I think that the 404 might be the blocks Sarah was talking about.
-James.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 8:26 PM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
I've also suggested this, calling it '''Wikipedia Two'' - an
encyclopedia supplement where the standard of notability is much
relaxed, but which will be different from Wikia by still requiring
WP:Verifiability, and NPOV.
On 9 April 2011 13:00, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 April 2011 12:53, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Interestingly only Liberapedia and one of the conservative sites,
http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Main_Page are actually open for
editing.
On 8 April 2011 23:07, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
A relatively successful wiki competitor is the Encyclopedia of Life.
Here's how that site works:
*Experts write articles (similar to the original Nupedia, only they
dint' give up after nine articles)
*Articles that
Haha, yes. And we certainly seem to be cutting out those who don't wish
to identify.
God bless,
Bob
On 4/10/2011 2:44 PM, geni wrote:
On 8 April 2011 23:07, Bob the Wikipedianbobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
A relatively successful wiki competitor is the Encyclopedia of Life.
Here's how
But Europeans might contaminate Conservapedia with *gasp* things that
don't test your faith!
That site's a mess. Better that the world /doesn't/ see it, really. They
might start thinking conservative Christians (like myself) are all that
ignorant. And according to the article on dinosaurs, I'm
Conservapedia seeks to rewrite history, it makes Convservative Christians
look like uninformed idiots, most Christians ALREADY KNOW that man did
land on the moon, the earth isn't flat, dinosaurs did exist, the earth
CAN'T possibly be 6000 years old and that the earth revolves around the sun.
I
Not to be supporting Conservapedia (more like playing Devil's Advocate),
but isn't rewriting history different from reinterpreting history?
It's like interpreting The Bible; that is, there are different
interpretations of the entire book that span the entire one-dimensional
political spectrum.
Sorry, good point MuZemike, that's what I meant. The world would benefit
more
if the kind folks at Conservapedia tore down the site. Andrew Schlafly is
full of
bull... Colbert's interview with him is... interesting, tch, yeah Wikipedia
is biased
Dream on Schlafly!
--
-Ancient Apparition
