Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> On 7/26/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sure. And we get to say it sucks. Ain't free speech great?
> Even though wikipedia has been soundly panned by Harlan
> Ellison, I can't help but refer you to his line about people not
> being entitled to their opinion, but rather being entitled to an
> *informed* opinion.
> So far all the panning of metapedia has been based on pages
> that had obviously been inserted there with the purpose of
> disrupting the site. Saying it sucks because of such attempts
> to disrupt the site in question is hardly an informed opinion.
> There may be crappy content on metapedia inserted there
> by its core contributor base, but I have yet to find any myself,
> and more to the point, none of the people who have expressed
> distaste at the site existing in the first place, have presented
> such either. Saying that one disagrees with the ideology of
> some group of people, is one thing, saying that what they
> write is without merit is a separate question.
> Infact what I have found so far, though often brief, compares
> favourably to the content on _supposedly_ quality
> oriented citizendium on the neutrality scale.
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
I was talking about Conservapedia. I haven't read Metapedia, so I have
no informed opinion there.
On the other hand, I have read (as much as I could stomach) of
Conservapedia. And my (thus informed) opinion is that it sucks. Take the
worst POV revisions of every article we've got, and you got Conservapedia!
Please stop using wikien-l as a forum to bash other wikis. We knew
what you thought about them some number of posts ago. These comments
being made on a public mailing list don't do Wikipedia's public image
I neither think your conclusions are wrong nor want to infringe your
freedom to have and speak your opinions, but ongoing bashing on this
list is bad for Wikipedias' reputation.