Galloway's Wiki page

[faceless]

I was just looking Galloway's page on wiki - and it really does show what a useless site wiki really is. All the arguments between pro and anti are just pathetic and boring. Even the discussion page goes on for a few weeks...

I wonder how long it will take someone to change back what I edited? Minutes I bet!

[nekokate]

Wow, that discussion page is mental. It's just a bunch of people obsessed by their dislike of Galloway arguing with a bunch of people obsessed by their support of him, and neither of them are capable of writing an article to the standard required in an encyclopedia.

I couldn't write a neutral article about George because, even though I know lots about him, I'm very definitely biassed, and these people need to wake up and realise that, too.

I don't think it's as big a deal as they're are making out, though, since practically everyone in the world knows that citing Wikipedia is an intellectual no-no, and if they did so they'd be laughed at, so even if some of the article is weasel-worded or skewed with bias, it doesn't really matter to those who are genuinely qualified to debate the subject of GG.

[faceless]

yeah, I used to biassed too, but I went on a diet! bdum tish!

You're right though - it's just a load of bollocks on that discussion page. The main problem is that wiki itself is the one which suffers by not having proper moderation.

[faceless]

well that didn't take long - someone has just removed the couchTripper link from the wiki page, and all I did was place it above the spidered news link.

It just goes to show what level some people are at

[nekokate]

That's very strange. I'd keep re-adding it if I were you - this website is definitely worthy of note as a George Galloway resource, perhaps even moreso than georgegalloway.com since almost everything there is also here, and this site is independent rather than a vehicle site that George himself can alter (not that there's anything wrong with that!).

[faceless]

yeah, I have fixed it again. Apparently the person who removed it claims that it contravenes the wiki linking rules, but it was fine before?

[Mandy]

FYI, getting the spiderednews link wasn't easy .. and indeed, it got removed from most pages on Wiki.

The wiki admins even opened an internal discussion about it :

LINK

[faceless]

it turns out the guy who deleted it didn't even check to see what the link was - just because I changed the description to 'unofficial forum' his excuse was that he removed it because it was 'some unofficial forum'.

I've answered him on the discussion page and suggested that he should check things first before deleting them.

What an arse.

[Mandy]

Great.

p.s. Hope we don't play leap-frog every few weeks to see who's entry is nearer the top.

[faceless]

well your link has been on top for the last year, so it's only fair eh?

[Mandy]

Doesn't bother me to be honest .. plenty of fish in the sea to catch