Editing Talk:Wikimedia
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Removed claims that [[Wikipedia]] is an encyclopedia - it isn't. A "serious encyclopedia" has no visible "stubs", certainly does not let [[ad hominem]] rule over content in selection of articles, doesn't permit massive holes in key areas to persist for years, and doesn't let the [[community point of view]] of its employees overrule the good sense of historians, mathematicians, and etc. | Removed claims that [[Wikipedia]] is an encyclopedia - it isn't. A "serious encyclopedia" has no visible "stubs", certainly does not let [[ad hominem]] rule over content in selection of articles, doesn't permit massive holes in key areas to persist for years, and doesn't let the [[community point of view]] of its employees overrule the good sense of historians, mathematicians, and etc. | ||
Removed claims that [[Wiktionary]] is a dictionary - it isn't. A dictionary must define the simplest words in terms of other simple words, and it must define complex words in terms of the simpler words. Wiktionary has no such discipline | Removed claims that [[Wiktionary]] is a dictionary - it isn't. A dictionary must define the simplest words in terms of other simple words, and it must define complex words in terms of the simpler words. Wiktionary has no such discipline. | ||
Further, the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] by failing to use [[staging]] or to apply such a defining vocabulary discipline (which would require about 2000 words), cannot serve as a basis for translation for culturally-rich articles. So this too is a fraud. | Further, the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] by failing to use [[staging]] or to apply such a defining vocabulary discipline (which would require about 2000 words), cannot serve as a basis for translation for culturally-rich articles. So this too is a fraud. |