random page links I get a WHOLE lot of rubbish, nothing approaching 50 percent "good" I think this wasn't truly random. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 21:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
: Try doing the same on Wikipedia. It's incredible to me how much junk appears.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:Please publish the results of your survey. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:00, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:Please publish the results of your survey. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:00, 20 April 2007 (EDT)