LOL!

i've been involved in a battle of wills over at wikipedia.com on their coke zero article.

for those who don't know, wikipedia.com is an online encyclopedia that can be edited by its users.

apparently, in australia (where coke zero is already challenging diet coke), coke launched the product with a phony web blog (to appeal to young men) called "the zero movement." it seems kind of harmless to me, but, apparently, it p*ssed a few people off (maybe over at pepsi... but who knows).

anyway, i've been in an editorial battle with someone from australia who keeps trashing coke zero (i.e. read his list of ingredients--it sounds like a chemical weapon, not a soft drink).

so, basically, he'd throw around words like "fraudulent"... and i'd delete them, or leave him a note like "fraudulent is a legal term. if no ruling has been brought against coca-cola, please stop misusing the term."

he removed the word. but he's still antagonistic.

anyway... finally... the article has been stripped down to the bare essentials--ingredients, distribution, etc. (i think we both were worn down. LOL).

anyway (finally), in the notes for the article, you can read comments from other users, and... this guy traced my IP address to NYC and called me a "pro-coke troll & henchman." LOL.

i thought that was hilarious.

ps--they also removed some of my photos of cool coke zero packaging, and limited me to 2.

[ 05-18-2006, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: popologist ]

It's probably people who don't know what they're talking about and have too much time on their hands--I mean, Pepsi's done stuff like that before

Originally posted by Doug:
It's probably people who don't know what they're talking about and have too much time on their hands--I mean, Pepsi's done stuff like that before

exactly my point. it seems rather harmless if you ask me.

my guess is that it's either (1) someone who doesn't like coca-cola for other reasons (alleged abuses, etc), or (2) someone working for pepsi (because coke zero is a HUGE success in australia--where talk is that it may over take diet coke in five years!).

either way... i'm doing my best to keep his propaganda in check.

however, once i find some concrete articles/numbers of coke zero's success, i intend to re-submit with citations.

Gee I hadn't noticed that you were "pro-coke". All of your posts are very neutral.

Redicioulus, but it goes both ways there are plenty of Coke-crazies out there too (Coke-heads?. Still its always a bummer when somebody lets their bias get so far ahead of them as to call a diet soda a chemical weapon or you a "Coke Henchman".

I am taking it that the "anti zero movement" is the gentleman you are refering to as the antagonistic fellow. I just went to the site in question and read the link. The guy is passionate, I will give him that.

He is WAY out in left field ( only an expression, not in a political sense, please don't trash me for saying it) in his opinions.

I for one wish that every single living being had access to clean water and food. I am not however going to drink only water and send all my soda money to another country to help in their quest for clean water. Most of the countries that do not have clean water for their citizens are either 1) have corrupt leaders who embezzle the aid money and my measly $10 a week won't reach the intended use, or 2) the citizens are of questionable character, and the money would go for some RPG's rather than the intended use. i.e. they want to kill me because I am an American citizen. So why would I want to give them anything anyway.

The bashing of a single soda like he does is crazy. Sure there are sodas that I do not care for but I do not make websites calling for their demise.

While I am not certain I will go out on a limb and say that the person who is in Australia is NOT some guy from Pepsi. The opinions he has are just too "out there".The guy is just a TOOL.

Originally posted by popologist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug:
It's probably people who don't know what they're talking about and have too much time on their hands--I mean, Pepsi's done stuff like that before

exactly my point. it seems rather harmless if you ask me.

my guess is that it's either (1) someone who doesn't like coca-cola for other reasons (alleged abuses, etc), or (2) someone working for pepsi (because coke zero is a HUGE success in australia--where talk is that it may over take diet coke in five years!).

either way... i'm doing my best to keep his propaganda in check.

however, once i find some concrete articles/numbers of coke zero's success, i intend to re-submit with citations. </font>[/QUOTE]You should post an image of the pepsi logo with a big X through it, lol...I mean, seriously, does this guy think you have an agenda? It's just an online encyclopedia...

well, the article has been "cleaned up"... due to my "editing" and "protest."

i can live with it as it is now... although i'd like to post some sales figures... but those are hard to come by.

also, i agree with TheSaint. i don't think my rival on wiki is a pepsi-fan. i just think he's got a grudge for coca-cola (for political reasons, etc).

fair enough.

but wikipedia isn't there for anyone's propaganda. it's supposed to be objective and informative.

I don't like wikipedia for the reason that anyone can add to it. I worry that a lot of people don't know what they are talking about and put stuff on there and everyone gets false information. That's what they say at school at least.

Yes, Wikipedia is subject to change by non-experts, but those impurities are quickly handled by moderators and other people looking to correct bad information.

Search Google and you can find a study on how accurate Wikipedia is compared to Britannica, and the results are remarkably close on the average.

If you use Wikipedia, you'd soon find its worth, especially considering that it's completely free. But it's not something you'd want to cite as an academic source for reports or studies.