Ha - the report at "Enter at your own risk: We put Wikipedia to the test" says that intentional vandalism to Edna Ferber and Sigmatism was not corrected "within a week". The vandalism was added by an anon 68.91.32.213 (talk · contribs) at around 06:00 on Thursday 9 March, and the vandalism that was not reverted already was removed by the same anon about 4 days and 17 hours later, at around 23:00 on 13 March. Nice of them to remove the vandalism, but what funny short weeks they have in Grand Forks... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Wikia is completely separate from Wikipedia, and there is a conflict of interest here between the not for-profit Wikipedia and the for-profit Wikia, I believe the paragraph should be removed. PeterGrecian 13:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, my friend. The community absolutely must be informed of this, so we can watch out for conflicts of interest. – gpvos (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really for conflicts of interest or anything; it's there because it's notable in the eyes of most users here. Just because we're on Wikipedia doesn't mean that we don't pay attention to other wikis. I'm sure we'd cover if Ward's Wiki were to gain investors, or be sold, or something. Ral315 (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm reassured PeterGrecian 08:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Regarding the article from the New Jersey paper: it's worse than I thought! Apparently they have astrology teachers in American schools! :-) – gpvos (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)