Cyberlaw: Difficult Issues Winter 2010 - User contributions [en]

Day 7 Thoughts

2011-11-21T15:05:27Z

188.24.4.105: /* Resources */

==ReputationDefender==
While I think some of the things ReputationDefender has done are admirable, I was troubled by the disclosure that the company has signed revenue-share agreements with information aggregators. These companies are often quite controversial (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelius for example). It seems like these revenue share deals could potentially set up the wrong incentives (even if signed with the best intentions), where ReputationDefender's profits are now aligned with profits of information aggregators. I could envision a future where everyone needs to pay "protection money" to companies like Intelius (or intermediaries, like ReputationDefender) in order to preserve their privacy, and that seems like the wrong state to be in. I can't help but wonder whether the solution here is more stringent regulation of information aggregators (mainly just requiring free and easy one-stop opt-out). Consumers don't need to pay to sign up for the national do not call registry, and one could imagine a similar opt-out process for information aggregators. It seems kind of perverse if people feel compelled to *pay* to opt out of things that they did not sign up for to begin with.
:I also wonder how sustainable this is as a business model. Reputation Defender can aggregate money from its clients and share that revenue with information aggregators, but wouldn't insurance companies be able to out spend them? It seems as if the primary purchasers of such information aggregation may be in better financial positions than any aggregator of individual concern about such things. Is it possible that ReputationDefender's market will one day compete with insurance companies and the like for annual revenue? Or, what if a big player like Google (or a Google spin off) decides to enter this space and crush ReputationDefender before it even gets off the runway?

:I agree with the distaste with having to pay protection money, but it seems better to have the option than not to. Regulation would be ideal, but would likely run up against powerful commercial interests. See the power of the insurance industry in the health care debate. Add advertisers and you're looking for trouble.

:I wonder if there are legal issues (antitrust?) with the protection money payments.

==Lifelock==

LifeLock is another consumer "reputation protection" company (more focused on identity fraud) with a pretty interesting business/marketing model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeLock
: However LifeLock has had many many problems, discussed in this article from [http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2008/06/securitymatters_0612 Wired Magazine] including one of the [http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2007/06/11/daily15.html co-founders] having been an identity thief himself, the CEO's identity has been stolen successfully a [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=lifelock+suit number of times], and there is currently a [http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/21/experian-lifelock-update-markets-equity-cx_md_0221-markets32.html pending suit] against the company claiming its business model isn't legal.

: Yeah, LifeLock is definitely controversial. Didn't mean to imply that it was "good", just "interesting" :)

==Opt-Out Programs==

Incidentally I believe that CAN-SPAM requires that opt-out has to be free to the user. CAN-SPAM failed for a lot of reasons, whereas the do-not-call registry has comparatively succeeded--would be interesting to discuss why.

==Transfer of Ownership==

What happens when formerly trustworthy companies get sold? Should the data submitted by users be transferred? This is a very real threat--Friendster and Spock were recently acquired (the latter by Intelius--see http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/29/spock-and-intelius-uh-oh/). Mint.com was also acquired by Intuit, but imagine if they had been acquired by a telemarketing firmâ¦

==Mozilla Privacy Icons==

''We have created an internal page on this wiki for [[Terms of Service Brainstorming|Brainstorming Ideas]] for this project''

I'm still not convinced that there is an actual problem here to solve (or rather, whether the problem is so severe as to require the hammer of a browser icon convention). In some ways I feel like people have already voted with their widespread usage of sites like MySpace, Twitter, Facebook, and Google despite the lack of a privacy icon.

It is worth noting that the icon-in-the-browser-to-signal-privacy already exists in one form today--the "lock" you see when performing credit card transactions over SSL. It'd be interesting to examine the origin of this convention. I'd argue that in this case there *was* an actual problem to solve (and that users probably would not submit credit card information without the lock, so that users and businesses had a strong incentive to come up with a convention--adding the lock increases conversion rates).

==Resources==
*[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25352 Wikipedia Timeline]
*[http://mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia Scandals]
*[http://www.piesedindezmembrari.ro/ Dezmembrari auto]
*[http://www.jocurionline247.net/ Jocuri Online]
*[http://www.websitelooker.com/ website value]
*[http://www.smilo.ro/ Usi garaj]

Day 7 Thoughts

2011-11-21T15:04:35Z

188.24.4.105: /* Mozilla Privacy Icons */

==ReputationDefender==
While I think some of the things ReputationDefender has done are admirable, I was troubled by the disclosure that the company has signed revenue-share agreements with information aggregators. These companies are often quite controversial (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelius for example). It seems like these revenue share deals could potentially set up the wrong incentives (even if signed with the best intentions), where ReputationDefender's profits are now aligned with profits of information aggregators. I could envision a future where everyone needs to pay "protection money" to companies like Intelius (or intermediaries, like ReputationDefender) in order to preserve their privacy, and that seems like the wrong state to be in. I can't help but wonder whether the solution here is more stringent regulation of information aggregators (mainly just requiring free and easy one-stop opt-out). Consumers don't need to pay to sign up for the national do not call registry, and one could imagine a similar opt-out process for information aggregators. It seems kind of perverse if people feel compelled to *pay* to opt out of things that they did not sign up for to begin with.
:I also wonder how sustainable this is as a business model. Reputation Defender can aggregate money from its clients and share that revenue with information aggregators, but wouldn't insurance companies be able to out spend them? It seems as if the primary purchasers of such information aggregation may be in better financial positions than any aggregator of individual concern about such things. Is it possible that ReputationDefender's market will one day compete with insurance companies and the like for annual revenue? Or, what if a big player like Google (or a Google spin off) decides to enter this space and crush ReputationDefender before it even gets off the runway?

:I agree with the distaste with having to pay protection money, but it seems better to have the option than not to. Regulation would be ideal, but would likely run up against powerful commercial interests. See the power of the insurance industry in the health care debate. Add advertisers and you're looking for trouble.

:I wonder if there are legal issues (antitrust?) with the protection money payments.

==Lifelock==

LifeLock is another consumer "reputation protection" company (more focused on identity fraud) with a pretty interesting business/marketing model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeLock
: However LifeLock has had many many problems, discussed in this article from [http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2008/06/securitymatters_0612 Wired Magazine] including one of the [http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2007/06/11/daily15.html co-founders] having been an identity thief himself, the CEO's identity has been stolen successfully a [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=lifelock+suit number of times], and there is currently a [http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/21/experian-lifelock-update-markets-equity-cx_md_0221-markets32.html pending suit] against the company claiming its business model isn't legal.

: Yeah, LifeLock is definitely controversial. Didn't mean to imply that it was "good", just "interesting" :)

==Opt-Out Programs==

Incidentally I believe that CAN-SPAM requires that opt-out has to be free to the user. CAN-SPAM failed for a lot of reasons, whereas the do-not-call registry has comparatively succeeded--would be interesting to discuss why.

==Transfer of Ownership==

What happens when formerly trustworthy companies get sold? Should the data submitted by users be transferred? This is a very real threat--Friendster and Spock were recently acquired (the latter by Intelius--see http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/29/spock-and-intelius-uh-oh/). Mint.com was also acquired by Intuit, but imagine if they had been acquired by a telemarketing firmâ¦

==Mozilla Privacy Icons==

''We have created an internal page on this wiki for [[Terms of Service Brainstorming|Brainstorming Ideas]] for this project''

I'm still not convinced that there is an actual problem here to solve (or rather, whether the problem is so severe as to require the hammer of a browser icon convention). In some ways I feel like people have already voted with their widespread usage of sites like MySpace, Twitter, Facebook, and Google despite the lack of a privacy icon.

It is worth noting that the icon-in-the-browser-to-signal-privacy already exists in one form today--the "lock" you see when performing credit card transactions over SSL. It'd be interesting to examine the origin of this convention. I'd argue that in this case there *was* an actual problem to solve (and that users probably would not submit credit card information without the lock, so that users and businesses had a strong incentive to come up with a convention--adding the lock increases conversion rates).

==Resources==
*[http://www.piesedindezmembrari.ro/ Dezmembrari auto]
*[http://www.jocurionline247.net/ Jocuri Online]
*[http://www.websitelooker.com/ website value]
*[http://www.smilo.ro/ Usi garaj]

Talk:Future of Wikipedia

2011-11-21T14:52:12Z

188.24.4.105: /* Resources */

'''Meta info:'''

We welcome external participation in our wiki. We are already grateful for the contributions people have been doing especially in the sorts of problems Wikipedia is facing. We have been reading some of [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28144 the comments some people are making about our course] and we would like to have everybody's help giving feedback on some of the ideas we had to address the problems listed.

Our first challenge is to pick a manageable set of problems to work. If we don't focus we run the risk of not achieving anything by trying to solve too many issues. Tonight and tomorrow we'll be posting our ideas of what issues we'd like to tackle and what the potential solutions would look like. Your feedback here would be more than welcome.

==Final list of Problems for the Group==

We'll focus on these two problems:

* Quality and reliability of content (e.g. factual errors on Wikipedia lowers the reliability and credibility of its content)

* Wikipedia's editor base is decreasing (existing editors are losing interest and it is difficult to recruit new editors)

These are ''legal'' problems??? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 18:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The aim of the course was never to tackle only ''legal'' problems. On the contrary, we were always stimulated to address general problems regardless of their field. I realize this was not clear for outside participants, because a lot of this was discussed in class and not on the wiki. [[User:Brunomagrani|Brunomagrani]] 04:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that many of us outside observers understood "cyberlaw" in a very broad sense, something like "the impact of distributive information technology on society", but — again, purely from a distance — it seemed that most of the activity revolved around "patches for apps", that is, more ''cyber'' than ''law''. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 05:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

==Background on Wikipedia==

Wikipedia was formally launched on January 15, 2001, by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger.<ref name="History of Wikipedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia],History of Wikipedia.</ref> It represented a new development in the collaborative, web-based creation of bodies of knowledge. Initially it was a complement to the expert-written encyclopedia project âNupedia,â<ref name="Nupedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia], Wikipedia Entry on Nupedia.</ref> in order to provide an additional source of articles. Wikipedia soon outpaced Nupedia and grew to be arguably the most successful example of collaborative content creation. Today Wikipedia boasts that it contains several million articles and pages in hundreds of languages worldwide contributed by millions of users.

Wikipedia is arguably the most successful online collaboration but it is not the first. One early predecessor was Interpedia, initiated in 1993,<ref name="Interpedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpedia], Wikipedia Entry on Interpedia</ref> although the project never fully left the planning stages.<ref name="Joseph Reagle Article on Interpedia & Wikipedia Background">[http://reagle.org/joseph/2005/historical/digital-works.html#heading5], Joseph Reagle Article on Interpedia & Wikipedia Background.</ref> Free Software Foundationâs Richard Stallman described the need for a free universal encyclopedia in 1999, although the Free Software Foundation didnât launch its GNUPedia to compete with Nupedia until January 17, 2001, two days after the start of Wikipedia.<ref name="The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource">[http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/free-encyclopedia.html],The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource.</ref> And Wikipedia itself grew out of Nupedia, an online collaborative encyclopedia. On January 10, 2001, Wales and Sanger created the first Nupedia wiki, but reputedly Nupediaâs expert volunteers did not want to participate, so Wikipedia was established as a separate site.<ref name="History of Wikipedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia], History of Wikipedia.</ref> Wikipediaâs vision: ''Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Thatâs our commitment.''<ref name="Wikimedia Foundation">[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home], Wikimedia Foundation</ref>

===NO.... Growth of Wikipedia===

The growth of Wikipedia depended on the contribution of numerous lay users, a departure from the Nupedia tradition of using expert contributors. Nupedia was founded upon the use of highly qualified expert contributors and a multi-step peer review process, but despite its interested editors, the process was slow, and only 12 articles were written in the first year.<ref name="Early History of Nupedia">[http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213&tid=95&tid=149&tid=9], The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir - Part I" and "Part II", Slashdot, April 2005.</ref> Wikipedia, in contrast, generated over 1,000 articles in its first month of operation and over 20,000 articles in its first yearâa rate of 1,500 articles per month.<ref name="History of Wikipedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia], History of Wikipedia.</ref> In March, 2001, Wikipedia expanded into multilingual sites, beginning the development of Wikipedias for all major languages.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-March/000049.html</ref>

===Wikimedia===

Initially, Wikipedia was managed by Bomis, a commercial web portal headed by Jimmy Wales. In March 2002, during the dot-com bust, Bomis withdrew funding for Wikipedia.<ref name="Schiff, Stacy">[http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact].(July 31, 2006). Schiff, Stacy. "Know It All". The New Yorker.</ref> At that time, Larry Sanger left both Nupedia and Wikipedia. He returned briefly to academia, then joined the Digital Universe Foundation and founded Citizendium, an alternative open encyclopedia that uses real names for contributors to discourage vandalism and expert guidance to ensure accuracy of information.<ref name="Anderson, Nate">[http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars], Anderson, Nate (February 25, 2007). "Citizendium: building a better Wikipedia". Ars Technica.</ref>

Meanwhile, after substantial consultation with Alex Roshuk, Jimmy Wales created the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), a non-profit charitable organization headquartered in St. Petersburg, FL, later moved to San Francisco, CA.<ref name="Wikimedia Foundation">[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home], Wikimedia Foundation.</ref> Announced on June 20, 2003, the WMF serves as an umbrella body that includes several other types of wiki collaborative information sharing sites:

* Wikipedia
* [http://www.wiktionary.org/ Wiktionary]
* [http://www.wikiquote.org/ Wikiquote]
* [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikibooks] (including [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior Wikijunior])
* [http://wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikisource]
* [http://commons.wikimedia.org/ Wikimedia Commons]
* [http://species.wikimedia.org/ Wikispecies]
* [http://en.wikinews.org/ Wikinews]
* [http://en.wikiversity.org/ Wikiversity]
* [http://incubator.wikimedia.org/ Wikimedia Incubator]
* [http://meta.wikimedia.org/ Meta-Wiki]

The foundation's by-laws declare a statement of purpose of collecting and developing educational content and to disseminate it effectively and globally.<ref name="Wikimedia Foundation bylaws">[http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws&oldid=20641#ARTICLE_II_-_STATEMENT_OF_PURPOSE], Wikimedia Foundation bylaws. Archived from the original on 2007-04-20.</ref> Wikimedia is managed by a Board of Trustees. The Foundation and a team of local volunteers also organize [http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Portal Wikimania] every year, a conference for users of the Wikimedia Foundation projects.

==Academic Studies of Wikipedia==

Academic studies of Wikipedia have mainly used Wikipedia as a tool to analyze other phenomena. The users on Wikipedia provide a large database of subjects which the researchers use to test their hypotheses or as a social network which can be manipulated and observed. The majority of studies focus on either semantic relatedness<ref>M Strube et al,[http://www.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/2006/AAAI06-223.pdf WikiRelate!], Computer Semantic Relatedness Using Wikipedia, Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2006)</ref><ref>E Gabrilovich et al, [http://www.aaai.org/Papers/IJCAI/2007/IJCAI07-259.pdf Computing Semantic Relatedness Using Wikipedia-Based Explicit Semantic Analysis](2007)</ref><ref>Zesch et al, Analyzing and Accessing WIkipedia as a Lexical Semantic Resource, Data Structures for Linguistic Resources (2007).</ref> or online coordination and conflict resolution techniques.<ref name="Coordination">Viegas et al, [[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.84.6907&rep=rep1&type=pdf Talk Before You Type: Coordination in Wikipedia], Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2007)</ref><ref name ="Kittur">Kittur et al, [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1240624.1240698 He Says, She Says; Conflict and Coordination in Wikipedia], Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Computing (2007)</ref><ref name="Wilkonson">D Wilkonson & B Huberman, [http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0702140 Assessing the Value of Cooperation in Wikipedia, Computers and Society], arXiv:cs/0702140v1 [cs.DL] (2007).</ref>

There is a persistent and widespread failure of academic studies to address the realities of Wikipedia, as opposed to the wishful pipe-dreams of armchair speculators and the uncritical recycling of Wikipedian promotional claims. There is a pressing need for the application of disciplined field study methods and qualitative research based on systematic participant observation.

==Academic Reflections on Wikipedia==

* Cummings, Robert E. (12 Mar 2009), "Are We Ready to Use Wikipedia to Teach Writing?", ''Inside Higher Ed''. [http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/03/12/cummings Online].

* Jaschik, Scott (26 Jan 2007), "A Stand Against Wikipedia", ''Inside Higher Ed''. [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki Online].

* Lih, Andrew (16 Dec 2009), "Ron Livingston, Growth, and Wikipedia". [http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2009/12/16/ron-livingston-growth-and-wikipedia/ Online].

* Matetsky, Ira (May 2009), "Thoughts on Wikipedia", ''The Volokh Conspiracy''. [http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1242098183.shtml Online].

* Schumacher, Mary Louise (30 Apr 2009), "Deconstructing Wikipedia", ''Milwaukee Journal Sentinel''. [http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/entertainment/44035017.html Online].

* Wilson, Mark A. (01 Apr 2008), "Professors Should Embrace Wikipedia", ''Inside Higher Ed''. [http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2008/04/01/wilson Online].

Free Hentai Movies - hentaiblog.org

==Lay Questions for Scholars Concerned with the Role of Law in Society==

The Law of any given Land is frequently out of sync — now leading, now lagging — the collective common sense of what it takes to constitute a just society. With that in mind, let us address the questions of justification:

# What is and what should be the obligations of interactive media site owners and interactive media site participants toward their fellow citizens, toward the larger communities of inquiry from which they derive their justification, and toward the world at large?
# It is possible to debate the current dictates of the Law at great length — this has already been done at great length and will no doubt continue to be done at even greater length. But the ordinary citizen in danger of becoming roadkill on the Internet Autobahn will be concerned with the broader horizon, longer haul issues of where the Law is bound to go if it is designed to achieve and maintain a just society.

===Freedom of Speech, False Witness, Truth in Advertising===

===Legal and Social Justification for Tax Incentives===

===Unsafe @ Any Speed?===

* Need to consider the very real possibility that Wikipedia is an inherently defective social-technical product that cannot be fixed by any means even remotely feasible given the present conditions of its existence.
* Technical infrastructure needs to be improved

===Critical Reflective Self-Study and Institutional Research?===

* The difficulties, if not impossibilities, of continuous quality improvement in a system that is hostile to critical feedback and resistant to the principles of learning organizations. It would be possible to make a very long list of previous efforts along these lines that have been aborted or gutted by the prevailing dynamics of the Wikipedian subculture.

* If crowdsourcing is so great, why does the Wikimedia Foundation need to hire professional strategic planning ''cum'' public representation agencies like the Bridgespan Group to do its institutional research?

=== The Laborious Way That Decisions Are Made? ===

* Process vs. Substance

=== Newbies? Editing Interface ===

:* Is maintaining a higher complexity level in the editing interface a mechanism for quality control? (e.g. users needs to be at least nominally computer literate to be able to edit/operate within wikipedia)
:* Breaking through the glass ceiling - how can newbies be encouraged to contribute?

=== Online harassment or defamation problem in Wikipedia? ===

* Ron LIvingston v. Mark Binmore
* Star Wars Kid
* ReputationDefender
** Maybe this is not a problem of Wikipedia, this is a problem in the internet generally

=== Getting Educational Institutions to Explicitly Participate ===

* Partnership Program w/ Schools-Teachers?
*:Need to identify what benefits, if any, would accrue to teachers, students, or Wikipedia by such a partnership.
*:: zing! [http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/03/12/cummings Are We Ready to Use Wikipedia to Teach Writing?]
::: [http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/03/12/cummings#Comments Just be sure to read all the comments, too].
::: From the standpoint of the purpose identified in the Cummings blogicle, I question whether teaching students how to succeed in Wikipedia's dysfunctional rhetorical environment, or learning Wikipedia's preferred style of authorship, which is difficult to distinguish from organized, sanctioned plagiarism, is of any benefit to students or to teachers. Wikipedia also has a tendency to be resistant to such efforts; I recall several instances of students having been assigned to edit Wikipedia and subsequently being blocked on the grounds that their assignment created a "conflict of interest" (a term of art within Wikipedia's idiosyncratic jargon which means something other than what an ordinary person would think it means). [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] 17:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
*:: so "Partnership" was thrown around incredibly loosely
* Getting students to flag hotspots (see flagging proposal)
* Getting students to learn about how projects like Wikipedia work
*: A proper study of how Wikipedia works, and more importantly how Wikipedia fails, could possibly be of interest for students in social psychology, abnormal psychology, political science, marketing, and other related fields. Marketing people, especially, should be very interested in learning how to exploit Wikipedia more effectively. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] 17:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
** Clarifying how '''not''' to use Wikipedia
** Addressing institutions' views on sources, primary and secondary
** Addressing Wikipedian's concerns on newbies
**: A recent attempt at a quality control study (the "NEWT project") on the treatment of editors perceived to be newbies by managers of Wikipedia's speedy deletion process was met with strong disapproval by the community. Wikipedia's community actively resists efforts, either internal or external, to examine its internal processes and behaviors, except when the purpose is clearly structured from the beginning to be adulatory.
* Keeping in mind all of this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_and_universities_project Wikipedia school and university projects]

== Using Wikipedia references within your article ==

Hi,

I am an [[Wikipedia:User:Prashanthns|editor at the english wikipedia]] as well as on commons. Appreciate your initiative. Was just wondering whether you should not use references to wikipedia articles. After all, the pedia being a work in progress cannot be a reference for the future of wikipedia article. At least for me, it creates a 'philosophical problem' if both the future of wikipedia and the pedia itself are both editable. :)[[Special:Contributions/219.64.70.28|219.64.70.28]] 10:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

==Resources==

* [http://akahele.org/ Akahele]
* [http://www.invisibledetector.net/ Yahoo Detector]
* [http://www.turbosuflanta.com/ Turbosuflanta]
* [http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/ Augmented Social Cognition Blog]
* [http://websitelooker.com/ WebSite Value]
* [http://www.piesedindezmembrari.ro/ Dezmembrari auto]
* [http://www.smilo.ro/ Usi garaj Cluj]
* The Wikipedia Review : [http://wikipediareview.com/ Forum], [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/ Op-Ed Blog]
* [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25352 Wikipedia Timeline]
* [http://mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia Scandals]
* [http://mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism Wikipedia Vandalism]

==References==
<references/>

== brides russian ==

I want to thank you for this post. This information was very helpful.Please keep up the good work and I look forward to more of your great posts!