Random footnotes
 What law exactly are we expected to presume Citizendium broke?
The article makes some references to some violations of citizendium copyright policy, and then from that fact presupposes some sort of "law" was broken without telling us what law or how it was broken ( accusing others of a crime or civil wrong/tort in a "hit piece" without evidence can get one sued for libel ) Only major flaw in this article I have found.LogicMaster777 (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- The details can be found in the citations: keep in mind this is amateur lawyering on behalf of a third party, which isn't a formula for legal rectitude. I don't think there's any direct assertions of breaking the law in the article, just that they aren't big on maintaining their images properly. Reads like a tempest in a teapot to me, and I could personally do without the whole section. Ikanreed (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, this whole section tends to undermine the credibility of the article more than it does to support its general thrust in my opinion. It uses pretty questionable and subjective sources and is basically an opinion presented as fact a la Alex Jones/Fox News.LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- The internet archive has a copy of the forums. Can that be used? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)