Talk:185: Wikifriends
I thought this was a reference to the WikiFriends group who defend WikiLeaks. I figured it was about intimidation. 184.66.160.91 02:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
That's impossible. The comic came out before Wikileaks even existed.120.148.234.14 22:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, Wikileaks launched a month before the comic's publication date, if the above is accurate. Surely you guys remember them leaking the Bush administration's war crimes within the next year or so. โKazvorpal (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I have a completely different understanding of this comic than what's in the explanation here. Wiki is a site where anyone can change content and it's instantly visible - I think Randall meant that wikifriends are wiki because anyone can change their opinion on movies because they instantly adapt what others say. 141.101.89.217 14:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
To me wikifriends were the kind of people that never start a edit war with you: Many scientists that add original research to Wikipedia immediately get followed by Wikipedia s that "have a different opinion here". Several of my friends stopped contributing to Wikipedia after such incidences and they say it is one of the factors that limits Wikipedia 's growth.--Gunterkoenigsmann (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Man, I thought I was the only one. I had no idea that other people experienced the same thing that I do; guess it's nice to see that I'm not alone in this boat. Thankfully, I've noticed the effect is reversible; I listened to a review of Demondice's discography in which the reviewer paused every 5 seconds to ridicule the music; in addition, my friend was nearby lambasting it all the time too. Naturally, I thought it was horrible. But when I gave it a chance on its own, with no friends around or a reviewer muttering obscenities in my ear, it really didn't sound as bad as they made it out to be. Pie Guy (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2024
