Fucking Wikipedia

OVBsr.gif
 


Spelunking said:
Wikipedia is great but it is full of disinformation which is a drawback.
Click to expand...

True. There's a lot of good and bad information on their pages. From the sections I pay attention to, the bad tends to get weeded out. Sometimes, too slowly. But at least it happens.

For laughs, can you imagine the disinformation if the government ran Wikipedia?

Example: On stimulus funds going to shovel-ready projects:

Exhibit A: Google. EDIT: If Google's not pulling, search this: shovel ready site:whitehouse.gov

Exhibit B: New York Times interview with Obama.

Excerpt from interview:

Infrastructure has the benefit of for every dollar you spend on infrastructure, you get a dollar and a half in stimulus because there are ripple effects from building roads or bridges or sewer lines. But the problem is, is that spending it out takes a long time, because there’s really nothing -- there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.
Click to expand...
lol Voters are funny.
 
Let's see... You'll pay Getty (or whoever) for images, buy templates for your sites, but you balk at giving Wik a few bucks now and then? For one of the most useful tools in a marketers arsenal?

C'mon... Surely 5$ a month isn't a burden for the insane resource? When Wales sends me his bi-annual pitch, I send $30 and call it a good investment.

Fuck the Government- keep them as far away from my interwebz as possible. And I already see enough Coke ads, thanks.

My 2c, for what it's worth...
 
I dunno, Google makes like 3 billion a year from fairly invasive ad display. The annual operating expenses of Wiki are like 6 million.

Here's a graph for those people who's brain can't comprehend how big a billion is.

graphwrite.asp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom