Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Forum Information Archive _ Banned from Google?
Posted by: Selina
We (as wikipediareview.com, yeah) were 2nd to the top of http://google.com/search?q=wikipedia+review (google search for "wikipedia review") now the site doesn't appear anywhere... Hmm O-o
Posted by: guy
QUOTE(Selina @ Fri 3rd March 2006, 5:40pm) 
We (as wikipediareview.com, yeah) were 2nd to the top of http://google.com/search?q=wikipedia+review (google search for "wikipedia review") now the site doesn't appear anywhere... Hmm O-o
If you put in "wikipedia review" in quotes, the forum comes fourth. If you leave off the quotes, the old board comes fourth.
Incidentally, Igor has added seven postings since anyone else posted (Blu, saying that the forum had moved).
Posted by: Blu Aardvark
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/The_Wikipedia_Review on Wikipedia Review.
QUOTE
The Wikipedia Review (http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com) is a kook anti-Wikipedia message board criticizing the even more lame and cuckoo and evil Wikipedia. It is frequented by Wikipedia trolls who engage in lame flame wars with the Wikipedia critics, a microcosm of Wikipedia's e-evil.
Lame Wikipedia fans keep insisting on how great Wikipedia is and how unbiased it is, trying to hide the fact that Wikipedia is a group blog for ne'er-do-well slackers who can sit all day long in front of their computers, supposedly for the benefit of a poor African child, who, in reality, doesn't give a fuck about Wikipedia because he doesn't have anything to eat to begin with. But, despite that, the Wikipedia kooks keep spreading their blatant lies and half-truths to other Web sites.
The Wikipedia Review is a reflection of Wikipedia's teeny bopper demographic and Web-fuckery, running on hi-tech ProBoards software for the greater good of its e-mass audience.
Just like Encyclopedia Dramatica in its origins, The Wikipedia Review is there to create drama by taking revenge of Wikipedia's brainwashed wikipedophilic fans and to eradicate Wikipedia from the e-public space.
http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1135968123#1136050131) to a Wikimedia fan regarding Wikipedia forks used for spamming:
"I don't see how the entire WWW can be ruined by one website."
It's not just Wikipedia, although they're at the top Kether position of a triangulated crossfire of web-fuckery:
1. Wikipedia.
2. Google.
3. Scraper-spammers.
These three entities, acting in tandem, have a synergetic effect on the web in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
This shows how Wikimedia critics constantly have to re-educate Wikimedia fans because they're so brainwashed with their Jimmy-Wales idolatry that they need to be shown the reality of their Wikimedia garbage over and over again.
Lame Wikipedia fans keep insisting on how great Wikipedia is and how unbiased it is, trying to hide the fact that Wikipedia is a group blog for ne'er-do-well slackers who can sit all day long in front of their computers, supposedly for the benefit of a poor African child, who, in reality, doesn't give a fuck about Wikipedia because he doesn't have anything to eat to begin with. But, despite that, the Wikipedia kooks keep spreading their blatant lies and half-truths to other Web sites.
The Wikipedia Review is a reflection of Wikipedia's teeny bopper demographic and Web-fuckery, running on hi-tech ProBoards software for the greater good of its e-mass audience.
Just like Encyclopedia Dramatica in its origins, The Wikipedia Review is there to create drama by taking revenge of Wikipedia's brainwashed wikipedophilic fans and to eradicate Wikipedia from the e-public space.
http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1135968123#1136050131) to a Wikimedia fan regarding Wikipedia forks used for spamming:
"I don't see how the entire WWW can be ruined by one website."
It's not just Wikipedia, although they're at the top Kether position of a triangulated crossfire of web-fuckery:
1. Wikipedia.
2. Google.
3. Scraper-spammers.
These three entities, acting in tandem, have a synergetic effect on the web in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
This shows how Wikimedia critics constantly have to re-educate Wikimedia fans because they're so brainwashed with their Jimmy-Wales idolatry that they need to be shown the reality of their Wikimedia garbage over and over again.
Posted by: blissyu2
I hate Encyclopaedia Dramatica, and I know I've posted here many times saying how much they suck. Little wonder they say such things.
But the more interesting thing is that Google banned Wikipedia Review. This suggests to me that Wikipedia has influence over Google.
Posted by: Blu Aardvark
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Fri 3rd March 2006, 6:21pm)
I hate Encyclopaedia Dramatica, and I know I've posted here many times saying how much they suck. Little wonder they say such things.
*ahem*. Look at the page history, of who created it, and don't be so quick to judge based on the site it's located at. Encyclopedia Dramatica is often full of crap, but this is a well-written page, for which Qwerty deserves ultimate props.
QUOTE
But the more interesting thing is that Google banned Wikipedia Review. This suggests to me that Wikipedia has influence over Google.
Last I checked, Wikipedia Review still shows up in the search results.
Posted by: Lir
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Fri 3rd March 2006, 8:21pm)
I hate Encyclopaedia Dramatica
Actually their article seems rather complimentary.
Posted by: blissyu2
Yes, well, Encyclopaedia Dramatica is based on LJ Drama, and that is a bad base indeed.