Forum:
Ok so cus I'm a huge fucking nerd I made my first Wikipedia page in like 2 years:
Draft:The Web Revival
SpaceHey, one of the largest web revival sites.
The Web Revival is an online social movement started in the late 2010s, early 2020s, which aims to restore the internet to a state more reminiscent of the 2000s.[1] This may be done by the creation of new websites, which borrow the styles of earlier web design; the replication of old websites, which have been terminated or changed greatly; or simply a change in mindset from using large corporate sites, to smaller, independent ones, which further promote creativity.[2]
The movement is lead not just by nostalgia, but the following main ideologies:
- The importance of creativity
- The distaste of corporatism
- The idea that content on the internet must be created simply for fun, rather than an attempt for money and/or attention[3]
References
[edit source]- ^ "Intro to the Web Revival #1: What is the Web Revival?"
- ^ "The Great Web 1.0 Revival"
- ^ "MelonLand Wiki"
AND IT GOT FUCKING DECLINED!!!!! I'm so pissed. Apparently it's cus "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." blah blah blah. I mean I've made pages that where referenced poorer that this but wtv. This is the edited version I sent for re-conformation. The guy was super quick to decline, literally like a couple minutes, but re-submitted like 2 hours ago so.... I'm waiting............... 0⩊0
Ok so I wrote that about 5 hours ago, and...
UPDATE!!!!!
Ok so the second draft with "better" citations was also declined T_T
I absolutely ROASTED him (in the most hilariously formal tone possible) and explained why he's dumb and stupid and retarded and dumb. A N Y W A Y I do really want to get the article published. I'll get back at it tomorrow.
Ok so the second draft with "better" citations was also declined T_T
I absolutely ROASTED him (in the most hilariously formal tone possible) and explained why he's dumb and stupid and retarded and dumb. A N Y W A Y I do really want to get the article published. I'll get back at it tomorrow.
Anyway here's what I responded╭∩╮(❀◑‿‿◑)╭∩╮
I strongly disagree. In fact in my personal (and in all fairness perhaps not entirely educated) opinion, I would argue the Gizmodo is the least reliable for the subject at hand, and specifically the fact it's a human movement, not a literal fact. Thus it's the speaking of the people who are directly involved in the movement that mater, not some source (which is in fact tertiary) simply giving it's take on it. It's not some small village which has a location, and population, and places and things, which need factual, reliable sources. However I will try my best to find more credited citations.
Report Topic
Permalink
