haha "it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject."
Yes cuz if someone wrote it in Wikipedia and if most of the people agree than it must be true and fact.
Welcome to Wikiality.
lets see if i can get this video working.
Originally Posted By TREY
Yes cuz if someone wrote it in Wikipedia and if most of the people agree than it must be true and fact.
Welcome to Wikiality.
As opposed to the truth being writen by a small unknown minority? I trust wikipedia more than encyclopedias written by the likes of britanica..
I've seen plenty of errors on wikipedia that were not corrected immediately.
One example is the page on bangladesh had the swastika as the flag of the country (the nazi swastika even, not the hindu/buddhist style one), that stayed up for a couple of days at least.
yeah but at least there are scores of people out there constantly dedicated to fact-checking and correcting errors on wikipedia..thats a good thing....
We must save the threads for only the most important information!! we should compose a set of rules stating what deserves a thread. i think it should be as restrictive as possible.
I recommend that Noah should create a "junk" section/folder and move all threads with time-sensative information, people-specific topics (ie: "happy birthday whoever") or any thread with a rating of -10 of lower into to better sort the "general" threads which shouldn't include "irrelevant stupidity".
Originally Posted By __PHOENIX__ I RECOMMEND THAT NOAH SHOULD CREATE A "JUNK" SECTION/FOLDER AND MOVE ALL THREADS WITH TIME-SENSATIVE INFORMATION, PEOPLE-SPECIFIC TOPICS (IE: "HAPPY BIRTHDAY WHOEVER") OR ANY THREAD WITH A RATING OF -10 OF LOWER INTO TO BETTER SORT THE "GENERAL" THREADS WHICH SHOULDN'T INCLUDE "IRRELEVANT STUPIDITY".
True say. I was only suggesting that perhaps it would be in the best intrests of the community as a whole if there was a less arbitrary, less time-consuming thread filtration system.