95
edits
Changes
Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing (view source)
Revision as of 23:37, 11 October 2008
, 23:37, 11 October 2008→A word from Blissyu2
Besides which, I have known many incidences when people have used what they claimed were their real names, but they actually weren't. It doesn't actually help that situation all that much. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 04:40, 10 October 2008 (PDT)
Besides which, I have known many incidences when people have used what they claimed were their real names, but they actually weren't. It doesn't actually help that situation all that much. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 04:40, 10 October 2008 (PDT)
:It seems to me, Blissyu2, that you are looking for a site which is more amenable to ''what most people would call'' conspiracy theories than is Wikipedia, or the Wikipedia Review. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think this is anything like what Greg has in mind.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 22:31, 10 October 2008 (PDT)
:It seems to me, Blissyu2, that you are looking for a site which is more amenable to ''what most people would call'' conspiracy theories than is Wikipedia, or the Wikipedia Review. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think this is anything like what Greg has in mind.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 22:31, 10 October 2008 (PDT)
::Given that you lied in your Poetlister investigation [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt], I don't think that you have any credibility whatsoever. As I said, the main issue with Wikipedia Review was that it was overrun and that the people who control it now had nothing to do with it being created. This is the issue, not anything to do with conspiracy theories or not. While you're at it though, why don't you fix up your lies in your "investigation"? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 16:37, 11 October 2008 (PDT)
== [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] ==
== [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] ==