On 6/6/07, Cheney Shill
<halliburton_shill(a)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
(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.