This sort of thing really ticks me off.
Why in the world does a site like Wikinfo have an enormous, loving page on Wikipedia?
The site gets barely any web traffic; in fact, my past venture project of Centiare.com (last year) and the future prospects of Wikipedia Review.com (since 2006) are likely to outperform Wikinfo by margins of 10-to-1 or more. (In six weeks since our re-branding, Wikipedia Review.com is already 60,000 sites ahead of Wikinfo.org in Alexa Rank.)
And Wikipedia Review has been cited in the Chronicle of Higher Education, the Washington Post, Forbes, and the USA Today.
Wikinfo (according to Wikipedia) has been cited in The Journal of American History, Reagle.org, and Telepolis (an article authored by Erik Moeller).
How in the hell do the Wikipediots explain this outrageous self-interested bias?
Answer: they can't.
Greg
Full Version: Wikinfo
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 14th January 2008, 4:05pm) 
How in the hell do the Wikipediots explain this outrageous self-interested bias?
If they were capable of honest reflection, they would tell you:
Wikinfo is POTB (Partially Of The Body).
Wikipedia Review is NOTB (Not Of The Body).
Landru Be Praised !!!
Jonny
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 14th January 2008, 4:11pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 14th January 2008, 4:05pm)
How in the hell do the Wikipediots explain this outrageous self-interested bias?
If they were capable of honest reflection, they would tell you:
Wikinfo is POTB (Partially Of The Body).
Wikipedia Review is NOTB (Not Of The Body).
Landru Be Praised !!!
Jonny
No sense me repeating one of my best replies to this, ever.
Wikinfo is nothing like Wikipedia. It's friendly, and the admins are very nice.
QUOTE(Yehudi @ Mon 14th January 2008, 4:58pm)
Wikinfo is nothing like Wikipedia. It's friendly, and the admins are very nice.
Is it notable, however?
QUOTE(Yehudi @ Mon 14th January 2008, 4:58pm)
Wikinfo is nothing like Wikipedia. It's friendly, and the admins are very nice.
Sure, even FB acts like a different person when he isn't under the influence of the WP:WARPFIELD, but that wasn't really the point.
Jonny
In the world of Wikipedia, congeniality would be highly notable.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 14th January 2008, 10:01pm)
Is it notable, however?
Yes, for having excellent articles that have no equivalent on Wikipedia.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 14th January 2008, 5:02pm)
In the world of Wikipedia, congeniality would be highly notable.
Who do you nominate for Wikipedia's Miss Congeniality?
I miss congeniality on Wikipedia.
QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 14th January 2008, 5:16pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 14th January 2008, 5:02pm)
In the world of Wikipedia, congeniality would be highly notable.
Who do you nominate for Wikipedia's Miss Congeniality?
Sandra Bollicks, of course.
Jonny
What about Wikipedia Review? It keeps turning in solid numbers, but does anyone ever bake it a cake?
Here's their sources that aren't from wikis:
Might be blog. Doesn't mention Wikinfo at all:
http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/...rosenzweig.html
Some self-published writing that mentions Wikinfo twice in two sentences out of its a hundred pages or so.
http://reagle.org/joseph/2004/agree/wikip-agree.html
German news article that barely mentions Wikinfo:
http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/19/19859/1.html
Yup, it fails notability.
Might be blog. Doesn't mention Wikinfo at all:
http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/...rosenzweig.html
Some self-published writing that mentions Wikinfo twice in two sentences out of its a hundred pages or so.
http://reagle.org/joseph/2004/agree/wikip-agree.html
German news article that barely mentions Wikinfo:
http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/19/19859/1.html
Yup, it fails notability.
QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Tue 15th January 2008, 12:08am)
Here's their sources that aren't from wikis:
Might be blog. Doesn't mention Wikinfo at all:
http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/...rosenzweig.html
Oh, but this article does indeed mention Wikinfo. You just have to look at the full article.
QUOTE
As Wikinfo (a fork, or spin-off, from Wikipedia) explains: "A wiki with so many hundreds of thousands of pages is bound to get some things wrong. The problem is, that because Wikipedia has become the 'AOL' [America Online] of the library and reference world, such false information and incorrect definitions of terms become multiple incompetences, propagated to millions of potential readers world-wide."
So, for those keeping score at home, that's a 16,346-word article. And 62 words have even anything vaguely to do with Wikinfo. That would be 0.38% of the article "devoted"
to Wikinfo.What an excellent source! Eureka, it proves notability! The world is saved once again by Wikipedia. No cronyism here! Move along now.
...
...
I will say this: they have tried 5 times to get rid of this abomination.
It's just that they've settled on the wrong decision 5 times.
Greg
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 15th January 2008, 5:48am)
I will say this: they have tried 5 times to get rid of this abomination.
It's just that they've settled on the wrong decision 5 times.
Greg
And yet the article on Wipipedia, which had better attestation, was deleted after only four goes.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.