<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_27_212221</id>
	<title>German Wikipedia Passes One Million Article Mark</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1261905420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>saibot834 writes <i>"The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German\_Wikipedia">German Wikipedia</a>, the second largest language edition behind the English Wikipedia, just reached its <a href="http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate\_url?doit=done&amp;tt=url&amp;intl=1&amp;fr=bf-home&amp;trurl=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fde.wikipedia.org\%2Fwiki\%2FWikipedia\%3AMeilensteine\%3Fuselang\%3Den&amp;lp=de\_en&amp;btnTrUrl=Translate">1,000,000 article milestone</a>. Combined with 3.1M English articles and 240 other language editions, this adds up to a total of 14 million Wikipedia articles. Interestingly, there is a <a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L\%C3\%B6schkandidaten/27.\_Dezember\_2009#Ernie\_Wasson">request for deletion</a> on the <a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie\_Wasson">millionth article</a>. German Wikipedia has been <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia\_Signpost/2009-11-09/German\_controversy">criticized for its rules on notability</a>, which are stricter than on the English Wikipedia. Quality though, is often considered to be higher on the German Wikipedia."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>saibot834 writes " The German Wikipedia , the second largest language edition behind the English Wikipedia , just reached its 1,000,000 article milestone .
Combined with 3.1M English articles and 240 other language editions , this adds up to a total of 14 million Wikipedia articles .
Interestingly , there is a request for deletion on the millionth article .
German Wikipedia has been criticized for its rules on notability , which are stricter than on the English Wikipedia .
Quality though , is often considered to be higher on the German Wikipedia .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>saibot834 writes "The German Wikipedia, the second largest language edition behind the English Wikipedia, just reached its 1,000,000 article milestone.
Combined with 3.1M English articles and 240 other language editions, this adds up to a total of 14 million Wikipedia articles.
Interestingly, there is a request for deletion on the millionth article.
German Wikipedia has been criticized for its rules on notability, which are stricter than on the English Wikipedia.
Quality though, is often considered to be higher on the German Wikipedia.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566288</id>
	<title>Re:Citation Needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261914660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Quality though, is often considered to be higher on the German Wikipedia</p></div><p>Citation Needed</p></div><p>[Citation Needed]</p><p>P.S.: Would you believe any shit out there, as soon as someone finds someone else stating it to be true? Wikipedia does. And that&rsquo;s why I will never ever trust Wikipedia for anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quality though , is often considered to be higher on the German WikipediaCitation Needed [ Citation Needed ] P.S .
: Would you believe any shit out there , as soon as someone finds someone else stating it to be true ?
Wikipedia does .
And that    s why I will never ever trust Wikipedia for anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quality though, is often considered to be higher on the German WikipediaCitation Needed[Citation Needed]P.S.
: Would you believe any shit out there, as soon as someone finds someone else stating it to be true?
Wikipedia does.
And that’s why I will never ever trust Wikipedia for anything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30570434</id>
	<title>the different wikipedias</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1262011740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>every wikipedia can have somewhat different rules, seems, and the german one is taken over by the deletionism party and the anti-stubs party.  If you create new articles in the German wikipedia, odds are that these articles will be removed prior to then to grow enough to have enough citations, notability, etc..  IMHO, the people that drive this style don't "GET" the idea of a wiki. But maybe is me, sure... is me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>every wikipedia can have somewhat different rules , seems , and the german one is taken over by the deletionism party and the anti-stubs party .
If you create new articles in the German wikipedia , odds are that these articles will be removed prior to then to grow enough to have enough citations , notability , etc.. IMHO , the people that drive this style do n't " GET " the idea of a wiki .
But maybe is me , sure... is me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>every wikipedia can have somewhat different rules, seems, and the german one is taken over by the deletionism party and the anti-stubs party.
If you create new articles in the German wikipedia, odds are that these articles will be removed prior to then to grow enough to have enough citations, notability, etc..  IMHO, the people that drive this style don't "GET" the idea of a wiki.
But maybe is me, sure... is me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567786</id>
	<title>Contrary experiences</title>
	<author>saibot834</author>
	<datestamp>1261928340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's interesting, my experience is completely contrary. I'm a very active Wikipedia contributor and read many English and German articles. My personal impression (and this view is shared by many fellow Wikipedians) is that the coverage of subjects (e.g. chances to find an article about a certain subject) is better on the English Wikipedia, while quality often is better on German Wikipedia.</p><p>Unfortunately there is no scientific study (I am aware of) which directly compares German to English Wikipedia in aspects of quality. However, comparisons with other German encyclopedias have been generally supportive of the German Wikipedia (in tests it "won" against Microsoft Encarta and the highly-reputable encyclopedia by Brockhaus). Also, the German Wikipedia was the first one to use <a href="http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Flagged\_Revisions" title="wikimedia.org">Flagged Revisions</a> [wikimedia.org], a software feature that makes sure every edit is reviewed by an experienced user. Beside that, the German Wikimedia chapter "Wikimedia Deutschland" has done much to facilitate quality improvements (e.g. the <a href="http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate\_url?doit=done&amp;tt=url&amp;intl=1&amp;fr=bf-home&amp;trurl=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwikimedia.de\%2Findex.php\%3Fid\%3D83&amp;lp=de\_en&amp;btnTrUrl=Translate" title="yahoo.com">Zedler medal</a> [yahoo.com] for outstandingly good articles; or Wikipedia Academy, an attempt to attract academics as Wikipedia contributors). Although there is no explicit prove, there are many indicators that the German Wikipedia often has articles of higher quality or at least tries to focus more on quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's interesting , my experience is completely contrary .
I 'm a very active Wikipedia contributor and read many English and German articles .
My personal impression ( and this view is shared by many fellow Wikipedians ) is that the coverage of subjects ( e.g .
chances to find an article about a certain subject ) is better on the English Wikipedia , while quality often is better on German Wikipedia.Unfortunately there is no scientific study ( I am aware of ) which directly compares German to English Wikipedia in aspects of quality .
However , comparisons with other German encyclopedias have been generally supportive of the German Wikipedia ( in tests it " won " against Microsoft Encarta and the highly-reputable encyclopedia by Brockhaus ) .
Also , the German Wikipedia was the first one to use Flagged Revisions [ wikimedia.org ] , a software feature that makes sure every edit is reviewed by an experienced user .
Beside that , the German Wikimedia chapter " Wikimedia Deutschland " has done much to facilitate quality improvements ( e.g .
the Zedler medal [ yahoo.com ] for outstandingly good articles ; or Wikipedia Academy , an attempt to attract academics as Wikipedia contributors ) .
Although there is no explicit prove , there are many indicators that the German Wikipedia often has articles of higher quality or at least tries to focus more on quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's interesting, my experience is completely contrary.
I'm a very active Wikipedia contributor and read many English and German articles.
My personal impression (and this view is shared by many fellow Wikipedians) is that the coverage of subjects (e.g.
chances to find an article about a certain subject) is better on the English Wikipedia, while quality often is better on German Wikipedia.Unfortunately there is no scientific study (I am aware of) which directly compares German to English Wikipedia in aspects of quality.
However, comparisons with other German encyclopedias have been generally supportive of the German Wikipedia (in tests it "won" against Microsoft Encarta and the highly-reputable encyclopedia by Brockhaus).
Also, the German Wikipedia was the first one to use Flagged Revisions [wikimedia.org], a software feature that makes sure every edit is reviewed by an experienced user.
Beside that, the German Wikimedia chapter "Wikimedia Deutschland" has done much to facilitate quality improvements (e.g.
the Zedler medal [yahoo.com] for outstandingly good articles; or Wikipedia Academy, an attempt to attract academics as Wikipedia contributors).
Although there is no explicit prove, there are many indicators that the German Wikipedia often has articles of higher quality or at least tries to focus more on quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566104</id>
	<title>shouldn't that be one million article Euro?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261913100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They got rid of the Mark ages ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They got rid of the Mark ages ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They got rid of the Mark ages ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567254</id>
	<title>The opposite risk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261923180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well that's pretty much understandable that people like you are afraid that Wikipedia could get destroyed by idiotic editors with an agenda.</p><p>On the other hand, some rules are still needed to avoid wikipedia being filled with extremely detailed articles written by &#252;ber-nerds and containing complete commentary on every 5minute slice of every Star-Trek episode. Or completely fabricated articles written by maniac zealot trying to push their vision of reality/science/conspiracy theories. Or politically motivated article by people trying to bend and rewrite the "truth" in their own advantage.</p><p>We have to find a middle ground between the tendency of editor-dictatorship and complete mess/chaos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that 's pretty much understandable that people like you are afraid that Wikipedia could get destroyed by idiotic editors with an agenda.On the other hand , some rules are still needed to avoid wikipedia being filled with extremely detailed articles written by   ber-nerds and containing complete commentary on every 5minute slice of every Star-Trek episode .
Or completely fabricated articles written by maniac zealot trying to push their vision of reality/science/conspiracy theories .
Or politically motivated article by people trying to bend and rewrite the " truth " in their own advantage.We have to find a middle ground between the tendency of editor-dictatorship and complete mess/chaos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that's pretty much understandable that people like you are afraid that Wikipedia could get destroyed by idiotic editors with an agenda.On the other hand, some rules are still needed to avoid wikipedia being filled with extremely detailed articles written by über-nerds and containing complete commentary on every 5minute slice of every Star-Trek episode.
Or completely fabricated articles written by maniac zealot trying to push their vision of reality/science/conspiracy theories.
Or politically motivated article by people trying to bend and rewrite the "truth" in their own advantage.We have to find a middle ground between the tendency of editor-dictatorship and complete mess/chaos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566082</id>
	<title>Re:Stricter Rules?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261912860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or "Jimmy Wales". I stopped adding to the English wiki due to his plastering of his face all over everyone's achievements. The man is a jackass (seriously, take half an hour to read about him).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or " Jimmy Wales " .
I stopped adding to the English wiki due to his plastering of his face all over everyone 's achievements .
The man is a jackass ( seriously , take half an hour to read about him ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or "Jimmy Wales".
I stopped adding to the English wiki due to his plastering of his face all over everyone's achievements.
The man is a jackass (seriously, take half an hour to read about him).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567486</id>
	<title>Re:The opposite risk</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1261925280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>On the other hand, some rules are still needed to avoid wikipedia being filled with extremely detailed articles written by &#252;ber-nerds and containing complete commentary on every 5minute slice of every Star-Trek episode. Or completely fabricated articles written by maniac zealot trying to push their vision of reality/science/conspiracy theories. Or politically motivated article by people trying to bend and rewrite the "truth" in their own advantage.</i></p><p>Why shouldn't it have that stuff?</p><p><i>We have to find a middle ground between the tendency of editor-dictatorship and complete mess/chaos.</i></p><p>There are tons of good potential middle grounds, but God knows Wikipedia hasn't done shit to implement any of them. It hasn't changed at all, in fact, in years and years-- leading me to believe they don't care about improving the project at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , some rules are still needed to avoid wikipedia being filled with extremely detailed articles written by   ber-nerds and containing complete commentary on every 5minute slice of every Star-Trek episode .
Or completely fabricated articles written by maniac zealot trying to push their vision of reality/science/conspiracy theories .
Or politically motivated article by people trying to bend and rewrite the " truth " in their own advantage.Why should n't it have that stuff ? We have to find a middle ground between the tendency of editor-dictatorship and complete mess/chaos.There are tons of good potential middle grounds , but God knows Wikipedia has n't done shit to implement any of them .
It has n't changed at all , in fact , in years and years-- leading me to believe they do n't care about improving the project at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, some rules are still needed to avoid wikipedia being filled with extremely detailed articles written by über-nerds and containing complete commentary on every 5minute slice of every Star-Trek episode.
Or completely fabricated articles written by maniac zealot trying to push their vision of reality/science/conspiracy theories.
Or politically motivated article by people trying to bend and rewrite the "truth" in their own advantage.Why shouldn't it have that stuff?We have to find a middle ground between the tendency of editor-dictatorship and complete mess/chaos.There are tons of good potential middle grounds, but God knows Wikipedia hasn't done shit to implement any of them.
It hasn't changed at all, in fact, in years and years-- leading me to believe they don't care about improving the project at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567542</id>
	<title>Re:the English one is bad enough</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1261925820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with you about notability, for the most part.  The original intention of the rule was to get rid of completely pointless articles written by college students about the guys across the hall, and that sort of nonsense.  And that's all well and good.  But sometimes it's applied too strictly.  Breadth of coverage is Wikipedia's greatest strength.  Excessively strict notability rules harm that.<br><br>The "citation needed" rule has also been applied far too pervasively.  Citations *are* needed, but a typical article should have ten or twenty of them, not fifty or a hundred, and there is absolutely no reason to have citations on basic information that anyone educated in the relevant field would be expected to know.  When the article says "rap is a style of music that arose in the second half of the twentieth century", there is no need for a citation on that.<br><br>However, I feel the opposite way about the original research rule.  That one needs to be enforced more consistently.  There are entire articles that are nothing more than the random musings of a couple of editors, with no meaningful citations at all.  Occasionally such articles have even been featured on the front page (e.g., the Terraforming of Mars article).  Such articles ought to be deleted so that a proper article on the topic can be created without bumping into namespace collisions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you about notability , for the most part .
The original intention of the rule was to get rid of completely pointless articles written by college students about the guys across the hall , and that sort of nonsense .
And that 's all well and good .
But sometimes it 's applied too strictly .
Breadth of coverage is Wikipedia 's greatest strength .
Excessively strict notability rules harm that.The " citation needed " rule has also been applied far too pervasively .
Citations * are * needed , but a typical article should have ten or twenty of them , not fifty or a hundred , and there is absolutely no reason to have citations on basic information that anyone educated in the relevant field would be expected to know .
When the article says " rap is a style of music that arose in the second half of the twentieth century " , there is no need for a citation on that.However , I feel the opposite way about the original research rule .
That one needs to be enforced more consistently .
There are entire articles that are nothing more than the random musings of a couple of editors , with no meaningful citations at all .
Occasionally such articles have even been featured on the front page ( e.g. , the Terraforming of Mars article ) .
Such articles ought to be deleted so that a proper article on the topic can be created without bumping into namespace collisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you about notability, for the most part.
The original intention of the rule was to get rid of completely pointless articles written by college students about the guys across the hall, and that sort of nonsense.
And that's all well and good.
But sometimes it's applied too strictly.
Breadth of coverage is Wikipedia's greatest strength.
Excessively strict notability rules harm that.The "citation needed" rule has also been applied far too pervasively.
Citations *are* needed, but a typical article should have ten or twenty of them, not fifty or a hundred, and there is absolutely no reason to have citations on basic information that anyone educated in the relevant field would be expected to know.
When the article says "rap is a style of music that arose in the second half of the twentieth century", there is no need for a citation on that.However, I feel the opposite way about the original research rule.
That one needs to be enforced more consistently.
There are entire articles that are nothing more than the random musings of a couple of editors, with no meaningful citations at all.
Occasionally such articles have even been featured on the front page (e.g., the Terraforming of Mars article).
Such articles ought to be deleted so that a proper article on the topic can be created without bumping into namespace collisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30569168</id>
	<title>Re:the English one is bad enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261992480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're assuming here that rap actually did start in the second half of the twentieth century. This is non-obvious<br>to me (how do I know it didn't start in the 30s?) and therefore a citation is justified. I'll agree that 'rap is a style of<br>music' can probably go without one, but it's not clear-cut where to draw the line in what is 'obvious'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're assuming here that rap actually did start in the second half of the twentieth century .
This is non-obviousto me ( how do I know it did n't start in the 30s ?
) and therefore a citation is justified .
I 'll agree that 'rap is a style ofmusic ' can probably go without one , but it 's not clear-cut where to draw the line in what is 'obvious' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're assuming here that rap actually did start in the second half of the twentieth century.
This is non-obviousto me (how do I know it didn't start in the 30s?
) and therefore a citation is justified.
I'll agree that 'rap is a style ofmusic' can probably go without one, but it's not clear-cut where to draw the line in what is 'obvious'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566192</id>
	<title>Quality and the crowd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261913820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quality was also considered to be higher in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Nupedia</a> [wikipedia.org].  It'll be Wikipedia's death, the day it starts to chase some definition of quality invented by an arbitrary group.  Defining "quality" should be left to the wisdom of the crowd, as should everything else in Wikipedia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quality was also considered to be higher in Nupedia [ wikipedia.org ] .
It 'll be Wikipedia 's death , the day it starts to chase some definition of quality invented by an arbitrary group .
Defining " quality " should be left to the wisdom of the crowd , as should everything else in Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quality was also considered to be higher in Nupedia [wikipedia.org].
It'll be Wikipedia's death, the day it starts to chase some definition of quality invented by an arbitrary group.
Defining "quality" should be left to the wisdom of the crowd, as should everything else in Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567540</id>
	<title>Re:It's the German Rule...</title>
	<author>areusche</author>
	<datestamp>1261925820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't think so, my 1985 300D Mercedes is still going 338,000 miles strong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't think so , my 1985 300D Mercedes is still going 338,000 miles strong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't think so, my 1985 300D Mercedes is still going 338,000 miles strong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566346</id>
	<title>Re:It's the German Rule...</title>
	<author>Alinabi</author>
	<datestamp>1261915260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I never had a freaking Chevy. I did, however, have a Chevy Nova and the only German car I feel comfortable comparing it to is a Trabant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never had a freaking Chevy .
I did , however , have a Chevy Nova and the only German car I feel comfortable comparing it to is a Trabant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never had a freaking Chevy.
I did, however, have a Chevy Nova and the only German car I feel comfortable comparing it to is a Trabant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567168</id>
	<title>Request for deletion</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1261922460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Interestingly, there is a request for deletion on the millionth article.</p></div></blockquote><p>And by interestingly, you mean unsurprisingly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly , there is a request for deletion on the millionth article.And by interestingly , you mean unsurprisingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly, there is a request for deletion on the millionth article.And by interestingly, you mean unsurprisingly.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565932</id>
	<title>Re:Citation Needed</title>
	<author>cortesoft</author>
	<datestamp>1261911720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Citation: <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/12/27/212221/German-Wikipedia-Passes-One-Million-Article-Mark?art\_pos=1" title="slashdot.org">http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/12/27/212221/German-Wikipedia-Passes-One-Million-Article-Mark?art\_pos=1</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Citation : http : //news.slashdot.org/story/09/12/27/212221/German-Wikipedia-Passes-One-Million-Article-Mark ? art \ _pos = 1 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Citation: http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/12/27/212221/German-Wikipedia-Passes-One-Million-Article-Mark?art\_pos=1 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30569578</id>
	<title>Re:the English one is bad enough</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1262001540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>quite

I few years ago i tried to create an article about a smallish youth organisation 18 Plus  (similar to rotoract the youth arm of rotary)i was a member of in the 70/80's as a life member and the organiser of one of the 3 national events i have a lot of knowledge about.

But some little tossers (none of whom wheer frm the UK) kept deleting it as not not worthy or no suporting information , like its likly that the records of the carnige foundation (the founders of 18 Plus) from the late 30's are online.</htmltext>
<tokenext>quite I few years ago i tried to create an article about a smallish youth organisation 18 Plus ( similar to rotoract the youth arm of rotary ) i was a member of in the 70/80 's as a life member and the organiser of one of the 3 national events i have a lot of knowledge about .
But some little tossers ( none of whom wheer frm the UK ) kept deleting it as not not worthy or no suporting information , like its likly that the records of the carnige foundation ( the founders of 18 Plus ) from the late 30 's are online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>quite

I few years ago i tried to create an article about a smallish youth organisation 18 Plus  (similar to rotoract the youth arm of rotary)i was a member of in the 70/80's as a life member and the organiser of one of the 3 national events i have a lot of knowledge about.
But some little tossers (none of whom wheer frm the UK) kept deleting it as not not worthy or no suporting information , like its likly that the records of the carnige foundation (the founders of 18 Plus) from the late 30's are online.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566626</id>
	<title>Re:Citation Needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261917780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many of the lesser known technical articles are barely a good translation of the English version. I mostly prefer en.wikipedia even though I'm German.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of the lesser known technical articles are barely a good translation of the English version .
I mostly prefer en.wikipedia even though I 'm German .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of the lesser known technical articles are barely a good translation of the English version.
I mostly prefer en.wikipedia even though I'm German.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566672</id>
	<title>Every article now with Jewish slave labour!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261918200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every article now with Jewish slave labour!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every article now with Jewish slave labour !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every article now with Jewish slave labour!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567610</id>
	<title>"could"? no, "is"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261926600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well that's pretty much understandable that people like you are afraid that Wikipedia could get destroyed by idiotic editors with an agenda.</p></div><p>It seems you haven't been paying attention, or you aren't an expert on anything.</p><p>Take any subject with fanatical supporters. Except for a few high-profile subjects with fanatical opposition (like Adolph Hitler for example) you will see a positive spin. For example, consider any article about a religeon or any article of the form "XXXXXX rights". The supporters come out in force. It could be that 99.99\% of the world disagrees with the article, but they don't have the energy to fight 24x7 over an article that they mostly don't give a damn about.</p><p>An example that is thankfully more-or-less resolved is "feral cat". A couple years ago, it was pure positive spin on the idea of having people support large colonies of semi-wild cats. The crazy cat ladies were out in force. Since I last looked at the article it appears to have gotten a bit of attention from ecologists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that 's pretty much understandable that people like you are afraid that Wikipedia could get destroyed by idiotic editors with an agenda.It seems you have n't been paying attention , or you are n't an expert on anything.Take any subject with fanatical supporters .
Except for a few high-profile subjects with fanatical opposition ( like Adolph Hitler for example ) you will see a positive spin .
For example , consider any article about a religeon or any article of the form " XXXXXX rights " .
The supporters come out in force .
It could be that 99.99 \ % of the world disagrees with the article , but they do n't have the energy to fight 24x7 over an article that they mostly do n't give a damn about.An example that is thankfully more-or-less resolved is " feral cat " .
A couple years ago , it was pure positive spin on the idea of having people support large colonies of semi-wild cats .
The crazy cat ladies were out in force .
Since I last looked at the article it appears to have gotten a bit of attention from ecologists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that's pretty much understandable that people like you are afraid that Wikipedia could get destroyed by idiotic editors with an agenda.It seems you haven't been paying attention, or you aren't an expert on anything.Take any subject with fanatical supporters.
Except for a few high-profile subjects with fanatical opposition (like Adolph Hitler for example) you will see a positive spin.
For example, consider any article about a religeon or any article of the form "XXXXXX rights".
The supporters come out in force.
It could be that 99.99\% of the world disagrees with the article, but they don't have the energy to fight 24x7 over an article that they mostly don't give a damn about.An example that is thankfully more-or-less resolved is "feral cat".
A couple years ago, it was pure positive spin on the idea of having people support large colonies of semi-wild cats.
The crazy cat ladies were out in force.
Since I last looked at the article it appears to have gotten a bit of attention from ecologists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565844</id>
	<title>Re:Citation Needed</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1261911060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not my anecdotal experience either, which admittedly isn't proper evidence, but at least somewhat more evidence than the bare assertion in the summary. I do a lot of translation of German Wikipedia articles to the English Wikipedia, and usually the articles aren't directly usable as-is under English-Wikipedia policy, mainly because of comparatively fewer citations (many articles on German historical figures or current politicians have no references at all).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not my anecdotal experience either , which admittedly is n't proper evidence , but at least somewhat more evidence than the bare assertion in the summary .
I do a lot of translation of German Wikipedia articles to the English Wikipedia , and usually the articles are n't directly usable as-is under English-Wikipedia policy , mainly because of comparatively fewer citations ( many articles on German historical figures or current politicians have no references at all ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not my anecdotal experience either, which admittedly isn't proper evidence, but at least somewhat more evidence than the bare assertion in the summary.
I do a lot of translation of German Wikipedia articles to the English Wikipedia, and usually the articles aren't directly usable as-is under English-Wikipedia policy, mainly because of comparatively fewer citations (many articles on German historical figures or current politicians have no references at all).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30569408</id>
	<title>Re:the English one is bad enough</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1261997820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Can you bump into a collision?)</p><p>Citations are provided as footnotes, and as such are completely unobtrusive.  I don't agree that you raise the quality of something by adding loads of pointless articles about non-entities.  Wikipedia isn't designed to be a receptacle for every last fact.  Personally I believe that once a certain number of articles of given quality exist there the bar should be raised much higher in terms of addition and change, to maintain quality.  It's always going to be more damaging to have mistakes and vandalism then to omit articles about non-entities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Can you bump into a collision ?
) Citations are provided as footnotes , and as such are completely unobtrusive .
I do n't agree that you raise the quality of something by adding loads of pointless articles about non-entities .
Wikipedia is n't designed to be a receptacle for every last fact .
Personally I believe that once a certain number of articles of given quality exist there the bar should be raised much higher in terms of addition and change , to maintain quality .
It 's always going to be more damaging to have mistakes and vandalism then to omit articles about non-entities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Can you bump into a collision?
)Citations are provided as footnotes, and as such are completely unobtrusive.
I don't agree that you raise the quality of something by adding loads of pointless articles about non-entities.
Wikipedia isn't designed to be a receptacle for every last fact.
Personally I believe that once a certain number of articles of given quality exist there the bar should be raised much higher in terms of addition and change, to maintain quality.
It's always going to be more damaging to have mistakes and vandalism then to omit articles about non-entities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565818</id>
	<title>It's the German Rule...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261910700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Quality though, is often considered to be higher on the German Wikipedia.</i></p><p>The Germans like to perpetuate this myth that they are the masters of quality.  So they always come at you with, "we're Germans, therefor, we have quality", which survives right up until you actually measure it, and find that even Mercedes in terms of break down rate isn't all that much different than a fricking Chevy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quality though , is often considered to be higher on the German Wikipedia.The Germans like to perpetuate this myth that they are the masters of quality .
So they always come at you with , " we 're Germans , therefor , we have quality " , which survives right up until you actually measure it , and find that even Mercedes in terms of break down rate is n't all that much different than a fricking Chevy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quality though, is often considered to be higher on the German Wikipedia.The Germans like to perpetuate this myth that they are the masters of quality.
So they always come at you with, "we're Germans, therefor, we have quality", which survives right up until you actually measure it, and find that even Mercedes in terms of break down rate isn't all that much different than a fricking Chevy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565722</id>
	<title>Ob. Godwin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261909800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Hitler were alive, he would have contibuted to the German wikipedia</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Hitler were alive , he would have contibuted to the German wikipedia</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Hitler were alive, he would have contibuted to the German wikipedia</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30570792</id>
	<title>Re:the English one is bad enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262014320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who told you rap was "music". It's just a bunch of figetty niggers who can't sing, so they talk their way through the lyrics while waving their hands around and pointing at things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who told you rap was " music " .
It 's just a bunch of figetty niggers who ca n't sing , so they talk their way through the lyrics while waving their hands around and pointing at things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who told you rap was "music".
It's just a bunch of figetty niggers who can't sing, so they talk their way through the lyrics while waving their hands around and pointing at things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567866</id>
	<title>Re:Stricter Rules?</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1261929120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So their rules are even stricter than the English version?</p></div><p>Yes, they enforce rule 34.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So their rules are even stricter than the English version ? Yes , they enforce rule 34 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So their rules are even stricter than the English version?Yes, they enforce rule 34.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566424</id>
	<title>Re:Stricter Rules?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261915980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... should we expect to see German wikipedia go down in flames sooner than later?</p></div><p>The German Wikipedia will last for a thousand years!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... should we expect to see German wikipedia go down in flames sooner than later ? The German Wikipedia will last for a thousand years !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... should we expect to see German wikipedia go down in flames sooner than later?The German Wikipedia will last for a thousand years!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566142</id>
	<title>Back to 999,999</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1261913400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most recent addition was quickly nominated for deletion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most recent addition was quickly nominated for deletion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most recent addition was quickly nominated for deletion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565924</id>
	<title>get de,wikipedia.org</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261911660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HEIL JIMBO!!!</p><p>All caps is considered 'shouting', by the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HEIL JIMBO ! !
! All caps is considered 'shouting ' , by the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HEIL JIMBO!!
!All caps is considered 'shouting', by the way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565770</id>
	<title>Re:Stricter Rules?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261910220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does this mean the German editors are nicer and less bureaucratic than <b>the possessive assholes who consider English wikipedia their personal creation</b>, or should we expect to see German wikipedia go down in flames sooner than later?</p></div><p>Do you mean that the German Wikipedia has less WikiNazis?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean the German editors are nicer and less bureaucratic than the possessive assholes who consider English wikipedia their personal creation , or should we expect to see German wikipedia go down in flames sooner than later ? Do you mean that the German Wikipedia has less WikiNazis ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean the German editors are nicer and less bureaucratic than the possessive assholes who consider English wikipedia their personal creation, or should we expect to see German wikipedia go down in flames sooner than later?Do you mean that the German Wikipedia has less WikiNazis?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566400</id>
	<title>stricter ?</title>
	<author>Moondye</author>
	<datestamp>1261915800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a German and I disagree often the German articles are less focused on the topic e.g [Spin (physics)]

Very often I have to hear (especially in school) that everything is so much qualitatively better in Germany, but in my opinion it isn't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a German and I disagree often the German articles are less focused on the topic e.g [ Spin ( physics ) ] Very often I have to hear ( especially in school ) that everything is so much qualitatively better in Germany , but in my opinion it is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a German and I disagree often the German articles are less focused on the topic e.g [Spin (physics)]

Very often I have to hear (especially in school) that everything is so much qualitatively better in Germany, but in my opinion it isn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30569494</id>
	<title>Re:Another 662k articles</title>
	<author>RPoet</author>
	<datestamp>1261999800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, but I think you mean invade. Austria was annexed, Poland was invaded<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , but I think you mean invade .
Austria was annexed , Poland was invaded : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, but I think you mean invade.
Austria was annexed, Poland was invaded :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30568740</id>
	<title>"Better quality" is a cheat!</title>
	<author>SlothDead</author>
	<datestamp>1261942680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the German Wikipedia has a better quality on average, but that comes to no surprise, given that every not perfect arcticle and all articles about things the admins haven't heard of (video games, minor Star Wars characters etc.) are deleted almost instantly.<br>And I guess that the English Wikipedia has as much, if not more, high quality articles than the German Wikipedia. The fact that the English Wikipedia allows medium quality articles to stay should not be considered a bad thing, I mean, who cares about the average quality? A medium quality article is still better than none at all (IMHO).</p><p>I'm German, but I usually check the English Wikipedia first because I got tired of the procedure "Check German Wikipedia -&gt; Be disappointed to find that the article has been deleted -&gt; Read the English article instead"</p><p>(Because of the "delete everything you don't find interesting" policy, some people have created "Wikibay", the encyclopedia where everything is considered relevant, as long as it's sourced etc. <a href="http://wikibay.org/Hauptseite" title="wikibay.org" rel="nofollow">click here for German Wikibay</a> [wikibay.org])</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the German Wikipedia has a better quality on average , but that comes to no surprise , given that every not perfect arcticle and all articles about things the admins have n't heard of ( video games , minor Star Wars characters etc .
) are deleted almost instantly.And I guess that the English Wikipedia has as much , if not more , high quality articles than the German Wikipedia .
The fact that the English Wikipedia allows medium quality articles to stay should not be considered a bad thing , I mean , who cares about the average quality ?
A medium quality article is still better than none at all ( IMHO ) .I 'm German , but I usually check the English Wikipedia first because I got tired of the procedure " Check German Wikipedia - &gt; Be disappointed to find that the article has been deleted - &gt; Read the English article instead " ( Because of the " delete everything you do n't find interesting " policy , some people have created " Wikibay " , the encyclopedia where everything is considered relevant , as long as it 's sourced etc .
click here for German Wikibay [ wikibay.org ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the German Wikipedia has a better quality on average, but that comes to no surprise, given that every not perfect arcticle and all articles about things the admins haven't heard of (video games, minor Star Wars characters etc.
) are deleted almost instantly.And I guess that the English Wikipedia has as much, if not more, high quality articles than the German Wikipedia.
The fact that the English Wikipedia allows medium quality articles to stay should not be considered a bad thing, I mean, who cares about the average quality?
A medium quality article is still better than none at all (IMHO).I'm German, but I usually check the English Wikipedia first because I got tired of the procedure "Check German Wikipedia -&gt; Be disappointed to find that the article has been deleted -&gt; Read the English article instead"(Because of the "delete everything you don't find interesting" policy, some people have created "Wikibay", the encyclopedia where everything is considered relevant, as long as it's sourced etc.
click here for German Wikibay [wikibay.org])</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565866</id>
	<title>Oh milestones</title>
	<author>Kenoli</author>
	<datestamp>1261911240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's so hard to talk about these things. Nothing actually happened.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's so hard to talk about these things .
Nothing actually happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's so hard to talk about these things.
Nothing actually happened.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30569874</id>
	<title>Re:the English one is bad enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262006460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, I feel the opposite way about the original research rule. That one needs to be enforced more consistently. There are entire articles that are nothing more than the random musings of a couple of editors, with no meaningful citations at all. Occasionally such articles have even been featured on the front page (e.g., the Terraforming of Mars article). Such articles ought to be deleted so that a proper article on the topic can be created without bumping into namespace collisions.</p></div><p>I really agree with the rest of what you wrote, but this isn't correct.</p><p>Don't delete them, improve them.</p><p>In fact, featuring them in "Did you know" is a good way of drawing in more eyeballs and making sure they WILL be improved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , I feel the opposite way about the original research rule .
That one needs to be enforced more consistently .
There are entire articles that are nothing more than the random musings of a couple of editors , with no meaningful citations at all .
Occasionally such articles have even been featured on the front page ( e.g. , the Terraforming of Mars article ) .
Such articles ought to be deleted so that a proper article on the topic can be created without bumping into namespace collisions.I really agree with the rest of what you wrote , but this is n't correct.Do n't delete them , improve them.In fact , featuring them in " Did you know " is a good way of drawing in more eyeballs and making sure they WILL be improved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, I feel the opposite way about the original research rule.
That one needs to be enforced more consistently.
There are entire articles that are nothing more than the random musings of a couple of editors, with no meaningful citations at all.
Occasionally such articles have even been featured on the front page (e.g., the Terraforming of Mars article).
Such articles ought to be deleted so that a proper article on the topic can be created without bumping into namespace collisions.I really agree with the rest of what you wrote, but this isn't correct.Don't delete them, improve them.In fact, featuring them in "Did you know" is a good way of drawing in more eyeballs and making sure they WILL be improved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567958</id>
	<title>by the way, quality...</title>
	<author>itedo</author>
	<datestamp>1261930440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not contributing to Wikipedia, I'm just an user, so I cannot judge their deletion policies.</p><p>Though, I would like to criticize the statement</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Quality though, is often considered to be higher on the German Wikipedia."</p></div><p>Quality is not measurable directly. It's just a subjective thing. If you find quickly the right information for you - the quality is good. If you don't find it - you try somewhere else. In this case, your personal quality standards haven't been satisfied.</p><p>This is where the deletion policies come into. Now if they tell "We take quality over quantity" - it's OK. But this isn't the case. Most articles are poorly translated from english to german; if you browse for some biographies (let's say Jimmy Page for example), there isn't even a terminology (missing the eye-catching information).<br>Or even browsing the periodical table of the chemical elements - you get some information, but it isn't presented well. I'd rather like 750k high-quality written articles than &gt;2M poor transcriptions from en.wikipedia.org or somewhere else from the www. That's where de.wikipedia.org is right now. They cannot meet they own quality standards, whatever that means. One day, they will understand...</p><p>Even if they don't have that much contributors like en.wikipedia.org - they are doing a good job (ok, at least they are trying).</p><p>As a student of physics, I prefer a thing called "book" or "paper" to be my primary source of solid knowledge (OK, not always but mostly). Considering Wikipedia in a scientific work, it is just fine if you need "quick and unimportant" information to verify something, because you cannot always attach validity to such a dynamic source.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not contributing to Wikipedia , I 'm just an user , so I can not judge their deletion policies.Though , I would like to criticize the statement " Quality though , is often considered to be higher on the German Wikipedia .
" Quality is not measurable directly .
It 's just a subjective thing .
If you find quickly the right information for you - the quality is good .
If you do n't find it - you try somewhere else .
In this case , your personal quality standards have n't been satisfied.This is where the deletion policies come into .
Now if they tell " We take quality over quantity " - it 's OK. But this is n't the case .
Most articles are poorly translated from english to german ; if you browse for some biographies ( let 's say Jimmy Page for example ) , there is n't even a terminology ( missing the eye-catching information ) .Or even browsing the periodical table of the chemical elements - you get some information , but it is n't presented well .
I 'd rather like 750k high-quality written articles than &gt; 2M poor transcriptions from en.wikipedia.org or somewhere else from the www .
That 's where de.wikipedia.org is right now .
They can not meet they own quality standards , whatever that means .
One day , they will understand...Even if they do n't have that much contributors like en.wikipedia.org - they are doing a good job ( ok , at least they are trying ) .As a student of physics , I prefer a thing called " book " or " paper " to be my primary source of solid knowledge ( OK , not always but mostly ) .
Considering Wikipedia in a scientific work , it is just fine if you need " quick and unimportant " information to verify something , because you can not always attach validity to such a dynamic source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not contributing to Wikipedia, I'm just an user, so I cannot judge their deletion policies.Though, I would like to criticize the statement"Quality though, is often considered to be higher on the German Wikipedia.
"Quality is not measurable directly.
It's just a subjective thing.
If you find quickly the right information for you - the quality is good.
If you don't find it - you try somewhere else.
In this case, your personal quality standards haven't been satisfied.This is where the deletion policies come into.
Now if they tell "We take quality over quantity" - it's OK. But this isn't the case.
Most articles are poorly translated from english to german; if you browse for some biographies (let's say Jimmy Page for example), there isn't even a terminology (missing the eye-catching information).Or even browsing the periodical table of the chemical elements - you get some information, but it isn't presented well.
I'd rather like 750k high-quality written articles than &gt;2M poor transcriptions from en.wikipedia.org or somewhere else from the www.
That's where de.wikipedia.org is right now.
They cannot meet they own quality standards, whatever that means.
One day, they will understand...Even if they don't have that much contributors like en.wikipedia.org - they are doing a good job (ok, at least they are trying).As a student of physics, I prefer a thing called "book" or "paper" to be my primary source of solid knowledge (OK, not always but mostly).
Considering Wikipedia in a scientific work, it is just fine if you need "quick and unimportant" information to verify something, because you cannot always attach validity to such a dynamic source.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565990</id>
	<title>Re:It's the German Rule...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261912080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not the Germans that spread this myth. But we are not offended either.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not the Germans that spread this myth .
But we are not offended either .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not the Germans that spread this myth.
But we are not offended either.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566054</id>
	<title>Re:Citation Needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261912560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm bilingual and very strongly prefer en.wikipedia.org for most things. Longer and more detailed articles, more citations [citation needed]*, and more activity on talk pages. If it's an article about something related to Germany, the German wikipedia is usually better though.</p><p>*Anyone feel like making a script that counts the actual numbers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm bilingual and very strongly prefer en.wikipedia.org for most things .
Longer and more detailed articles , more citations [ citation needed ] * , and more activity on talk pages .
If it 's an article about something related to Germany , the German wikipedia is usually better though .
* Anyone feel like making a script that counts the actual numbers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm bilingual and very strongly prefer en.wikipedia.org for most things.
Longer and more detailed articles, more citations [citation needed]*, and more activity on talk pages.
If it's an article about something related to Germany, the German wikipedia is usually better though.
*Anyone feel like making a script that counts the actual numbers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567248</id>
	<title>Another 662k articles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261923180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>They could add another 662k articles if they would simple annex pl.wikipedia.org</htmltext>
<tokenext>They could add another 662k articles if they would simple annex pl.wikipedia.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could add another 662k articles if they would simple annex pl.wikipedia.org</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567140</id>
	<title>Consider the German gun control laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261922160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some would argue that deaths due to firearms in Germany is lower than the US. But try averaging over the last 100 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some would argue that deaths due to firearms in Germany is lower than the US .
But try averaging over the last 100 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some would argue that deaths due to firearms in Germany is lower than the US.
But try averaging over the last 100 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30573090</id>
	<title>Re:the English one is bad enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262025240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's wrong with pointless articles written by college students about the guys across the hall?  They do no harm, and one day the guy might be famous, so there is potential future interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with pointless articles written by college students about the guys across the hall ?
They do no harm , and one day the guy might be famous , so there is potential future interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with pointless articles written by college students about the guys across the hall?
They do no harm, and one day the guy might be famous, so there is potential future interest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566790</id>
	<title>the English one is bad enough</title>
	<author>r00t</author>
	<datestamp>1261919460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I go to Wikipedia, I'm going there because I want some info that **I** happen to care about. I don't give a flying fuck if it meets some notability guideline. Wikipedia isn't printed on physical paper and sold as a 220-pound (100-kg) pile of books. Bits are cheap to store; there is no reason to be destroying people's hard work other than some asshole power trip. I'm pissed when I go to an article page seeing info and find it deleted; this happens often if you go directly to the obvious article name instead of just relying on Google and not questioning why there isn't an article for you to read.</p><p>BTW, the other big problem we have is positive spin. Articles about any given subject are guarded by editors who have a vested interest in the subject. You're lucky if they only do 1-sided enforcement of no-original-research and citation-please rules to abuse people who tone down the glorification. It's easy to see and quite frustrating for the subjects where I am an expert and could be an editor. On the subjects where I am only a reader seeing to understand, it's frightening to know that these special-interest editors are warping my learning.</p><p>You could pretty much say that the not-notable, no-original-research, and citation-needed excuses are Wikipedia's way to do a (Score:-1, Unpolitical) moderation. Not that people wouldn't delete stuff that makes them uncomfortable anyway, but those excuses sure encourage them by providing righteous justification.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I go to Wikipedia , I 'm going there because I want some info that * * I * * happen to care about .
I do n't give a flying fuck if it meets some notability guideline .
Wikipedia is n't printed on physical paper and sold as a 220-pound ( 100-kg ) pile of books .
Bits are cheap to store ; there is no reason to be destroying people 's hard work other than some asshole power trip .
I 'm pissed when I go to an article page seeing info and find it deleted ; this happens often if you go directly to the obvious article name instead of just relying on Google and not questioning why there is n't an article for you to read.BTW , the other big problem we have is positive spin .
Articles about any given subject are guarded by editors who have a vested interest in the subject .
You 're lucky if they only do 1-sided enforcement of no-original-research and citation-please rules to abuse people who tone down the glorification .
It 's easy to see and quite frustrating for the subjects where I am an expert and could be an editor .
On the subjects where I am only a reader seeing to understand , it 's frightening to know that these special-interest editors are warping my learning.You could pretty much say that the not-notable , no-original-research , and citation-needed excuses are Wikipedia 's way to do a ( Score : -1 , Unpolitical ) moderation .
Not that people would n't delete stuff that makes them uncomfortable anyway , but those excuses sure encourage them by providing righteous justification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I go to Wikipedia, I'm going there because I want some info that **I** happen to care about.
I don't give a flying fuck if it meets some notability guideline.
Wikipedia isn't printed on physical paper and sold as a 220-pound (100-kg) pile of books.
Bits are cheap to store; there is no reason to be destroying people's hard work other than some asshole power trip.
I'm pissed when I go to an article page seeing info and find it deleted; this happens often if you go directly to the obvious article name instead of just relying on Google and not questioning why there isn't an article for you to read.BTW, the other big problem we have is positive spin.
Articles about any given subject are guarded by editors who have a vested interest in the subject.
You're lucky if they only do 1-sided enforcement of no-original-research and citation-please rules to abuse people who tone down the glorification.
It's easy to see and quite frustrating for the subjects where I am an expert and could be an editor.
On the subjects where I am only a reader seeing to understand, it's frightening to know that these special-interest editors are warping my learning.You could pretty much say that the not-notable, no-original-research, and citation-needed excuses are Wikipedia's way to do a (Score:-1, Unpolitical) moderation.
Not that people wouldn't delete stuff that makes them uncomfortable anyway, but those excuses sure encourage them by providing righteous justification.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565986</id>
	<title>Fuck the Wikifuerers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261912080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is to D, Entlinkt, S1, Horzo, Eynre and other german Wikibastards. Also fuck the English admins J.delanoy, Nawlinwiki, Pmdrive1061, Petersymonds, MaterialScientist (Sockpuppet of Essjay), Ryulong and all the other wiki bastards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is to D , Entlinkt , S1 , Horzo , Eynre and other german Wikibastards .
Also fuck the English admins J.delanoy , Nawlinwiki , Pmdrive1061 , Petersymonds , MaterialScientist ( Sockpuppet of Essjay ) , Ryulong and all the other wiki bastards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is to D, Entlinkt, S1, Horzo, Eynre and other german Wikibastards.
Also fuck the English admins J.delanoy, Nawlinwiki, Pmdrive1061, Petersymonds, MaterialScientist (Sockpuppet of Essjay), Ryulong and all the other wiki bastards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566062</id>
	<title>Re:Citation Needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261912620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Quality though, is often considered to be higher on the German Wikipedia</p></div><p>Citation Needed</p></div><p>"you know the Germans always make good stuff"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quality though , is often considered to be higher on the German WikipediaCitation Needed " you know the Germans always make good stuff "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quality though, is often considered to be higher on the German WikipediaCitation Needed"you know the Germans always make good stuff"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630</id>
	<title>Citation Needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261909080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Quality though, is often considered to be higher on the German Wikipedia</p></div><p>Citation Needed</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quality though , is often considered to be higher on the German WikipediaCitation Needed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quality though, is often considered to be higher on the German WikipediaCitation Needed
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30572900</id>
	<title>Re:Stricter Rules?</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1262024340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's already busy going down in flames.</p><p>There was a conference in Berlin not too long ago where the german Wikipedia admins pretty much blew what was left of their credibility out the window. Starting from insisting on providing their own live video streaming, which was totally unusable and crap, even though the CCC with 10 or so years of experience in doing that kind of stuff had offered to do it for them, for free. Then there was apparently a Wikipedia admin who "moderated" the discussion <i>from outside the camera view</i>, and not by accident. Some journalists they didn't like were not let in. And don't even get me started on the actual content of the discussion, I've not read <b>one</b> positive article on that (but several very, very critical ones).</p><p>In short, Wikipedia Germany has alienated itself from pretty much everyone else in Germany who is someone in the online world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's already busy going down in flames.There was a conference in Berlin not too long ago where the german Wikipedia admins pretty much blew what was left of their credibility out the window .
Starting from insisting on providing their own live video streaming , which was totally unusable and crap , even though the CCC with 10 or so years of experience in doing that kind of stuff had offered to do it for them , for free .
Then there was apparently a Wikipedia admin who " moderated " the discussion from outside the camera view , and not by accident .
Some journalists they did n't like were not let in .
And do n't even get me started on the actual content of the discussion , I 've not read one positive article on that ( but several very , very critical ones ) .In short , Wikipedia Germany has alienated itself from pretty much everyone else in Germany who is someone in the online world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's already busy going down in flames.There was a conference in Berlin not too long ago where the german Wikipedia admins pretty much blew what was left of their credibility out the window.
Starting from insisting on providing their own live video streaming, which was totally unusable and crap, even though the CCC with 10 or so years of experience in doing that kind of stuff had offered to do it for them, for free.
Then there was apparently a Wikipedia admin who "moderated" the discussion from outside the camera view, and not by accident.
Some journalists they didn't like were not let in.
And don't even get me started on the actual content of the discussion, I've not read one positive article on that (but several very, very critical ones).In short, Wikipedia Germany has alienated itself from pretty much everyone else in Germany who is someone in the online world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30568472</id>
	<title>Re:Consider the German gun control laws</title>
	<author>ravenshrike</author>
	<datestamp>1261937640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'cept when you screen out all the people who are less than half-euro and/or asian descent, the murder rate becomes comparable and the general crime rate goes quite a bit lower.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'cept when you screen out all the people who are less than half-euro and/or asian descent , the murder rate becomes comparable and the general crime rate goes quite a bit lower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'cept when you screen out all the people who are less than half-euro and/or asian descent, the murder rate becomes comparable and the general crime rate goes quite a bit lower.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565652</id>
	<title>awesome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261909260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The good news:  the system works.  The bad news:  the system lets a known muslim extremists board a plane with a bomb strapped to his leg but no passport and no luggage.
<p>
No doubt you'll have to remove your shoes and your pants next time you board a plane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The good news : the system works .
The bad news : the system lets a known muslim extremists board a plane with a bomb strapped to his leg but no passport and no luggage .
No doubt you 'll have to remove your shoes and your pants next time you board a plane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The good news:  the system works.
The bad news:  the system lets a known muslim extremists board a plane with a bomb strapped to his leg but no passport and no luggage.
No doubt you'll have to remove your shoes and your pants next time you board a plane.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30571724</id>
	<title>Re:by the way, quality...</title>
	<author>hicksw</author>
	<datestamp>1262019180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Quality is not measurable directly. It's just a subjective thing</i> </p><p>Higher MTBF, lower MTTR.  Do the numbers.  Objectively, the German version is better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quality is not measurable directly .
It 's just a subjective thing Higher MTBF , lower MTTR .
Do the numbers .
Objectively , the German version is better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Quality is not measurable directly.
It's just a subjective thing Higher MTBF, lower MTTR.
Do the numbers.
Objectively, the German version is better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30568658</id>
	<title>Re:The opposite risk</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1261940820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, some rules are still needed</p></div><p>That argument misses the issue with the current rules. Most people *do* agree that some rules are needed, thats not what the argument is about. The issue is that the current rules are *far* to strict, even well sourced and well written articles get destroyed due to some arbitary notability criteria.</p><p>The rules should be there to keep the junk and vandalism out, the current rules on the other side also keep the good articles out (along with their authors who get pissed off and never contribute again).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , some rules are still neededThat argument misses the issue with the current rules .
Most people * do * agree that some rules are needed , thats not what the argument is about .
The issue is that the current rules are * far * to strict , even well sourced and well written articles get destroyed due to some arbitary notability criteria.The rules should be there to keep the junk and vandalism out , the current rules on the other side also keep the good articles out ( along with their authors who get pissed off and never contribute again ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, some rules are still neededThat argument misses the issue with the current rules.
Most people *do* agree that some rules are needed, thats not what the argument is about.
The issue is that the current rules are *far* to strict, even well sourced and well written articles get destroyed due to some arbitary notability criteria.The rules should be there to keep the junk and vandalism out, the current rules on the other side also keep the good articles out (along with their authors who get pissed off and never contribute again).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565896</id>
	<title>Re:Citation Needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261911420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an obsessive-compulsive reader of the German and English versions of Wikipedia I must say that according to my more than superficial experience, the German version is not better than the English one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an obsessive-compulsive reader of the German and English versions of Wikipedia I must say that according to my more than superficial experience , the German version is not better than the English one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an obsessive-compulsive reader of the German and English versions of Wikipedia I must say that according to my more than superficial experience, the German version is not better than the English one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565984</id>
	<title>Re:It's the German Rule...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261912080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Quality though, is often considered to be higher on the German Wikipedia.</i> </p><p>The Germans like to perpetuate this myth that they are the masters of quality.  So they always come at you with, "we're Germans, therefor, we have quality", which survives right up until you actually measure it, and find that even Mercedes in terms of break down rate isn't all that much different than a fricking Chevy.</p></div><p>Citation Needed</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quality though , is often considered to be higher on the German Wikipedia .
The Germans like to perpetuate this myth that they are the masters of quality .
So they always come at you with , " we 're Germans , therefor , we have quality " , which survives right up until you actually measure it , and find that even Mercedes in terms of break down rate is n't all that much different than a fricking Chevy.Citation Needed</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Quality though, is often considered to be higher on the German Wikipedia.
The Germans like to perpetuate this myth that they are the masters of quality.
So they always come at you with, "we're Germans, therefor, we have quality", which survives right up until you actually measure it, and find that even Mercedes in terms of break down rate isn't all that much different than a fricking Chevy.Citation Needed
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566084</id>
	<title>Re:Stricter Rules?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261912860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Does this mean the German editors are nicer and less bureaucratic</i>
<br>
<br>
Haha.  Insert German stereotype joke here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean the German editors are nicer and less bureaucratic Haha .
Insert German stereotype joke here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean the German editors are nicer and less bureaucratic


Haha.
Insert German stereotype joke here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565698</id>
	<title>Milestones and barriers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261909620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>reached its 1,000,000 article milestone</i></p><p>Thanks for saying it reached the milestone, rather than broke a barrier! Correct differentiations between milestones and barriers are rare, and I'd like you to know that it's appreciated!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>reached its 1,000,000 article milestoneThanks for saying it reached the milestone , rather than broke a barrier !
Correct differentiations between milestones and barriers are rare , and I 'd like you to know that it 's appreciated !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reached its 1,000,000 article milestoneThanks for saying it reached the milestone, rather than broke a barrier!
Correct differentiations between milestones and barriers are rare, and I'd like you to know that it's appreciated!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566060</id>
	<title>Die Deutschen haben schon genug gelitten</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261912620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Da muesste irgendwo ein Artikel sein ueber die Tatsache, dass Deutschland nicht mehr die einzige Hitlernation in der Geschichte ist, sonder auch Amerika ist eine Hitlernation geworden, denn die Amerikaner haben Iraq genauso gewalttaetig ueberfallen, wie damals Hitler die Polen im Jahre 1939 ueberfiel. Da muesste auch ein Artikel ueber die kuenstliche Intelligenz sein, mit der Angabe, dass <a href="http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/mentifex\_faq.html" title="virtualentity.com" rel="nofollow">Mentifex</a> [virtualentity.com] das wesentliche Problem geloest hat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Da muesste irgendwo ein Artikel sein ueber die Tatsache , dass Deutschland nicht mehr die einzige Hitlernation in der Geschichte ist , sonder auch Amerika ist eine Hitlernation geworden , denn die Amerikaner haben Iraq genauso gewalttaetig ueberfallen , wie damals Hitler die Polen im Jahre 1939 ueberfiel .
Da muesste auch ein Artikel ueber die kuenstliche Intelligenz sein , mit der Angabe , dass Mentifex [ virtualentity.com ] das wesentliche Problem geloest hat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Da muesste irgendwo ein Artikel sein ueber die Tatsache, dass Deutschland nicht mehr die einzige Hitlernation in der Geschichte ist, sonder auch Amerika ist eine Hitlernation geworden, denn die Amerikaner haben Iraq genauso gewalttaetig ueberfallen, wie damals Hitler die Polen im Jahre 1939 ueberfiel.
Da muesste auch ein Artikel ueber die kuenstliche Intelligenz sein, mit der Angabe, dass Mentifex [virtualentity.com] das wesentliche Problem geloest hat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566532</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261916940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>actually there is a big discussion going on, about whether their criteria if somethig should be a lemma or not, are to high/wrong/to old/etc or not.</p><p>no that sounds wrong.</p><p>let's say lot's of people think that their criteria need to be changed.</p><p>wikipedia does not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>actually there is a big discussion going on , about whether their criteria if somethig should be a lemma or not , are to high/wrong/to old/etc or not.no that sounds wrong.let 's say lot 's of people think that their criteria need to be changed.wikipedia does not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actually there is a big discussion going on, about whether their criteria if somethig should be a lemma or not, are to high/wrong/to old/etc or not.no that sounds wrong.let's say lot's of people think that their criteria need to be changed.wikipedia does not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565650</id>
	<title>Stricter Rules?</title>
	<author>RobinEggs</author>
	<datestamp>1261909260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So their rules are even stricter than the English version?<br> <br>
Does this mean the German editors are nicer and less bureaucratic than the possessive assholes who consider English wikipedia their personal creation, or should we expect to see German wikipedia go down in flames sooner than later?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So their rules are even stricter than the English version ?
Does this mean the German editors are nicer and less bureaucratic than the possessive assholes who consider English wikipedia their personal creation , or should we expect to see German wikipedia go down in flames sooner than later ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So their rules are even stricter than the English version?
Does this mean the German editors are nicer and less bureaucratic than the possessive assholes who consider English wikipedia their personal creation, or should we expect to see German wikipedia go down in flames sooner than later?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566236</id>
	<title>NOT Wikipedia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261914180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>-site:wikipedia.org</htmltext>
<tokenext>-site : wikipedia.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-site:wikipedia.org</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566050</id>
	<title>German wikipedia passes 1,955,830 euro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261912500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There fixed it for you</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There fixed it for you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There fixed it for you</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30568658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30569408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30571724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30569494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30573090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30569578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30572900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30569168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30568472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30570792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_27_212221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30569874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_212221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30572900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_212221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_212221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30569494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_212221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_212221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_212221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_212221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30571724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_212221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_212221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30568658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30569168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30569578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30573090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30569874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30569408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30570792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_212221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567140
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30568472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30565844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30567786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_27_212221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_27_212221.30566142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
