On 17 Dec 2007 at 14:33:44 +0000, "Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me to be inevitable that any balanced piece over a page or two in length is going to link to WR (or a similar site), in much the same way as it's guaranteed to have a paragraph or two on Citizendium or Knol or whatever other competitor just got a press release issued.
Is that a "law" of Godwin's variety... as a discussion of Wikipedia gets longer, the probability of a link to WR being introduced approaches one?
On 18/12/2007, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 17 Dec 2007 at 14:33:44 +0000, "Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me to be inevitable that any balanced piece over a page or two in length is going to link to WR (or a similar site), in much the same way as it's guaranteed to have a paragraph or two on Citizendium or Knol or whatever other competitor just got a press release issued.
Is that a "law" of Godwin's variety... as a discussion of Wikipedia gets longer, the probability of a link to WR being introduced approaches one?
The introduction of a mention of it. More importantly, it's as accurate an indicator that the thread is dead and can be ignored.
- d.
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
Is that a "law" of Godwin's variety... as a discussion of Wikipedia gets longer, the probability of a link to WR being introduced approaches one?
The introduction of a mention of it. More importantly, it's as accurate an indicator that the thread is dead and can be ignored.
- d.
I would hope not. I mean Wikipedia Review is present and is something that needs to be dealt with both because they harass and out our users and because sometimes, very rarely have good points or mention things that aren't getting wide notice on Wikipedia that arguably should (again very rarely). It might however be an indication when WR shows up due to a passing mention of WR as this one.