This is where conversation would be happening if I wasn't just talking to myself. - Tony <------Conversation point, right there *gestures*

\ / . | / .

\  /\  /  | |/  |
 \/  \/   | | \ |

The tone of this article is purposefully not up to Wikipedia's standards of neutrality, which is why it may look weird here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratebushy (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are legion

Salvo says: So kewl to be performative and then immediately contributory and interactive. Saving now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Weaver_model

we who?

wait... more transparently models the process of knowledge production?? hrrmrm.

"The rise of Wikipedia is the rise of a medium of publication that more transparently models the process of knowledge making."

the word model .... and medium.... models? I want to write lots of more things about all my questions about these things. Sam is asking about whether there can be more than one process of making knowledge. I want to pick apart all the verbs and semantics. is knowledge made? or just always mediated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.168.1 (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are: <IMG SRC="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group)#mediaviewer/File:Anonymous_at_Scientology_in_Los_Angeles.jpg">

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.168.1 (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] 

It never REALLY occurred to me that wikipedia is completely user edited etc. I am impressed that it has maintained itself as a credible source (to a point). What makes this community ethos respectable? and not others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.38.36 (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]