Talk:About.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
i think someone should comething about the fact that about.com is using "wikipedia: the free encyclopedia" in their metatags. so if i search "bear wikipedia" on google the about.com link comes up
There should be a link indicating that this topic is actually a word in english and that it is defined in wiktionary. 24.201.116.26 04:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] New interface
The about.com website seems to have recently undergone a "facelift." The new cluttered look reminds me more of a websquatter than anything else, especially with the irrelevant links on the side and the little toolbar that follows you around everywhere. This person did not include their signature when posting this. They should be listed as 80.223.180.139.
It seems that one of my anti-spyware programs list About.com as spyware of some sort. It's either Spybot or SpySweeper. Kind of makes me suspicious. Luffy 00:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] was something removed or not get saved properly?
The stuff about Convalescence was removed. What if you had a government wikipedia, like Convalenscence proposes.. where you couldn't remove anything?
24.196.90.128 10:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] contents copied?
How come the same articles can be found in both, wikipedia and experts.about.com? collaboration or wiki-piratism (wiratism?)?
Yes, it is wiki-piratism, and I have personally complained to About.com and the NYT about this practice--especially the act of putting "Copyright 2006 About.com" on the page. They do give a tiny "reference" at the very bottom of the screen. I think this is an unconscionable practice.129.93.17.223 15:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Proyster 15:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Using our content is explicitly allowed under the GFDL. It's legit. phoebe 20:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV?
From the article: "About.com has had many complaints about how much it sucks." This is neither encyclopedic or NPOV; there are no explanations or counter-arguments.
"The website is disliked by many due to its false information and inabillity to speak about topics in a simple, understandable way." Again, no explanations or counter-arguments.
72.43.26.83 15:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Noticed this too. I don't have much experience with about.com, so I'm not in the position to correct this myself. But at any rate, these parts should be confirmed, justified and rephrased --134.109.148.26 07:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Free Content?
What does Free Content mean? The content is all copyrighted, so how is it free?
- Free as in beer, not speech - see Gratis versus Libre :) - Davidjk (msg+edits) 12:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Needs Some Refs
Nice page, but needs references to back up some claims (e.g. they check all medical info) Scottedwards2000 21:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
