To: IsraelBeach
Too bad. Wikipedia has/had the potential to be a very valuable resource. Much good material exists on it. But too much bias as well.
2 posted on
05/12/2006 2:36:58 PM PDT by
luvbach1
(More true now than ever: Near the belly of the beast in San Diego)
To: IsraelBeach
Censoring is not something new at Wikipedia. Um... is Wikipedia a tax payer funded site? Isn't it private like FR?
3 posted on
05/12/2006 2:38:15 PM PDT by
trashcanbred
(Anti-social and anti-socialist)
To: IsraelBeach
4 posted on
05/12/2006 2:39:01 PM PDT by
sheik yerbouty
( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
To: IsraelBeach
This is a rather babbling incoherent "article".
6 posted on
05/12/2006 3:17:55 PM PDT by
tallhappy
(Juntos Podemos!)
To: IsraelBeach
It's against the rules to write an article about yourself.
It is also against the rules to use Wikipedia to promote one's own website.
Their site policy is very clear about that.
Let us remember, whether or not they succeed, they are trying to build an encyclopedia that is equal in quality to the Encyclopedia Britannica. That means no piddly self-aggrandinzing stuff. They keep out articles on topics with a small interest base, like people's Counterstrike clans, pages about unremarkable individuals, and little-visited websites (ahem).
To: IsraelBeach
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Wikipedia is garbage, and save me the comments that for little things, it's OK.
The whole idea that "the community" will contribute to the site sounds like 1960s nonsense or perhaps more like the Borg.
It's tiring when some FReeper uses it as an info source>
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson