Relatively 42: Oh, did you come up with the stipulations for contributing to the existing base of knowledge?
Relatively 42: Yeah, it's pretty good. I can't say I've read enough to evaluate it though
Relatively 42: i think it may be like choke, in that I can't really get much out of small parts, its really the whole that makes it worth anything
securemouse: Something new you can put on wikipedia that will not be changed
Relatively 42: otherwise it just seems...off or something
securemouse: It is a little odd
Relatively 42: That's the only stipulation?
securemouse: Something new you can put on wikipedia that will not be changed in 5 months
Relatively 42: define new, is that as in adding to a current definition or making a new one
Relatively 42: err entry or whatever
Relatively 42: but, theres the off chance that someone will change something in wikipedia to something that's wrong
securemouse: A new entry
Relatively 42: like me just deciding that i want to mess with it
securemouse: Sorry but the wikipedia is the existing bank of knowledge
securemouse: you'll have to deal with it
Relatively 42: I'm not bothered by that, i don't really believe in this concept very much in the first place, so i wouldn't be too picky about it either way, its just the added stipulation of no change in 5 months
Relatively 42: oh, by change, does this also mean that it cant be added to?
securemouse: It can be added to but not contradicted
Relatively 42: and by change, what if someone were to mess with it, and make it wrong, thus being a change,. but it gets fixed back to what it was
securemouse: As long as it isn't you fixing it
Relatively 42: so basically the only stipulation is finding a crack head that would have made something that's on wikipedia, or does he have to have put it there himself?

We had a bet something about crackheads adding to the existing bank of knowledge.