Forum:Best wiki ever!

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Best wiki ever!
Note: This topic has been unedited for 4116 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Can any Uncyclopedian tell me whose writing style that is? Allpages here.

(I fear I am not in fact involved, much as I might have wanted to be.)

The really smart bit was, of course, getting Andrew Orlowski to write about it in the Guardian - David Gerard 08:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I still prefer the whining nazis for pure fun, although I must admit, making a wiki about how evil wikis are is deliciously ironic.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 23:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Ironic? Yeh, specially if it's a wiki nobody can edit that complains about censorship. That sucks--Rataube 01:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"I think that proves beyond any doubt that David Gerard is not involved with Wikitruth. Here he is bashing all criticism and defending Wikipedia to the hilt. Hardly the kind of person that would be involved in an anti-Wikipedia project like Wikitruth."

The topic

Apparently the Masses of Internets think (or thought) David is behind Wikitruth.

-- 05:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (User:SirNuke)

David Gerard is president of WikiTruth,
Evidence 1: contains the paragraph "If you find the site is down, please contact David Gerard at Wikipedia, who has seen fit to download a copy of the entire Wikitruth ::site through his DSL line to serve as an official Mirror. Thank you, David!"
Evidence 2: WikiTruth praises David Gerard 05:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Banned and Deleted from Wikipedia so they must take it more serious than they said.

What are you talking about? It's still there.--Rataube 08:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiTruth is good, but WikiWatch is also Excellent. 05:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I find that an insult. Somebody report that to MediaWiki. WikiTruth is bad. It's bad as it is.--Jtaylor1Small Egg 03:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It looks like yet another bunch of whiny, abusive, anonymous Wikipedia-admin cowards to me. If they had any guts, they'd... well, they'd probably use them for what most people use guts for, like digestion, breaking down of lactose and other chemicals, possibly reproduction, if members of the opposite sex aren't completely repelled by them. It's hard to say, really... Still, if the Wikipedia types want to fight amongst each other, I say let 'em. Hopefully it'll keep them away from here for a while!  c • > • cunwapquc? 04:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC) PS. Report what to MediaWiki? The IP address? And don't you mean the FBI guys? MediaWiki is what they call the software itself, there's no organization by that name.

I for one think it's nice to be able to access some of the censored articles, like Douchebag, of which the original version had lots of great information. As helpful a source as WP is, the buearocracy (sp?) has gotten out of hand and has ruined a few articles. While I may not agree with some of the philosophies of the site, those archived articles are handy. --User:Nintendorulez 18:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal tools