Wikipedia's destiny

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
226 messages Options
1 ... 45678910 ... 12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Andrew Lih
On 2/24/06, Peter Mackay <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > From: [hidden email]
> > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Delirium
> >
> > Stan Shebs wrote:
> >
> > >I only see 92,000, while "Stan Shebs" gets 115,000. So how
> > is it that
> > >he's notable enough to have an article and I'm not? I even
> > have actual
> > >accomplishments to describe, albeit no bizarre physical features to
> > >snicker at (or at least I haven't noticed any pointing and
> > giggling :-)
> > >).
> > >
> > >
> > In any case, it's in the multiple tens of thousands, so I
> > think we can agree that the original Wikipedia article writer
> > didn't dig up Brian Peppers from the obscurity of the Ohio
> > sex offenders registry.
>
> Nevertheless, that's the only source we have. Everything else merely
> references it or comments on it.
>
> > As for why you don't have an article, I would've thought that
> > is fairly obvious.  Unless you're famous in some area I don't
> > know about, it would seem not very many people have commented
> > publicly about you.
>
> 115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face.
>
> > If they have, or if you do something
> > that causes a few thousands of people to write about you,
> > then I should think you ought to have a Wikipedia article.
>
> 115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face. Start writing.


Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for "brian peppers". (0.05 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.03 seconds)

Let's cut the ridiculousness of this Google testing track.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Peter Mackay
In reply to this post by Mark
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Delirium

> Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> >>As for why you don't have an article, I would've thought that is
> >>fairly obvious.  Unless you're famous in some area I don't
> know about,
> >>it would seem not very many people have commented publicly
> about you.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face.
> >  
> >
> Did you look at any of them?  Note in my quote I said "not
> very many people have commented about you", which empirically
> appears to be true:
> Almost all of those hits are either for other people named
> Stan Shebs, or to posts written by our Stan Shebs himself
> (e.g. on Wikipedia or on mailing lists).

And how many of the tens of thousands of Google hits for "Brian Peppers"
have you personally checked?
 
> Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No.

Peter (Skyring)


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Mark
Peter Mackay wrote:

>>Did you look at any of them?  Note in my quote I said "not
>>very many people have commented about you", which empirically
>>appears to be true:
>>Almost all of those hits are either for other people named
>>Stan Shebs, or to posts written by our Stan Shebs himself
>>(e.g. on Wikipedia or on mailing lists).
>>    
>>
>
>And how many of the tens of thousands of Google hits for "Brian Peppers"
>have you personally checked?
>  
>
I checked the first 50 or so results of both, and spot-checked later pages.

Oh, and here's an in-print reference to Brian Peppers as a noteworthy
internet fad:

Lichman, John. "'Teh interweb' -- It offers more than porn." _Washington
Square News_.  February 3, 2006.  (Also available online at
http://www.nyunews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/02/03/43e31129220d1)

-Mark

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

SPUI
In reply to this post by Phil Boswell
Phil Boswell wrote:

> "Delirium" <[hidden email]> wrote in
> message news:[hidden email]...
> [snip]
>
>>...  The most I've seen in favor of
>>deleting is something like 60-65%, which is nowhere near the consensus
>>to delete typically required on AfD.
>
>
> ...whereas WP:DRV works on a simple majority system, so if you want an
> article gone and that's the vote you got, you can simply delete it and wait
> for it to pop upon WP:DRV whereupon your deletion is endorsed.
>
> Somebody tell me I'm too cyncial, go on :-)

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-January/038092.html
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Peter Mackay
In reply to this post by Andrew Lih

> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Andrew Lih
> Sent: Friday, 24 February 2006 19:37
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny
>
> On 2/24/06, Peter Mackay <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > From: [hidden email]
> > > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Delirium
> > >
> > > Stan Shebs wrote:
> > >
> > > >I only see 92,000, while "Stan Shebs" gets 115,000. So how
> > > is it that
> > > >he's notable enough to have an article and I'm not? I even
> > > have actual
> > > >accomplishments to describe, albeit no bizarre physical
> features to
> > > >snicker at (or at least I haven't noticed any pointing and
> > > giggling :-)
> > > >).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > In any case, it's in the multiple tens of thousands, so I
> think we
> > > can agree that the original Wikipedia article writer
> didn't dig up
> > > Brian Peppers from the obscurity of the Ohio sex
> offenders registry.
> >
> > Nevertheless, that's the only source we have. Everything
> else merely
> > references it or comments on it.
> >
> > > As for why you don't have an article, I would've thought that is
> > > fairly obvious.  Unless you're famous in some area I don't know
> > > about, it would seem not very many people have commented publicly
> > > about you.
> >
> > 115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face.
> >
> > > If they have, or if you do something that causes a few
> thousands of
> > > people to write about you, then I should think you ought
> to have a
> > > Wikipedia article.
> >
> > 115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the
> face. Start writing.
>
>
> Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for "brian peppers". (0.05 seconds)
>
> Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.03 seconds)
>
> Let's cut the ridiculousness of this Google testing track.

I agree. We don't need any Google hits at all if a subject is truly worth
inclusion, and we might get millions for something that's never going to
make it in.

Results 1 - 10 of about 95,700 for "Brian Peppers". (0.31 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 115,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.18 seconds)

Seems to vary to a remarkable degree. For what that's worth. As I noted
earlier, we're not going to check every one of those hits.

Peter (Skyring)


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Peter Mackay
In reply to this post by Mark
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Delirium
> Sent: Friday, 24 February 2006 20:23
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny
>
> Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> >>Did you look at any of them?  Note in my quote I said "not
> very many
> >>people have commented about you", which empirically appears to be
> >>true:
> >>Almost all of those hits are either for other people named
> Stan Shebs,
> >>or to posts written by our Stan Shebs himself (e.g. on
> Wikipedia or on
> >>mailing lists).
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >And how many of the tens of thousands of Google hits for
> "Brian Peppers"
> >have you personally checked?
> >  
> >
> I checked the first 50 or so results of both, and
> spot-checked later pages.

Thanks.
 
> Oh, and here's an in-print reference to Brian Peppers as a
> noteworthy internet fad:
>
> Lichman, John. "'Teh interweb' -- It offers more than porn."
> _Washington Square News_.  February 3, 2006.  (Also available
> online at
> http://www.nyunews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/02/03/43e31129220d1)

Nobody is disputing that there are lots of references on the net. That's not
the point. In fact, at the moment, the article is a redirect to [[Internet
phenomenon]] of which BP has been removed by User:UninvitedCompany as "not
notable". I think he's probably worth a brief mention there, but not as a
standalone article.

Do you see why an article is inappropriate?

Peter (Skyring)


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Mark
Peter Mackay wrote:

>Do you see why an article is inappropriate?
>  
>
No.

I can see that you have a moral opposition to having an article, but
that does not mean it is inappropriate.  Other people have moral
opposition to divulging Freemasonry rituals in [[Freemasonry]], or
including a photograph of a clitoris on [[clitoris]], but that doesn't
make it inappropriate to do any of that.

-Mark

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Tony Sidaway-3
I don't think moral absolutes have any place in this argument.  
Perhaps thoughtlessly, I rewrote the Brian Peppers article in
December, because I thought a subject that had been debunked by Snopes
probably merited one.  I think I probably made a bad decision then,
and certainly have no problem with the idea that we should all have a
good, long hard think about articles that may seriously affect the
privacy of people mentioned in them.

Wikipedia is big and popular, and a Wikipedia article on an individual
may seriously affect his life.  In my opinion (and I recognise that
there are other ways of looking at it) taking a risk like that would
have to be justifiable, and I don't think that the article that I
wrote was justifiable in that context.   Although I wrote about the
meme and the debunking of the belief that the photograph was faked, it
was foreseeable that others would choose to expand the article to
describe the man in ways that could be damaging.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Fred Bauder
Actually moral absolutes do have a role. But sending you straight to  
hell is not a good option. Next time, if the only notable thing about  
a person is that they are pitiful, consider whether that is notable  
enough to balance the damage it does to Wikipedia to include it.

Fred

On Feb 24, 2006, at 5:59 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:

> I don't think moral absolutes have any place in this argument.
> Perhaps thoughtlessly, I rewrote the Brian Peppers article in
> December, because I thought a subject that had been debunked by Snopes
> probably merited one.  I think I probably made a bad decision then,
> and certainly have no problem with the idea that we should all have a
> good, long hard think about articles that may seriously affect the
> privacy of people mentioned in them.
>
> Wikipedia is big and popular, and a Wikipedia article on an individual
> may seriously affect his life.  In my opinion (and I recognise that
> there are other ways of looking at it) taking a risk like that would
> have to be justifiable, and I don't think that the article that I
> wrote was justifiable in that context.   Although I wrote about the
> meme and the debunking of the belief that the photograph was faked, it
> was foreseeable that others would choose to expand the article to
> describe the man in ways that could be damaging.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

BJörn Lindqvist
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-4
> > Whether someone wants an article or not does and should not have any
> > relevant whatsoever.  [[en:Star Wars kid]], another internet fad,
> > doesn't want an article either, but there you have one.  Brian Peppers
> > is a less well-known internet fad, but still certainly at the level
> > where he would warrant inclusion in any more than cursary treatment of
> > the subject.
>
> Just on the notability thing, I wonder if BP will really stack up well
> on the "ten years from now" test. Sure, he's interesting *now*, but in
> 2016?

2016 it will be interesting that Brian Pepper was interesting ten
years earlier.

> On the treatment of deformities as WP articles, see [[Joseph
> Merrick]]. There's someone who didn't seem to achieve anything notable
> that wasn't directly related to his deformity.

Mhm? See [[John Siegenthaler]]. There's someone who didn't seem to
achieve anything notable that wasn't directly related to the Kennedy
assassination.

--
mvh Björn
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Charles Matthews
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
"Jimmy Wales" wrote

>But we should be very extreme in our caution
> that a Wikipedia entry not be used to *drive* the very notability upon
> which the entry is supposed to *depend*.

Couple this with the well-known debate here 'notability isn't policy'.  We
get a complex picture.

'Encyclopedic interest' should encompass much of what 'it is in the public
interest to know'; but it need not include all that 'the public are
interested in knowing'.  This distinction is exactly what gets slurred in
the public interest defence of 'tabloid journalism', with its slippage into
prurience.

I think tabloid journalism in its pejorative sense is always going to fall
foul of our living persons guidelines.  If not, then the guidelines need
tightening up, in the direction of coming down harder on sensationalism.  We
are not here to sell newspapers.

Pedians may be a rather pre-filtered collection of people; but effectively
we do operate a policy on 'human interest'. At AfD an article found
interesting by enough will survive, even if the topic is somewhat obscure.

We really do need a tweaked version of the 'notability' discussion, where it
is laid out that:-

- we have an encyclopedia to write, and there is going to be some cut-off to
what we take to be reference information;
- we have a media-style duty, which is not to suppress informative things
within the reach of NPOV-Verifiability, when these are matters the public
should have documented for them;
- we are also an ethical and voluntary organisation, supported in effect as
a public service of global reach, and have at all times to be mindful of
that.

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Stan Shebs
In reply to this post by Mark
Delirium wrote:

>Peter Mackay wrote:
>
>
>>>As for why you don't have an article, I would've thought that
>>>is fairly obvious.  Unless you're famous in some area I don't
>>>know about, it would seem not very many people have commented
>>>publicly about you.
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>115 000 hits, Mark. That's more than the chap with the face.
>>
>>
>Did you look at any of them?  Note in my quote I said "not very many
>people have commented about you", which empirically appears to be true:
>Almost all of those hits are either for other people named Stan Shebs,
>or to posts written by our Stan Shebs himself (e.g. on Wikipedia or on
>mailing lists).
>
As it happens, there's only the one me. In fact, since my last name
is the result of creativity on the part of the authorities when my
grandfather immigrated, all the "Shebs" one finds on the net are my
relatives (save for a handful of uses as a casual form of "Sheba").

As you say, nearly all the hits are not so much about me personally
than about the projects I've been involved in, but you were the one
holding up raw Google hits as a measure of notability. We have lots
of uncontroversial bios for which there is one or two pages with
life story, and every other Google hit is a citation of works or
reference to the person's activities.

In Brian Peppers' case, being ridiculed by a handful of lusers on
the net, who are in turn mirrored by more lusers, just confirms
to me non-notability of that part of the net community, not Brian's
notability. An analogy might be a McDonald's franchise - even a
small one will have thousands of customers annually, but that's
still not enough to make that particular store notable.

(For the record, I'm indifferent as to whether I have an article.
But there's at least a million other articles that would be more
interesting and useful to write first.)

Stan


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

John Lee-5
In reply to this post by Tony Sidaway-3
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>On 2/24/06, Delirium <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>The more specific issue facing us is: To what extent ought we to censor
>>Wikipedia out of concern for human dignity?
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Quite a lot, I should hope.
>
>We're in the business of education, not titillation.  We should feel
>comfortable in drawing the line pretty sharply on the side of
>education.  If a private individual, which this man certainly is,
>suffers indignity because of our actions, then we should definitely
>spend some time reconsidering our actions.
>
>A year seems about right.  if the article really is so necessary to
>Wikipedia that we should disregard or set aside such concerns.  Or
>five years.  Let's not rush in making such a difficult and possibly
>very damaging decision.
>  
>
God, I have so damn had it with all this Brian Peppers crap flooding the
list. Since it's aggravating me to no end (and the masochist that I am,
I can't pull away from my mail client), I think I'll chip in: Wikipedia
covers a lot of private individuals who don't want to be covered and
feel their dignity is being violated. Remember [[Gary Brolsma]]? The
[[Star Wars Kid]]? Or even the recent case of that deceased German
hacker whose parents got a court order banning the German Wikipedia from
publishing his name? With the internet, a lot of people are getting
their fifteen minutes of fame -- and in some cases, a lot more than
that. I'm not about to embroil myself in the dispute over whether
Peppers is sufficiently notable for inclusion, but I find the excuse
used by some that "being funny-looking does not make one notable" is
missing the point -- being made fun of by some of the most popular
websites on the internet and getting media coverage for this *can* be
considered notability.

Having said that, I don't care whether [[Brian Peppers]] stays or goes,
although as one might be able to tell, I'm leaning in favour of keeping.
But it makes no real difference to me. Keep or delete him, whatever --
just don't use logical fallacies or faulty reasoning to support your
decision.

John
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Bryan Derksen
In reply to this post by Fred Bauder
Fred Bauder wrote:
> Actually moral absolutes do have a role. But sending you straight to  
> hell is not a good option. Next time, if the only notable thing about  
> a person is that they are pitiful, consider whether that is notable  
> enough to balance the damage it does to Wikipedia to include it.
>  
Please, the demonization of people we disagree with in this thread is
getting ridiculous. I don't think a single one of the people who've been
arguing that an article on Peppers is notable enough to have is arguing
that it's just because he "looks funny." He's being said to be notable
because of the _fad_ that's sprung up around his unusual appearance. We
don't have an article about [[Marty Feldman]] just because he looked
funny either.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Peter Mackay
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Bryan Derksen
> Sent: Saturday, 25 February 2006 03:49
   
> Please, the demonization of people we disagree with in this
> thread is getting ridiculous. I don't think a single one of
> the people who've been arguing that an article on Peppers is
> notable enough to have is arguing that it's just because he
> "looks funny." He's being said to be notable because of the
> _fad_ that's sprung up around his unusual appearance. We
> don't have an article about [[Marty Feldman]] just because he
> looked funny either.

At the risk of being tedious upon this subject, I agree with you, but make
the point that there may be a gap between intent and outcome.

Peter (Skyring)


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Jimmy Wales
In reply to this post by Andrew Lih
Andrew Lih wrote:
> Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for "brian peppers". (0.05 seconds)
>
> Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.03 seconds)
>
> Let's cut the ridiculousness of this Google testing track.

"jimmy wales" - 36,500,000
"elvis presley" - 14,400,000

it's pretty silly




--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Baba Jobu
Oh, you're just showing off! ;-)

But well, yes, because both you and Elvis Presley are hugely notable.
161,000 doesn't put you at the Olympian heights of a Wales or a Presley, but
it's solid memedom, I'd say.

On 2/24/06, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Andrew Lih wrote:
> > Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for "brian peppers". (0.05 seconds)
> >
> > Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.03 seconds)
> >
> > Let's cut the ridiculousness of this Google testing track.
>
> "jimmy wales" - 36,500,000
> "elvis presley" - 14,400,000
>
> it's pretty silly
>
>
>
>
> --
> #######################################################################
> #    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
> #    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
> #######################################################################
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Fred Bauder
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
Liar, liar

Results 1 - 10 of about 608,000 for "Jimmy wales"

Results 1 - 10 of about 19,300,000 for "bill gates".

Fred

On Feb 24, 2006, at 12:03 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Andrew Lih wrote:
>
>> Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for "brian peppers". (0.05 seconds)
>>
>> Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.03 seconds)
>>
>> Let's cut the ridiculousness of this Google testing track.
>>
>
> "jimmy wales" - 36,500,000
> "elvis presley" - 14,400,000
>
> it's pretty silly
>
>
>
>
> --  
> ######################################################################
> #
> #    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free  
> Knowledge #
> #    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free  
> world         #
> ######################################################################
> #
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Peter Mackay
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Fred Bauder
>
> Liar, liar
>
> Results 1 - 10 of about 608,000 for "Jimmy wales"
>
> Results 1 - 10 of about 19,300,000 for "bill gates".

Obviously you aren't a member of "Google Premium". Jimbo has access to the
true figures whereas you are just getting the pap they approve for general
consumption.

Pete, astonished to find that on Google China the medal tally for the Winter
Olympics is very very different


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Charles Matthews
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
"Jimmy Wales" wrote

> "jimmy wales" - 36,500,000
> "elvis presley" - 14,400,000
>
> it's pretty silly

The King is Dead - rumours to the contrary - but Long Live the (God)King.

However if you search for the exact phrase, "Charles Matthews'' beats "Jimbo
Wales" at Google.  Put the actual Coronation on hold.

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1 ... 45678910 ... 12