TeleProbe. you posted

"Comparing Titanium investment information on Wikipedia:

Argex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argex_Mining

Fancamp
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Fancamp&button=&title=Special%3ASearch

Magpie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magpie"

A few comments

- If Wikipedia were considered as the "Bible" for comparing investment information, then presumably every company should try to be included in Wikipedia. But one has to realize that Wikipedia is a collaborative venture. A page would need to be created first and somebody would start putting information on that page. The information then can be modified or updated by others. There are guarding angels assigned for each page to make sure that the information uploaded would comply with the accepted standards. If the information is completely wrong, then the experts/guarding angels can remove, modify, etc... Wikipedia is generally relable due this "peer" scrutiny. But, the information can not be guaranteed as 100% correct. Also, the page is not always up-to-date (it depends on the availablity of volunteers, as an example Wikipedia has not included the name change of Argex, in fact, just like Fancamp in the 2nd link, Wikipedia does not have a page for the new name Argex Titanium). If Wikipedia is chosen to be the "go-to" page for the search, as you have done, then it is correct that a search for Argex would produce a hit (your first link). But not Fancamp, since that page has not been created. For Magpie, your first hit was the Magpie bird, since Wikipedia is quite popular with that kind of item (birds, bees, etc...). So, there are all kinds of hits using "Magpie" as the search term in Wikipedia. The search would also produce Magpie mine in the UK, and one north of Wawa, Ontario.

- Because of those "problems", an initial search should not be using Wikipedia. Instead, some other more general search engines such as Google should be used. Some of the hits would contain the links for Wikipedia, and if these are the links that one would trust, then go for them. Also, to narrow down the search a more complete search terms such as Fancamp Explorations Ltd, or Magpie Mines Inc. should be used. There are also Magpie mine in the UK and another one north of Wawa, Ont. If the more specific search terms were used, then there are relevant hit for FNC and Magpie Presentation.

- The above discussions are just to illustrate the pitfalls during a search, which we are all aware of.

If the main objective is to show that there is no page for FNC and Magpie Mines Inc. on Wikipedia, then the thing to do would be to create one for each (if desirable). Anyone (including FNC IR) can be the one requesting the pages to be created and provide the information for those pages.

If this objective is not stated clearly, the people could form an opinion that search for Fancamp produces "no information...of course there is no page in Wikipedia" and search for Magpie would produce "a bird", instead of "Magpie Mines Inc. in Canada", which could create an unfair bad impression for FNC, because of the examples used.

Using Wikipedia examples may not be a good (nor fair to FNC) to conclude that there is no relevant hits for Fancamp and Magpie. If Google were used and there were no hits, then FNC would really be in trouble with their visibility.

goldhunter