Posted on 06/28/2006 5:51:42 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
"Wikipedia is a special place that should be free of what's been going on at the DU article, but also what you've been trying to do with the Protest Warrior article along with another one which for whatever stupid reason I'm not allowed to even mention the name of."
So he's guilty of the same tactic towards his political enemies and even prohibits the outing of one of his targets. Nice god complex there.
They probably get some Democrats who register, visit the site, and soon leave holding their heads in shame about their political brothers.
Top 40?
I'm sure that's exactly what happened during that fiasco started by the Bostonian Idiot, about the presumed indictment of Karl Rove.
There was a sudden increase in registered members, an odd quirk, during that time. Since then, the "growth" of DUmmieland has demonstrated nothing unusual.
A lot of those new members posted three or four comments, and have not been back since, even though they weren't mausoleumed.
As for the number of "real" DUmmies, I stick by the numbers computed by the honorable Ralph Wiggum on the other conservative web-site; he did some rather exhaustive and comprehensive digging last year, and came up with circa 3,000 authentic DUmmies, the rest being trolls and moles and those now six feet under.
For some reason, I stick with 3,750 (+/- a few), but either number seems realistic.
Benburch is trying to make Wikipedia a left-wing propaganda board, but other users have caught on to his antics. It wasn't very smart of him to use the same user ID for both DU and Wikipedia.
That was great!
LOL!
What's up with FR's numbers falling?
Bev Harris' Black Box Voting
I assume it's due to the fact that it's an off year politically and the fact that a lot of us aren't thrilled with republicans lately. I wouldn't worry about it though.
I wonder if he was the one who tried to vandalize the Killian Documents entry a while back....
Possible. If he did it, though, he did it under the radar. He doesn't show up on the talk page like he does on the other articles.
It's fairly common. We get major traffic spikes during primary and national elections and it trails off during the summer. Though it does look like we've hit a plateau in terms of average traffic.
Frankly, I find this chart much more disturbing.
Hey PJ! Is Blogola over already? Let Fat Che stew in his own juices. We need to get back to the more significant target.
(I didn't know it was work)
Nothing unusual about it, nothing to be concerned about.
Two things; "traffic" on conservative and Republican web-sites traditionally dips with the arrival of spring, and then picks up again as the nights get longer and darker later on in the year. This is because Republicans and conservatives are not intravenously attached to their computers; they have jobs, they have family, they have lives, and get out more.
The other thing is the liberals and Democrats think they have a real shot at winning some races this year, and that naturally sparks interest on their side, whereas this side is more laid-back.
There might be some truth to the perception that many Republicans are upset about what is going on within their own ranks, and so aren't very enthusiastic about politics at the moment.
But I think it's the weather and apathy that arises out of being the "in" party.....something that surely has to change if we don't want the DUmmies in power again.
Looks like the noise to signal ratio may be getting a bit high on FreeRepublic.com and people are looking to other conservative sites.
That's another possibility, competition from other Republican and conservative web-sites--but if the elections in November 2006 start looking "iffy" or "chancey" for this side, I have no doubt traffic on FR, and other similar web-sites, will skyrocket.
One wishes people were more stirred up than they are, but one has to bide his time, until something happens to stir them up.
Interesting read, especially the part where Fat Che and Jim Robinson exchange e-mails.
But really, as long as people such as Fat Che are allowed to alter articles at whim, how much credibility will Wikipedia ever have?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.