> "What I learned: wikipediocracy is a nonsense website."
Sounds like someone's jealous that Wikipediocracy will one day overtake FSF.org in website popularity. (According to Alexa, Wikipediocracy is definitely trending up, while FSF.org is taking a nosedive.)
For a long period of time, yes -- most of the links from Wikipedia to Wikia were exempted from the "nofollow" rule that Wales imposed personally on all of the other links found in Wikipedia. So, Wikia got a special and important boost from Wikipedia between about 2007 and 2009. And guess what? At that time, 60% of the board of directors of the Wikimedia Foundation were Wikia principals. Wikipedia editors: You scratch Jimbo's back, and he'll scratch his own, too.
Amusing mischaracterization of the 2006 version of MyWikiBiz. By the way, Wikipediocracy has its own Wikipedia article, too... and it fairly clearly shows that Wikipediocracy has repeatedly broken and/or influenced internationally-covered stories about Wikipedia. The site is very successfully reaching the goals of its mission statement, no matter how badly you wish to paint the site's leadership as "unsavory".
Slashdot Mirror
> "What I learned: wikipediocracy is a nonsense website." Sounds like someone's jealous that Wikipediocracy will one day overtake FSF.org in website popularity. (According to Alexa, Wikipediocracy is definitely trending up, while FSF.org is taking a nosedive.)
For a long period of time, yes -- most of the links from Wikipedia to Wikia were exempted from the "nofollow" rule that Wales imposed personally on all of the other links found in Wikipedia. So, Wikia got a special and important boost from Wikipedia between about 2007 and 2009. And guess what? At that time, 60% of the board of directors of the Wikimedia Foundation were Wikia principals. Wikipedia editors: You scratch Jimbo's back, and he'll scratch his own, too.
I feel sorry for your apparent lack of success in life.
Amusing mischaracterization of the 2006 version of MyWikiBiz. By the way, Wikipediocracy has its own Wikipedia article, too... and it fairly clearly shows that Wikipediocracy has repeatedly broken and/or influenced internationally-covered stories about Wikipedia. The site is very successfully reaching the goals of its mission statement, no matter how badly you wish to paint the site's leadership as "unsavory".