Comments:Wikipedia features Encyclopædia Britannica on its main page

Why don't they merge together? 80.78.230.135 16:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Go Wiki-P!
Welcome, Britannica, to the wrenching displacement already experienced by factory workers, middle managers, technicians and even record companies. The eulogy for contemporary printed information will be delivered in this namespace. What the poor folks at Britannica should do is this: Set up a non-profit organization, set a donation goal that will cover the expenses of all those experts, then pay them to apply that expertise filling in and polishing up Wikipedia articles. Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated. We no longer need king and country, profit and loss, if we just act more like a sentient species. -zaz

Notable?
How is this notable as a news item? It seems like self-aggrandisation to me; boasting that Wikipedia has an article on Britannica featured somehow making it superior.129.96.234.175 04:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "main features of biology"
main features of biology &mdash;124.109.49.122 (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "How was this ever newsworthy?"
How was this ever newsworthy? &mdash;Richard n (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This was before the current review workflow; things worked differently. There was some dissent about newsworthiness at the time. --Pi zero (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)