On 7/24/07, Ruud Koot r.koot@students.uu.nl wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/23/metapedia/
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
A Nazi apologist encyclopedia. More readable than the late unlamented White Nationalist Wiki. w00t! Can't wait to get questions about this one.
- d.
We probably shouldn't have released the Monobook-skin under the GPL. This makes it way too easy for these kind of sites to imitate us and benefit from, or damage our reputation.
Someone could recreate Monobook with photoshop. We'd have to trademark and copyright it and establish that infringements hurt Wikipedia in a legally actionable way to stop people from imitating us.
The quality of this site is low enough that their article on the newest large building in the world ( [[Burj Dubai]] ) denies that it exists. People are going to look at the site and laugh at it, if they look at the content.
Anything we could do to try and shut them down would give them additional PR airtime. As is... journalists who cover the Internet are hopefully aware enough to be able to check a MediaWiki's "All pages" and "Recent Changes" and think about whether a particular MW based wiki is a credible information source, or some lone nut in his bedroom.
The lone nuts aren't newsworthy. This one appears to clearly fall into that end of the spectrum.
It's one thing to note for our benefits that it exists. Don't turn the small depression into a Grand Canyon.