Comments:Wikipedia features Encyclopædia Britannica on its main page
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
Why don't they merge together? 80.78.230.135 16:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Go Wiki-P![edit]
Welcome, Britannica, to the wrenching displacement already experienced by factory workers, middle managers, technicians and even record companies. The eulogy for contemporary printed information will be delivered in this namespace. What the poor folks at Britannica should do is this: Set up a non-profit organization, set a donation goal that will cover the expenses of all those experts, then pay them to apply that expertise filling in and polishing up Wikipedia articles. Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated. We no longer need king and country, profit and loss, if we just act more like a sentient species. -zaz
Notable?[edit]
How is this notable as a news item? It seems like self-aggrandisation to me; boasting that Wikipedia has an article on Britannica featured somehow making it superior.129.96.234.175 04:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Comments from feedback form - "main features of biology"[edit]
main features of biology —124.109.49.122 (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments from feedback form - "How was this ever newsworthy?"[edit]
How was this ever newsworthy? —Richard n (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- This was before the current review workflow; things worked differently. There was some dissent about newsworthiness at the time. --Pi zero (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)