Sponsored Links


Websites - Wikipedia

Wikipedia is a multilingual, Web-based, free-content encyclopedia project. The name "Wikipedia" is a portmanteau (a combination of portions of two words and their meanings) of the words wiki (a type of collaborative Web site) and encyclopedia. Wikipedia's articles provide links to guide the user to related pages with additional information.

Wikipedia Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
eBay Link: View Wikipedia on eBay

Boned When... (Login to Submit a Reason)

1 Censoring facts Jimmy Wales only tolerates what HE agrees with
Please Login to Vote
2 Not really educational 99% of it is a database for pop culture
Please Login to Vote
3 Deletionism All the interesting stuff gets deleted
Please Login to Vote
4 Never Boned Still rocks.
Please Login to Vote
5 Lost credibility Teachers hate it, people mock you for using it.
Please Login to Vote
6 Too picky with citations The sky is blue. [citation needed]
Please Login to Vote
7 Inaccurate Vandalism, quick changing, etc.
Please Login to Vote
8 Thought Police True or not, if they don't agree, it's outta her
Please Login to Vote
9 Editor Crusaders More concerned with format than accuracy.
Please Login to Vote
10 Fascist admins Wikipedia's biased tyrants
Please Login to Vote
11 Biased articles Apparently hijacked by propagandists
12 TMI Too Much Information
13 Historical fabrications changing history to promote their ideaologies
14 Web Notability Print sources required for websites.
15 The zoophilia page Practically condones and promotes bestiality!
16 SOPA protest "neutral" site shouldn't be getting into politi
17 2009 advertising campaign WIKIPEDIA FOREVER! What are you, 8?
18 Search Engine Monopoly Seems like everything has a Wikipedia page!
19 They always like to bully... ...with the Dallas area web users!!!!!
20 Day 1 Sucked from the start.
21 SOPA Black Out Thanks for locking us out!
(hide reasons) 
(view all reasons) 

Wikipedia Comments (You must Login to Comment)

1 Well if that's true, I can't wait to order my T-shirt with big bold print "WIKIPEDIA" across the chest. Oh and a matching coffee cup. (sarcasm) -- Submitted By: (Jp) on January 19, 2013, 5:47 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
2 Heres a new one. Wikipedia now has on their banner up top that they are selling "Wikipedia merchandise". Oh god why! -- Submitted By: (PYLrulz) on January 15, 2013, 12:45 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
3 I have started to dislike Wikipedia and no longer submit content. Basically, there is no moderation, anyone can just decide the rules, and if they don't like what you post, will remove it. I am not going to waste time submitting content to a web site, if it is not going to be appreciated and used. They need a fixed set of moderators, with a fixed set of rules that apply to all. -- Submitted By: (paulbrec) on November 13, 2012, 2:08 am - (2 votes) - Login to Vote
4 End of the year, so you know what that means... yup... time for Wikipedia to beg for money. At least it looks like they listened to us, as I don't see the pictures of the usual asshats and pretentious assholes that beg you for money. -- Submitted By: (PYLrulz) on November 7, 2012, 1:52 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
5 A friend of mine once described using a Wikipedia article as akin to using a public toilet. It might be completely fine. But you never know about the person who was there before you, do you? -- Submitted By: (JiminNYC) on September 16, 2012, 10:33 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
6 I understand Wikipedia's reason for the blackout (to show what would happen if such laws passed), but in doing so, they punished visitors (a vast majority of whom had nothing to do with the proposed bills). When Websense blocked The Best Website in the Universe, Maddox had the right idea: he blocked only THEM, not everyone else. -- Submitted By: (Robert) on January 26, 2012, 12:22 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
7 It's not about them being "right." It's about the precedent they, as a "neutral" encylopedia who are not supposed to take political positions, set. It's a slippery slope. -- Submitted By: (JamesO) on January 25, 2012, 10:49 am - (1 votes) - Login to Vote
8 I'm going to disagree, with the reasoning of what SOPA and PIPA was about. If it wasn't about censorship, I can get what you are saying, but with all that was at stake, Wikipedia was totally right in doing the blackout -- Submitted By: (PYLrulz) on January 24, 2012, 6:08 pm - (1 votes) - Login to Vote
9 Wikipedia just boned in a big way with their SOPA protest. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with that stance. Wikipedia is supposed to be a non-profit, apolitical, "neutral" encylopedia project. They really should not get involved in politics based on what they claim they stand for. Also, if anyone wants to read about Wikipedia's dysfunction should check out wikipediareview. They've documented a lot of the nonsense that has gone on over the years, abusive admins, incompetence, double standards, etc. -- Submitted By: (JamesO) on January 24, 2012, 9:20 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
10 If I wouldn't buy a broken car, why would I donate to Wikipedia? -- Submitted By: (Robert) on January 14, 2012, 12:59 pm - (1 votes) - Login to Vote
11 There's no doubt about it. I was actualy going to say the same thing. And THAT is the reason Wikipedia stays free, not because people just *happen* to donate *just* enough money to keep their site running for *exactly* a year. Hell, someone else should start an alternative site anyway just to punish those greedy bastards for even threatening to become a pay site. People won't even pay for internet porn, you think they'll actually pay for YOUR site, Jimmy Wales? HA!!! -- Submitted By: (DolFan316) on January 12, 2012, 6:26 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
12 They run the donation thing at the end of every year. I suppose if it actually did become a "pay to use" site, some enterprising person out there would start up a new free encyclopedia site. -- Submitted By: (John63btf) on January 11, 2012, 10:48 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
13 Just went there. Apparently enough people "donated" that we won't have to pay to see it after all. (Rolls eyes.) -- Submitted By: (DolFan316) on January 10, 2012, 9:30 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
14 The other day, I was surfing around on Wikipedia, and the banner where they have the asshats on there to get you to donate money to Wikipedia was changed to "Donate to Wikipedia now or you could pay to use Wikipedia", or something along those lines. I haven't seen it surfing around on there today though. -- Submitted By: (PYLrulz) on January 1, 2012, 8:51 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
15 LMAO!!! Tell me about it!!! Last week I'm looking at a picture of the head programmer guy asking me to give money and he looked like the world's most pretentious asshat. In other words, the absolute LAST person I would give money to. -- Submitted By: (DolFan316) on December 6, 2011, 6:58 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
16 What is with the decidedly "unflattering" (and I'm being kind) photos of the various Wikipedia people they use for the fund raising banners? -- Submitted By: () on December 2, 2011, 7:56 am - (1 votes) - Login to Vote
17 Like we need another reason to bone Wikipedia. I've been told their zoophilia page read like a fansite for the practice. I had to see for myself (thanking God all images are paintings and sculptures). There are more "arguments for" than "arguments against" bestiality. "No way," I thought, "they can't be serious. This has to be vandalism." A visit to the topic's discussion tab proved me wrong. Biased articles and tyrannical admins are one thing, but "giving equal time" to bestiality? They won't give "equal time" to political opinions that go against their own, yet they'll give it to the idea that raping animals is OK? What next, equal time for rape and pederasty? I don't want to find out. Fix this nonsense and debone some dignity, Wikipedia. -- Submitted By: (Robert) on October 8, 2011, 1:23 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
18 Thanks for the elaboration, Chubby. It's odd that a BTF entry was on Wikipedia for that long before it was removed. And I've seen entries there for far more questionable sites than this one. It's too bad that the folks over there are so full of themselves, and it definitely discourages me from contributing entries and edits there. (By the way, I'm guessing by his name that Sheffield Steel is either an Englishman or a wannabe porn star.) -- Submitted By: (Soggy9000) on May 29, 2011, 11:19 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
19 Soggy- SheffieldSteel was the inept administratior over there that we bashed fairly hard at wikipedia. I'm sure he is up bright an early looking for citations on the color of woody woodpecker's hair in the last episode of the series or some other important act of deletionism. Who is Sheffield Steel in real life? Anyone know? -- Submitted By: (Chubby Rain) on May 29, 2011, 6:02 am - (1 votes) - Login to Vote
20 Soggy- as one of the 12 or so BTF users that got swept up in the Wikipedia controversy, yes there is some very bad blood between that site and this site. A very simple link on the JTS wiki page to our page as the self annointed spiritual successor to that site was up for over a year, and then removed, and was put back, and removed etc. several times. Then they claimed BTF wasnt notable, despite out lengthy and documented tack record of mentions (see the FRIENDS OF BTF link). I dont recall the admins name on Wikipedia, but these are not normal people, and you cannot communicate with them on any level that normal humans do- it's all about wiki speak and hiding on their wiki pages. Of course once they shit on BTF, and said we as the BTF nation were not notable, we trashed the admin from their site personally here, knowing that in his or her computer geek wiki lifestyle would read it. Also, there is a strong feeling that the long tendrils of TV guide dont want us on another corportate partner knocking them (wikipedia and TV guide connection as corporate whores hand in hand- sort of like the job placement sites raping jobvent.com- see that page for more details on it's boniong demise) there are tons of websites with links on wiki that have no "documentaton" on them- why?. Also the arguments from the wiki admins were all losing propostions, they won because they "said so" not on any merit of their arguments or interpretations of rules. Ultimately, they failed, the ban on wiki only added to the outlaw independent "cred" and appeal of this website to it's core users. Hope that helps. -- Submitted By: (Chubby Rain) on May 29, 2011, 6:00 am - (1 votes) - Login to Vote

Login to See the QUICK COMMENT Box


Log in to BTF

Register - Forgot password?

Follow on Twitter!

App on Facebook


Related eBay Auctions

Powered By: TempusMedia - (Page load took:0.156 seconds)