[WikiEN-l] a site that falls on its face when tested

[WereSpielChequers]

I'd say it is a "site that falls on its face when tested". I ran several
searches in it for minor articles in Wikipedia, in some cases the ads that
came up were relevant but there was no relevant information. Then I tried
their Easter Island article, which in my view gives more info than we do on
some of the fringe theories  "The stones were moved from quarry to ahu using
ancient secrets known to the Lemurians, perhaps involving levitation or the
secret for liquifying stone." And omits some of the info we have as to how
archaeologists believe the statues were carved.

WereSpielChequers


>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:37:29 -0500
> From: "kgnpaul at gmail.com" <kgnpaul at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Encyclopedia.com
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4a6a61dc.c5c2f10a.6d9e.5d58 at mx.google.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I think that I was taught in school to never use any encyclopedia as a
> reference work, and that others should learn the same instead
>
> -- Sent from my Palm Pre
> wjhonson at aol.com wrote:
>
> About us
> http://www.encyclopedia.com/about.aspx
> "Other Web sites that allow anyone to rewrite reference entries can be
> fun. But when you need credible information from reliable sources you
> can cite, Encyclopedia.com (www.encyclopedia.com) is the place to go. "
>
> "Encyclopedia.com is owned and operated by HighBeam Research. "
>
> What do others think.  Is this site merely another fluffy, we're better
> than you, site that falls on its face when tested?
>
> Will Johnson