On 7/26/07, Todd Allen
Sure. And we get to say it sucks. Ain't free
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
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!