Virgins Unite!(Virgins' Club)
0
Kadushy wrote...
Hi mely..I gots a new sig. A real one.
Lol didn't see that coming.
Nice kadushy *high fives*
0
Kadushy
Douchebag
Dead is dead. Thread will die into the 5th page in 3 days. Possiblities are endless.
0
Must start something...kadushy I stab you...with a sponge..in the shape of a knife...made of cheesecake
0
Melancholy wrote...
Hoshi wrote...
Hello Mely!Hallo Hoshi!
You got no classes? :3
Yesh, hoshi has no classes!
0
Kadushy
Douchebag
I counter with my mirror coat. Oh wait....it only works for special, not physical attacks.
0
Kadushy
Douchebag
I can chillax when I lay down on the floor, holding a color pencil, imagining it was me drawing a tree.
0
Wikipedia (pronounced /ËŒwɪkɨˈpiËdi.É™/ WI-ki-PEE-dee-É™) is a free,[5] web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites, from the Hawaiian word wiki, meaning "quick") and encyclopedia. Wikipedia's 14 million articles (3.1 million in English) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site.[6] It was launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger[7] and is currently the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet.[3][8][9][10]
Critics of Wikipedia accuse it of systemic bias and inconsistencies (including undue weight given to popular culture),[11] and allege that it favors consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[12] Its reliability and accuracy are also targeted.[13] Other criticisms center on its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of spurious or unverified information,[14] though scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived,[15][16] and an investigation in Nature found that the material they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[17]
Wikipedia's departure from the expert-driven style of the encyclopedia building mode and the large presence of unacademic contents have been noted several times. When Time magazine recognized You as its Person of the Year for 2006, acknowledging the accelerating success of online collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world, it cited Wikipedia as one of several examples of Web 2.0 services, along with YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook.[18] Some noted the importance of Wikipedia not only as an encyclopedic reference but also as a frequently updated news resource because of how quickly articles about recent events appear.[19][20]
Critics of Wikipedia accuse it of systemic bias and inconsistencies (including undue weight given to popular culture),[11] and allege that it favors consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[12] Its reliability and accuracy are also targeted.[13] Other criticisms center on its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of spurious or unverified information,[14] though scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived,[15][16] and an investigation in Nature found that the material they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[17]
Wikipedia's departure from the expert-driven style of the encyclopedia building mode and the large presence of unacademic contents have been noted several times. When Time magazine recognized You as its Person of the Year for 2006, acknowledging the accelerating success of online collaboration and interaction by millions of users around the world, it cited Wikipedia as one of several examples of Web 2.0 services, along with YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook.[18] Some noted the importance of Wikipedia not only as an encyclopedic reference but also as a frequently updated news resource because of how quickly articles about recent events appear.[19][20]