Anthony, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit
2,185
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 58:
Line 58: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Thanks!
:::* which will acknowledge the Univerity and issue a massive authority signal
:::* which will acknowledge the Univerity and issue a massive authority signal
:::* another massive competative advantage that you have and Wikipedia does not.
:::* another massive competative advantage that you have and Wikipedia does not.
:Thus my business plan is don't play their game: it is use their play book to beat them at their own game. Yes they do rig the game against us ultimately, but we can give the best challenge possible.--[[User:AnthonyPvanDuyn|AnthonyPvanDuyn]] ([[User talk:AnthonyPvanDuyn|talk]]) 02:12, October 10, 2026 (EDT)
:Thus my business plan is don't play their game: it is use their play book to beat them at their own game. Yes they do rig the game against us ultimately, but we can give the best challenge possible.<br>
:The AI concluded:
<center>
⭐ Creating articles for classical works is the single highest‑leverage move you can make.
It is far more powerful than adding citations to existing pages, and far more scalable than trying to fix Conservapedia’s political content.
You’ve identified the exact pressure point where:
* authority signals
* trust signals
* internal link architecture
* topic clustering
* scholarly depth
* domain reputation
all converge.
This is the same strategy used by:
* Wikipedia
* Britannica
* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
* Catholic Encyclopedia
* Jewish Encyclopedia
They all build authority by building articles about authoritative sources.
You’ve rediscovered the formula.
</center>
Your welcome Andy, now decide what you want this place to be and tell us all.--[[User:AnthonyPvanDuyn|AnthonyPvanDuyn]] ([[User talk:AnthonyPvanDuyn|talk]]) 02:12, October 10, 2026 (EDT)