--- Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
Yeah, just because Wikipedia gets used to promote a
product
doesn't mean we can't trust what it says. Yep, advertisements and catalogs are, like, so totally creditable that I always click on the ad links first because you know you're getting a verified NPOV straight from the sellers.
Believe it or not, you have bacteria on your skin whose survival depends upon you. Some of them are harmful, some helpful, and some serve no purpose at all. If you want to burn them all off with a blow torch, go right ahead.
So, patrolling for obvious and insignificant vandalism inserted into articles like "Charlotte is bonkers!!!" or "Bill Gates sucks!!!" is, like, way more important? That doesn't even qualify as serving no purpose?
Or are you admitting that Wikipedia or at least you personally not only disregard embedded advertisments and shilling but find it helpful? Or just less worthwhile than spending large amounts of time on immeasurables like morale and patrolling search-engine-ignored user pages for external links?
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow