| Advertisement |
5 commentsFriday, May 8, 2009
| Popular WPN Business Resources |
-

Increase Your Conversions with New Tool
According to Tim Ash, President and CEO of SiteTuners, landing page... -

Latest Features from Digg and StumbleUpon
Although news outlets continually bring reports about new features on... -

What's Next for Twitter API?
Although Twitter's homepage gets a tremendous amount of traffic, it...
iEntry 10th Anniversary
RSS
Newsletter
Advertising












5 Comments
We don't need this, please
The world is already full of imbeciles (let alone journalists). Why do you want to incorporate yourself to that group, trying to tarnish the hard labour of Wikipedia collaborators?
Shame on you, Shane
Shame on everyone
Shame on Shane? Shame on everyone who fell for it! For believing something they read on the internet - from Wikipedia, of all places - without bothering to actually check and see if it was true!
Wikipedia is editted by people with their own agendas and opinions. Most of them act honestly and try to keep their additions accurate and truthful. Some, however, aren't quite so scrupulous. It's the nature of the beast - the anonymnity of the internet makes it possible, like it or not. The real question should be : How much else on Wikipedia is false?
I think you're a fucking
I think you're a fucking asshole.
It is a very meaning quote
It is a very meaning quote for me. Actually, it only support the artist's love for music. Sadly, this quote didn't came from Jarre. Moreover, this only proves that not all writings over the net are absolutely true.
the AP like 1 way streets but want a car with reverse
For the AP to be recently attacking on-line media the way it has to been then found to be hoaxed by the very type of sites that they "supposedly" want sorted out...They shout no but then do it themselves...we should listen why again?
Post new comment