Page 1 of 1
Removal of CHI from Wikinews linked with Mormon boardmember
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 5:44 pm
by _Mercury
http://valleywag.com/392510/jimmy-wales-and-the-church-of-latter+day-wikipedians
More and more I am revolted by the actions of the Wikipedia foundations boardmembers.
Jimmy Wales is an alphatool.
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 5:55 pm
by _bcspace
What are you talking about? I see that the CHI is still there.
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:39 pm
by _Mercury
bcspace wrote:What are you talking about? I see that the CHI is still there.
I'm sorry, I forgot to fill you in on the details you should have been keeping up with.
Just to make sure the slow kids are informed, remember the following:
Wikinews is not Wikileaks
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:47 pm
by _bcspace
Wikinews is not Wikileaks
Already knew that. I was just wondering why all the crying when a link is still readily available somewhere else? And speaking of links, why don't you post one here? lol
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:25 pm
by _Canucklehead
bcspace wrote:Wikinews is not Wikileaks
Already knew that. I was just wondering why all the crying when a link is still readily available somewhere else? And speaking of links, why don't you post one here? lol
Shady Acres ain't as shady as Wikileaks!
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:33 pm
by _skippy the dead
Canucklehead wrote:Shady Acres ain't as shady as Wikileaks!
Heh - it's not that Wikileaks is shady. It's just that Wikileaks has some protection due to geographic location and ambiguity of ownership. No such problems with Shady Acres - the board's benefactors are easily identified and subject to US jurisdiction. It's wise to abide by copyright rules in such circumstances.
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:10 pm
by _Canucklehead
skippy the dead wrote:Canucklehead wrote:Shady Acres ain't as shady as Wikileaks!
Heh - it's not that Wikileaks is shady. It's just that Wikileaks has some protection due to geographic location and ambiguity of ownership. No such problems with Shady Acres - the board's benefactors are easily identified and subject to US jurisdiction. It's wise to abide by copyright rules in such circumstances.
Oh, I know. I just meant
shady in that it's "shaded" from .... um, the bright lights of the law!
(Yeah, that's it!)
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:25 pm
by _skippy the dead
Canucklehead wrote:Oh, I know. I just meant shady in that it's "shaded" from .... um, the bright lights of the law! (Yeah, that's it!)
Darn those bright law lights!
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 3:02 am
by _Mercury
bcspace wrote:Wikinews is not Wikileaks
Already knew that. I was just wondering why all the crying when a link is still readily available somewhere else? And speaking of links, why don't you post one here? lol
I have a better idea. Lets play inform the twat...again.
Turn up your belltone for this one. That helmet your handlers make you wear blocks a great deal of your hearing so I will make sure to shout.
ONE OF LORENZO SNOWS PROGENY KILLED THE LINK.
Now gather all of your retard strength and read the following:
But the document itself is intriguing. A set of directions for church leaders, it was written in part by Lorenzo Snow, who is an ancestor of Michael Snow. Snow, a devout Mormon, serves with Wales on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. On his Wikipedia user page, Snow maintains that he is a devotee of Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" principle. But one wonders how he can stay neutral on this particular issue.
Interesting, Is it not?