View Full Version : For Wikipedia fans...
I tripped over this the other day...
The Florida-based Wikimedia Foundation is aware of its Website's reputation. Board member Erik Moller was very frank in a recent essay. One of their 10 things they wanted you to know about Wikipedia is: "We don't want you to trust us. It's in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. We are fully aware of this."
I have yet to find the entire statement from which this tidbit was extracted.
vidcc
03-31-2007, 08:31 PM
Kangaroo
Origins
Like all modern animals, modern kangaroos originated in the Middle East and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined whether kangaroos form a holobarmin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.
After the Flood, kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land -- as Australia was still for a time connected to the Middle East before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart -- or if they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.
oh silly me....that's from conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kangaroo&oldid=14629)
:rolleyes: ;)
they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.
This must have occurred toward the end of the last episode of global warming.
oh silly me....that's from conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kangaroo&oldid=14629)
That last is a superb example of your on-going attempt to mis-characterize those who disagree with you.
You assume, by quoting this "conservapedia" that I must use it regularly, and probably even support it financially.
I assure you I had never even heard of it until you cited it here, and, for your further information, I do not frequent any conservative blogs.
Perhaps you should apply these tactics to someone for whom they are applicable.
vidcc
03-31-2007, 10:38 PM
I can't make up my mind if you are you are simply paranoid or still so egotistical that you think everything is about you and want to consider yourself a victim of some great conspiracy.
You go ahead, make your assumptions, if it helps you get by. :rolleyes:
I agree that wiki is not a reliable source of factual information, but as the subject was wiki and the point was the admittance
"We don't want you to trust us. It's in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. We are fully aware of this."
I thought I would interject the competition...the "anti-wiki" so to speak
1. We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
2. We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.
3. We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children.
4. We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.
5. We allow broader reuse of our material than Wikipedia does. Wikipedia claims to allow free use of its material, but in fact it is burdensome to comply with all of Wikipedia's copyright restrictions.
6. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts. Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules.
7. We allow original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not.
8. We respect users' control over their own talk pages as much as possible. Wikipedia treats users' own talk pages like community property belonging to everyone, and it becomes a place for Wikipedia editors to bully users.
"conservative facts" ???????
The Commandments
1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.
2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain. Please see Conservapedia's Manual of Style which assists new users on how to put footnotes in a article.
3. Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.
5. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Advertisements are prohibited.
6. The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited.[1]
Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked. A blatantly inappropriate entry, such as vandalism or obscenity, can result in immediate blocking without warning. Sockpuppets are also blocked.
At least they are honest in realtion to change.
I can't make up my mind if you are you are simply paranoid or still so egotistical that you think everything is about you and want to consider yourself a victim of some great conspiracy.
You go ahead, make your assumptions, if it helps you get by. :rolleyes:
Paranoid?
No.
Egotistical?
A matter of opinion, I'd say.
Anyway, since I am a conservative while you claim to be utterly independent, I wonder also how you find yourself to so consistantly post an oppositional point-of-view... I should not have thought you to be so enamored.
Perhaps you could allow someone else a turn.
Cheese
04-01-2007, 01:49 AM
Wikipedia is useful if I want to back up a point I've made in Gameworld about some PC game but I won't be using it as a source in my essays or dissertations.
In short, it's great for "fluff" but you should never use it for proper research (though maybe, just maybe, as a Pilgrim Step to break you in to a new topic).
I dislike the fact that certain people have taken over pages for their own agendas. The vanity picture (and the debate that surrounds it) for "semen", for instance, is disturbing, wrong and unintentinally hilarious.
The saga of publicgirluk is required reading in regards to the idiocy of Wikipedians: http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Publicgirluk
vidcc
04-01-2007, 02:15 AM
Anyway, since I am a conservative while you claim to be utterly independent, I wonder also how you find yourself to so consistantly post an oppositional point-of-view... I should not have thought you to be so enamored.
I post opposing points of view to what is said, not to who says it. This includes when I quote someone. I am responding to what they say not who they are. I don't care if the person has one particular agenda.
I seldom feel the need to post in agreement. While it's nice to know that others share similar views it doesn't make for interesting debate.
In this thread I posted an entry from a competitor to wiki to give a little context about reliability and you decided that it was about you. I neither quoted you or mentioned your name. Nor did I place any comment on it other than a couple of smiles.
From that you decided you were being attacked personally.
Busyman™
04-01-2007, 04:41 AM
This must have occurred toward the end of the last episode of global warming.
oh silly me....that's from conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kangaroo&oldid=14629)
That last is a superb example of your on-going attempt to mis-characterize those who disagree with you.
You assume, by quoting this "conservapedia" that I must use it regularly, and probably even support it financially.
I assure you I had never even heard of it until you cited it here, and, for your further information, I do not frequent any conservative blogs.
Perhaps you should apply these tactics to someone for whom they are applicable.
:blink: WTF :blink:
Wikipedia is useful if I want to back up a point I've made in Gameworld about some PC game but I won't be using it as a source in my essays or dissertations.
In short, it's great for "fluff" but you should never use it for proper research (http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Publicgirluk
The only point I ever tried to make with regard to Wikipedia.
Anyway, since I am a conservative while you claim to be utterly independent, I wonder also how you find yourself to so consistantly post an oppositional point-of-view... I should not have thought you to be so enamored.
I post opposing points of view to what is said, not to who says it. This includes when I quote someone. I am responding to what they say not who they are. I don't care if the person has one particular agenda.
I seldom feel the need to post in agreement. While it's nice to know that others share similar views it doesn't make for interesting debate.
In this thread I posted an entry from a competitor to wiki to give a little context about reliability and you decided that it was about you. I neither quoted you or mentioned your name. Nor did I place any comment on it other than a couple of smiles.
From that you decided you were being attacked personally.
You think "enamored" = "attacked"?
Boy, you really are an independent thinker.
I was hoping perhaps you merely meant to molest me somehow.
BTW-
Is it your view, then, that Wikipedia and Conservapedia are oppositional as well; that is to say, do you ascribe to Wikipedia the status of Liberal organ?
On its own is crap.
Using it as an example of an opinion or such, on here, is ok in my book, if it's clear that you intend to use the wikipedia article as a means of displaying or giving an example of something you've taken part of elsewhere as well.
IE "just like [insert name of other text here], this wikipedia article seems to indicate...".
Wikipedia can't be taken as truth.
For instance, I've seen articles on it completely derailed by (what I assumed was) patriotic americans, in instances when what I assumed was fair historical accounts said something disagreeable about U.S. policies.
For instance, I remember a really daft discussion on whether the U.S. had had Noriega on their payroll.
This I'm sure goes in every direction, tho', as the girl says in Cheese's article, americans seem to be dominating it.
:P
vidcc
04-01-2007, 02:45 PM
You think "enamored" = "attacked"?
Boy, you really are an independent thinker.
No I was referring to your second post.
BTW-
Is it your view, then, that Wikipedia and Conservapedia are oppositional as well; that is to say, do you ascribe to Wikipedia the status of Liberal organ?
It is not my view that they are opposite, That is the mission statement of the conservi founders.
I think wiki has no agenda one way or the other. I do feel that the right wingers have invented a conspiracy along the lines of the "liberal media" myth because it doesn't just give a right wing point of view. I also think it's unreliable simply because of the nature of the project.
conservi states an agenda, which kind of confirms it is unreliable.
I think wiki has no agenda one way or the other. I do feel that the right wingers have invented a conspiracy along the lines of the "liberal media" myth because it doesn't just give a right wing point of view. I also think it's unreliable simply because of the nature of the project.
I don't care enough about Wikipedia to examine the idea of it's having any sort of agenda; it is crap, and that is sufficient for me to reject it and all arguments which rely on it.
It's just that simple.
Busyman™
04-02-2007, 01:51 AM
I think wiki has no agenda one way or the other. I do feel that the right wingers have invented a conspiracy along the lines of the "liberal media" myth because it doesn't just give a right wing point of view. I also think it's unreliable simply because of the nature of the project.
I don't care enough about Wikipedia to examine the idea of it's having any sort of agenda; it is crap, and that is sufficient for me to reject it and all arguments which rely on it.
It's just that simple.
I would say Wikipedia is quite excellent as a starting point for many things.
I do hate that kids are using it as sources for their papers though.
Also in relation to Cheese said, if I'm trying to find small tidbits of info on something like a game, music, etc is excellent.
In almost all cases that I've seen, Wiki points to other internet sources for verification.
I don't care enough about Wikipedia to examine the idea of it's having any sort of agenda; it is crap, and that is sufficient for me to reject it and all arguments which rely on it.
It's just that simple.
I would say Wikipedia is quite excellent as a starting point for many things.
I do hate that kids are using it as sources for their papers though.
Also in relation to Cheese said, if I'm trying to find small tidbits of info on something like a game, music, etc is excellent.
In almost all cases that I've seen, Wiki points to other internet sources for verification.
By all means, then.
Use it to your heart's content. :)
Busyman™
04-02-2007, 02:18 AM
I would say Wikipedia is quite excellent as a starting point for many things.
I do hate that kids are using it as sources for their papers though.
Also in relation to Cheese said, if I'm trying to find small tidbits of info on something like a game, music, etc is excellent.
In almost all cases that I've seen, Wiki points to other internet sources for verification.
By all means, then.
Use it to your heart's content. :)
No shit.
Barbarossa
04-02-2007, 08:56 AM
I have often found wikipedia to contain a consistently high-standard of information, for the purposes I require it.
Admittedly, the one time they let me down was they didn't mention that Dreamweaver was an FTP client, but I have found it in my heart to forgive them :whistling
By all means, then.
Use it to your heart's content. :)
No shit.
By golly, you're right about that, too.
Busyman™
04-02-2007, 01:31 PM
No shit.
By golly, you're right about that, too.
No shit.:wacko:
Cheese
04-02-2007, 01:45 PM
The vanity pictures on there make me laugh, the wife beater shirt entry is modeled by the least looking male I've encountered in said shirt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wifebeater_%28shirt%29
Barbarossa
04-02-2007, 01:47 PM
The vanity pictures on there make me laugh, the wife beater shirt entry is modeled by the least looking male I've encountered in said shirt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wifebeater_%28shirt%29
:lol: A skinny guy in a vest. Is it Mr Muscle? :unsure:
Cheese
04-02-2007, 02:08 PM
The vanity pictures on there make me laugh, the wife beater shirt entry is modeled by the least looking male I've encountered in said shirt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wifebeater_%28shirt%29
:lol: A skinny guy in a vest. Is it Mr Muscle? :unsure:
I got an infraction or whatnot on there last year because I changed the caption to "A somewhat male wearing a wifebeater."
Biggles
04-02-2007, 03:03 PM
I have to confess to being baffled as to why there is an issue over Wikipedia. Like all reference overviews it can only provide a introduction to any topic. The real value of Wikipedia is in the links to external sources this does require a bit of reading and critical thinking of course.
Wikipedia is huge and has an enormous raft of non-controversial information - for example if one wanted to check up on "adder"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adder
I would like to ask what the problem is with this entry.
There may be topics like Darwinism which are controversial to some and obviously political entries will be subject to much heated debate. However, this is true of any encyclopedia attempting to cover current issues.
I have scanned over a number of Wikipedia pages on British history and found them to be reasonably sound and, more importantly, reference a variety of good historians without any noticeable political bias.
There seems to me to be a desire to throw the baby out with the bathwater simply over a small number of controversial entries dealing with current affairs and current scientific debate.
btw the Conservapedia is not for real surely - rafts of rotting vegetation all the way to Australia - for the love of stuff! :ermm:
vidcc
04-02-2007, 07:21 PM
btw the Conservapedia is not for real surely - rafts of rotting vegetation all the way to Australia - for the love of stuff! :ermm:
The founders are serious, they think wiki is a left wing project written by the ghost of chairman mao. much like the fight to ban evolution and place creationism in science classes they are serious. If they can be taken seriously is a different question altogether. However like wiki they have both reasonably solid entries and questionable entries. Conservi isn't as big a project yet as it's still in its infancy.
Wikipedia is huge and has an enormous raft of non-controversial information - for example if one wanted to check up on "adder"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adder
I would like to ask what the problem is with this entry.
I'll bet if you try "subtracter", "divider", and "multiplier" as well that they will add up to "accountant". :)
GepperRankins
04-03-2007, 02:10 AM
btw the Conservapedia is not for real surely - rafts of rotting vegetation all the way to Australia - for the love of stuff! :ermm:
The founders are serious, they think wiki is a left wing project written by the ghost of chairman mao. much like the fight to ban evolution and place creationism in science classes they are serious. If they can be taken seriously is a different question altogether. However like wiki they have both reasonably solid entries and questionable entries. Conservi isn't as big a project yet as it's still in its infancy.
no wai :pinch:
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia founded by Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger on January 15, 2001. It has millions of entries on topics ranging from phrases used by obscure rock bands[1] to arcane British royalty.[2] Its abundant use of gossip attracts many visitors.[3] Content on Wikipedia is controlled by the cumbersome GNU "Free" Documentation License (GFDL) requirements. Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's entries on Wikipedia. Many entries were copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, a public domain resource.
Multilingual Wikipedia home page
Multilingual Wikipedia home page
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, a company that sold pornographic pictures.[4] Since 2003 Wikipedia has been run by the Wikimedia Foundation.
Hillary Clinton's friend, political pundit Dick Morris, declared that she will campaign on the "Mom Strategy." Morris says this "gives her a credible way to tack to the left on the war." [3]
Hillary Clinton did exactly that on the ABC television show "The View" in early 2007. She was asked if being a mom gives "a would-be President kind of an edge up on, say, a male rival?" Hillary replied, "Well, you know, nobody's ever been in a position to ask that question, 'cause we've never had a mother who ever ran for or held that position."
Hillary's claim was false. Ellen McCormack, mother of three daughters and one son, and also a grandmother, ran for President in 1976 on a platform that included opposition to abortion.
[edit]
carlosjavier
04-07-2007, 04:47 AM
I have to say that, at least for me, Wikipedia is more like a very organized fansite with the breadth and depth of an extremely large Encyclopedia. All people have to know is that Wikipedia is, at its essence, maintained by the general public and not specifically by any scholars. That said, it can be just as informative and valuable as any official reference source. As somebody on here said in an earlier post, it's a great tool for introduction to a topic and source of links. People need to always cross-reference their information, anyway.
I have to say that, at least for me, Wikipedia is more like a very organized fansite with the breadth and depth of an extremely large Encyclopedia. All people have to know is that Wikipedia is, at its essence, maintained by the general public and not specifically by any scholars. That said, it can be just as informative and valuable as any official reference source. As somebody on here said in an earlier post, it's a great tool for introduction to a topic and source of links. People need to always cross-reference their information, anyway.
That's about right.
It needs to be seen for what it is, rather than be accorded a status it does not possess.
Busyman™
04-07-2007, 02:41 PM
I have to say that, at least for me, Wikipedia is more like a very organized fansite with the breadth and depth of an extremely large Encyclopedia. All people have to know is that Wikipedia is, at its essence, maintained by the general public and not specifically by any scholars. That said, it can be just as informative and valuable as any official reference source. As somebody on here said in an earlier post, it's a great tool for introduction to a topic and source of links. People need to always cross-reference their information, anyway.
That's about right.
It needs to be seen for what it is, rather than be accorded a status it does not possess.
Mmk what status is that?:huh:
It still is a great resource of information. In fact, I'd say it's the single best resource of information simply due to it's range and reference to links.
I can find info on a football players stat, an obscure video game, a war, a manufacturer, an internet hoax, etc.....and it's all in one spot.
Hell people ask for info on this very forum and folks run with it even without a reference.:ermm: Wiki has references.
vidcc
04-07-2007, 04:38 PM
As with any informational source online one should always cross reference. Before the internet came along we did this in libraries, why should we do any different today. It appears though that kev is singling out wiki (for whatever personal reason) as if someone has suggested it's infallible.
Admittedly people take single source opinions and misrepresentations as fact if that opinion appeals to them. Be it dittoheads that listen to Rush or the lazy student that doesn't want to do his own work.
Wiki is a good source as part of research depending on the subject. Sometimes it will be the most accurate source, sometimes the most unreliable.
Cheese
04-07-2007, 05:24 PM
If surgery was like Wikipedia: Surgipedia. Several surgipedians have gathered in an operation theater. On the table lies an unconscious man whos left leg looks dark. Surgipedian #1 grabs a sheet prepared by the patient's doctor that details the problem.
Surgipedian #1: "Whoa, he's been lying here for 26 hours, we sure got a backlog again. It also says on this that he has a 'claudication' and a 'chronic venous insufficiency' in the left leg", looks at right leg, "and we are asked to do a 'leg segmental arterial doppler ultrasound exam'. Whatever that is. His leg looks pretty good to me".
Surgipedian #2: "You looked at the wrong leg. It says the left one".
Surgipedian #1: "I looked at the left and it's looking totally normal!"
Surgipedian #2: "The left from his point of view! Do you know where your left leg is?"
Surgipedian #3: "No need for shouting, #2, please remember Surgipedia guideline 'Assume Good Faith'. #1 was just trying to be constructive!"
Surgipedian #2: "I was only trying to be constructive, too!"
Surgipedian #3: "Well, let's just get to back to this guy."
Surgipedian #1, feeling securely at the helm again: "I remember something I read once on a website about heart diseases; when your arms or legs turn dark, you got a heart problem".
Surgipedian #3: "Yup, you are right. It's something about the veins in the heart being clogged up."
Surgipedian #2, feeling outdone: "I think it's something about having not enough oxygen in your blood!"
Surgipedian #1: "Can you cite a source for that?"
Surgipedian #2: "My aunt Thelma had something like that and I wrote a paper about it for my biology class at school!"
Surgipedian #3: "Please remember Surgipedia guideline: No Original Research! Let's get back to the man's heart problem! What should we do?"
Surgipedian #1: "I think you need to cut open his ribs and give him a heart massage or clean the veins or something".
Surgipedian #3: "Sounds reasonable. After all, when you get a massage to your back, the blood there flows better as well. I just wrote an article about it".
Surgipedian #2: "Heh, that is original research, too!"
Surgipedian #3: "Several surgipedians agreed on that article to be correct. Are you trying to be a nuisance or do you want to do that man some good?"
Surgipedian #2: "Of course!"
Surgipedian #2: "Then please stay constructive! How do we cut the man's ribs?"
Surgipedian #1: "You need a saw or something."
Surgipedian #3: "A saw? Surgeons use scalpels when they operate. I think you just need to cut a hole and poke your fingers through".
Without further ado, he grabs a scalpel and cuts a hole approximately where the heart is and sticks two fingers through.
Surgipedian #3: "I can't reach the heart, my fingers are not long enough!"
Surgipedian #2: "Then do that thing with the veins!"
Surgipedian #3: "How do you do that?"
Surgipedian #2 "Well, my aunt Thelma finally had something they call a bypass and they cut open the veins, I think".
Surgipedian #3: "But that is orig..., well let's try it. But I will have to push in the scalpel pretty deep to reach the heart. Shall we do it?"
Surgipedian #1, #2: "Support".
Surgipedian #3 remembers Surgipedia guideline "Be Bold!", grabs the scalpel in his fist and swings his arm in preparation of a deep push into the hole, but at that moment a surgeon comes by.
Surgeon: "Stop! What in the world are you doing?"
Surgipedian #3: The man has a problem in his leg and we are going to cut his heart veins open".
Surgeon: "What? All I see is a man with vascular problem in his leg and another that wields a scalpel like a knife. Are you aware that pushing a scalpel into someone's heart will kill that person?"
Surgipedian #1: "We have decided by majority that this is the proper thing to do. Besides, can you prove that pushing a scalpel into someones heart is deadly?"
Surgeon: "You decided by MAJORITY? Are you all nuts?"
Surgipedian #2 feels that there is finally someone besides him to put down: "Please, no personal attacks!"
Surgeon: "I will fucking personal attack you if you endanger someones life!"
Surgipedian #3: "We need to call an admin!"
Surgeon: "Alright, do that, but put that scalpel down!"
An admin comes by.
Admin: "I have heard that a guest is violating Surgipedia rules".
Surgeon: "I am a surgeon and these people are about to kill this man by pushing a knife into his heart!"
Admin: "Reviewing the archived discussion, you are in violation of rules Surgipedia: Assume Good Faith, Surgipedia: Vandalism, Surgipedia: Neutral Point of View, Surgipedia: No Personal Attacks, Surgipedia: Avoid Weasel Words and Surgipedia: Do not disrupt Surgipedia to make a point. You will be blocked from accessing Surgipedia for one week. Please use the time to review
Surgipedia guidelines and rules".
Admin and desperate Surgeon leave.
Surgipedian #3: "Okay, where were we?"
Surgipedian #2: "You were about to cut his heart."
Surgipedian #3: "Yup. I propose that so-called 'surgeon' was just a troll and we should go ahead."
Surgipedian #1 and #2: "Agree".
Surgipedian #3 slams the scalpel into the man's heart, who is dead within moments.
Surgipedian #3: "Why did he die?"
Surgipedian #1: "It's his fault. There was nothing WE did wrong!"
[All guidelines and policies mentioned in this satire do exist in Wikipedia.]
This sounded very well observed. Was this based on personal experience, we wondered? Marco explained -
"Well, I have at one time tried to correct an article on a subject I have pretty deep knowledge about and start a new one, independent, but related to it. The editor who apparently thought he had the ownership of the former, reverted my edits and filed the latter for deletion, claiming it was spam. An admin later restored my work and reprimanded that editor, but this ended my active involvement in Wikipedia; it simply seemed to bothersome to spend time on it."
"However, the continuous news about Wikipedia in the media, its constant appearance in search engine results and the fact that students I have to deal with rely more and more on what Wikipedia tells them prompted me to take a second look, this time especially behind the scenes. And I was amazed by what's happening there; Wikipedia may be the biggest, albeit unwillingly so, experiment on social psychology ever conducted and through the mechanisms involved a threat to correct and verified knowledge. One of your other readers may be right when he claims that Wikipedia is a cult or sect."
"And that's why I took the time to write that piece: Wikipedia sneaks up in just about every search engine result I encounter and permeates students I have to conduct work with with a false sense of knowledge. I have to deal with Wikipedia although I chose not to, and when an ordinary website gets that much power, something is going wrong."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/wikipedia_letters/
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.