Talk:Wikipediocracy

Pipes in citation titles

When adding citations to this article, some website titles include a pipe, which threw off the template "Cite web". Fortunately, a friend helped me to figure out a workaround (nowiki tags). Hopefully the additions were properly formatted, but if there is a better solution or if I did it wrong, please let me know here or on my talk page. Thanks for reading this. Optimom (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Nowiki tags work, and you can also insert them from the menu above the edit window by clicking "special characters" and then "symbols" and you get a whole bunch of junk you can click in, e.g. ||||||¿¿¤«₪♠♣♥♦ℳ⅝» and so on... Excellent work you're doing on this article, by the way.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You can also use {{!}}, thus: Other, A.N. "Hello | Goodbye". — Scott • talk 15:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both. :) Optimom (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Membership section sourced to press release

User:Collect removed the section on membership citing WP:SPS. My feeling is that this is noncontroversial material that falls squarely under WP:ABOUTSELF and thus is appropriate for inclusion with the press release as the source. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Whilst I consider it "unduly self-serving." We do not have "subscribed to by the President of the United States" in the NYT article -- such claims as to who reads or subscribes to a site is not encyclopedic. If Salon said it - then we sould have a secondary source - but here is is SPS in spades. Collect (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If Sanger were merely a member perhaps you'd have a case, but he's a contributor. I've changed the wording to reflect that. If the NYT issued a press release stating that the President of the United States were a contributor I'd say that we could put it in the article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Then only the Sanger claim is usable if you find that notable and not self-serving. Collect (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You think the rest of that factual material is self-serving? How so? Do we not take the word of organizations regarding people who are part of those organizations? I think your edit was unjustified. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that a general statement on who contributes to Wikipediocracy is "self serving". I added the section to mention that Wikipedians contribute there, and not just banned users, trolls, and the other misconceptions about Wikipediocracy. :( Optimom (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In light of the restoration of Dr Sanger to the section on contributors, I took the liberty of re-adding the fact that current and former Wikipedians contribute. I think this is important to the understanding of the site's purpose and content. Please remove it if that goes against any policies. Optimom (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Qworty = Robert Clark Young; BLP issue or not?

User:Collect removed the equation of Robert Clark Young with Qworty in the lead, citing BLP concerns. I think that the sentence was phrased neutrally, was cited to a reliable source, that the fact is widely reported elsewhere, does not involve a crime, gossip, rumour, or other such issues, and thus that there are no BLP concerns with leaving it explicit. Thoughts? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Now User:Russavia claims that he doesn't have to discuss the issue of equating Robert Clark Young's name with Qworty because of a vague wave at WP:BLP. He evidently thinks it's obvious that including Robert Clark Young's name in this article is a violation of that policy, but rather than having the common decency to explain his reasoning, if there is any, he threatens to take me to AN/U (what is AN/U, anyway?). Does anyone who actually wants to use the talk page have any thoughts on this situation?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the lede is not a desirable location for such identification, nor do I think it was phrased in the best way. However, I think naming him in this article does have significant importance as the whole piece in Salon focuses on the fact that Qworty is Young.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

While I consider listing him by name to be gratuitous as the article is about a website, and not directly relevant to Q's identity. If a factoid does not have any value to an article, then best practice is not to use it. If he had edited about the topic of this article, that would be a far different kettle of fish. Mentioning a living person in an unrelated article is a BLP concern, btw. The Salon article may be relevant - that does not mean the factoid is. Collect (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert Clark Young already contains this material, so repeating it here seems acceptable, but perhaps it would be wise to ask about both uses on WP:BLPN. Reddit does not name Michael Brutsch as ViolentAcres, although Michael Brutsch obviously does. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Mention of the Qworty/Young connection is now perfectly proper and essential, but there is another problem, in that it's mentioned in the lead, but not in the body. A section should be started for examples, which can then be mentioned in the lead.

Watchdog groups like this, whether we like their antagonism or not, serve a useful purpose. The truth has nothing to fear from criticism and examination, only error need fear it. We should keep our eyes open for more weaknesses in our system. Maybe this incident will help increase sentiments for required registration, as well as carefully controlled use of checkuser for background monitoring of suspicious activity, without an SPI. This kind of thing could be stopped if usernames and the IPs they use were better controlled. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the lead/body problem is a problem, yes, although fixable. I also think that BLPN would be a useful step if we can't reach consensus here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I trimmed the lead substantially and added the material to the "Media activity" section. I will leave the Robert Clark Young issue alone for now while discussion here is ongoing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

While I was doing that I was edit-conflicted by the re-addition of Young's name.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think a mention is fine in the lead, as this story is arguably what brought this website to prominence in the eyes of reliable sources. The link between the Wikipedia handle and the real-life name is quite established now by reliable sources and is now mentioned in the subject's own Wiki-bio. I agree that if it is mentioned in the lead then it should appear later in the article, as Brangifer notes. Or we could just have an "examples" or "in the news" type section later on without a lead mention. Doesn't matter, those are editorial decisions to make. I cordially ask that Russavia review WP:BLP policy and really understand what it does and does not mean, as this is the 2nd time in recent days that he appears to have misused it to edit inappropriately. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

why no mention of Kohs and Barbour?

Why doesn't this fantastic article state the obvious; that the two people behind it (Gregory Kohs and Eric Barbour) are permabanned from English Wikipedia? Or has that non-profit thing been done now? xD Russavia (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is a good question. Do you have a reliable source to establish the notability of these two persons at this website? Tarc (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I had added that banned users contribute there, but User:Collect removed it. :( Optimom (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:BLP apply to article talk pages as well? Perhaps we should request revdel of User:Russavia's comment until such time as the controversial statement that Kohs and Barbour have anything to do with this article can be substantiated? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

FOR MORE INFORMATION - E-mail: [email protected] - with 2 names attached -- Kohs and Barbour. Or are we now saying that OTHER people are behind the site and have editorial control? If so, who are they? Russavia (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't need reliable sources establishing their notability - they will stay unlinked. The fact that they are listed as contacts and whois data is enough to establish this. Russavia (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. By "it" you meant Wikipediocracy rather than the more obvious antecedent "this fantastic article." I misunderstood. I have no problem mentioning in this article that Kohs and Barbour are involved with Wikipediocracy, but mentioning the fact that they're permabanned would need a secondary source. Feel free to make the edit.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Gregory Kohs on stated clearly over a year ago that WO is "privately owned" by himself; and would be transferred into hands of a non-profit org with a board of trustees. Has this occurred yet? Russavia (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This is beginning to stray a bit afield, but do you know the difference between owning a domain and owning a website? Tarc (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

which reminds me, were the qrpedia domains ever transferred to wmuk/wmf? 174.141.213.14 (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So Greg is moving with the same speed as Jimbo moves to pay award winners and the Monmouth/Gibraltarpedia move to hand over rights for their app both involving registered non-profits and full time jobs? AFAIK GK still owns the site registration but he is just one voice over there.

However, there was an announced intention to avoid what happened at WR where the site owner over-ruled the staff and mods and they and most of the other active posters decamped to Wikipediocracy. There are thirteen people listed as staff or global moderators and these do not include GK who does not have access to any of the tools. There are also a number of trustees who AFAICT don't have day-to-day control over the content and who is registered in the way that staff and moderators do but can take part in private policy discussions. GK is in that category and so is Larry Sanger. Also, if any mention is to be made of WP:BANNED people in senior positions, then some should also be made of those with advanced permissions here who also feature as mods etc. Saying that certain people have authority beyond what Wikipediocracy has announced would be WP:OR. And if you turn to reliable secondary sources, I suspect that Andreas Kolbe will be the person most identified as having a role with Wikipediocracy.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Mission statement quotation = copyvio?

Regarding this diff. User:Russavia claims it's a copyright violation. This seems wrong to me. It is a single sentence, attributed and set off in quotation marks. This is clearly fair use. Russavia also claims that the inclusion of the mission statement is promoting the website. This seems wrong to me as well. One can learn a lot about an institution from its mission statement in one way or another. This one is quite concise and informative and I support its inclusion here. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Already restored it as it was attributed and in quotation marks. Not a copyvio at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Relevancy of contributors?

Why is it relevant to list contributors of this (or any) forum? Wikipedia doesn't have a section listing notable people that have an account on Wikipedia, and I really don't know of any other article on a forum that specifically lists its contributors without explaining why or how it is relevant. Kohs can be listed as the owner (if there is a source for that), but other than that, the information seems quite irrelevant. --Conti|✉ 20:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

See, e.g.

1. Salon.com#Staff_and_contributors
2. Slashdot#Team
3. Boingboing#History

Etcetera. Sanger's not just a contributor to the forum, he's a trustee of the website and a contributor to the blog. It is normal to have this information in website articles.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Those list staff and other people actively working for those sites. There's nothing wrong with a similar list here (assuming those people are noteworthy). So, if Sanger has blogged for Wikipediocracy, that would be noteworthy. That he's a mere contributor to the forums, on the other hand, would not be. --Conti|✉ 21:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Got it. We actually agree completely. Sanger blogs for them, and in this section of the article what's meant is contributors to the blog, not to the forum. You're absolutely correct that a list of forum contributors would not be noteworthy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

claim that WHOIS data is OR for owner of domain name

Regarding this diff. A claim is made that using WHOIS data to determine the owner of a domain name is WP:OR. I think, rather, that this clearly falls under the WP:PRIMARY exception to the use of primary sources, viz. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." I might also note that the documentation for Template:Infobox website encourages the use of WHOIS data to find the date that a website was founded. It seems unlikely that such a widely used template would be encouraging violations of policy in its documentation. Therefore I think the reference should be reinstated. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I didn't know about the infobox encouraging the use of WHOIS. To me, it seems like a straightforward case of original research (just think of the cases where domain information is used to "expose" owners of various websites), but I'll happily give in to any consensus that has been formed on this in the past. --Conti|✉ 21:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The only thought comes to mind is to guess how many socks have come to edit this article.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

OR doesnt really apply, as its not 'research'. Using a WHOIS registry as a source would be using a primary source however, but since use of primary sources is allowed for non-controversial claims/facts about the subject, I dont have any issue. Likewise the template does encourage use of WHOIS for date of websites because its almost always a non-controversial fact, and its one of the few places its going to have a very high degree of accuracy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Why so shy?

I note with interest that Russavia, who is both the subject of a blog post at Wikipediocracy, and is banned from its forum, has removed his name from the list of connected contributors above, despite having edited this article multiple times. Conflicts of interest are for other people, obviously.

Full disclosure: I post on the forum there, which is why I will not be editing the article, or commenting on its AfD, because that would create a conflict of interest for me. Obviously. — Scott • talk 10:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't you add your name to that list too, then? Practically everyone who has edited the article is "involved" in one way or another. And we all know that. --Conti|✉ 10:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I think Scott hasn't touched the article tho. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's correct. Maybe I should, though, then I could get some free publicity from this talk page. Gotta love being famous for no reason. — Scott • talk 11:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a result of the connected contributers template above being a bit fuzzy. Its wording says "The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article.". What it *should* say is "The following Wikipedia contributors who have edited this article may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article." Which would be more accurate. Can Russavia remove himself from a connected contributer notice however? As in, is it policy compliant for him to do so? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A field was missing. Fixed. I won't edit war over Russavia's removal of himself; consensus can decide whether he has, in fact, been involved with editing it, or if we all imagined it. — Scott • talk 11:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Why should it say that? What do you think the purpose of the template is? Everyone here already knows that pretty much everyone here is involved, so the existence of the template itself is rather silly, and edit warring over the template itself would be even sillier. --Conti|✉ 11:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Well as I understand the point of the tag, it is meant to identify users who are involved with the subject and may be editing it. Not every editor on WP who is connected to wikipediocracy has edited it, so its pointless filling it up with names. As for the point of the tag/template, thats something better taken up at COIN. Some there prefer it to be used for easy tracking of potential COI issues. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah I see what Scott means by missing field now. That makes more sense. Only question I have left is 'should an editor named in the tag be allowed to remove themselves from it'. General consensus at COIN is that people with conflicts of interest should not edit directly and only make suggestions. If Russavia is unhappy about being tagged as editing the article while he is connected to the subject, suggest he gain consensus here before removing himself from it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• As it is now clear to me on the tag what it is showing (connected contributers who have edited the article) I have reinserted russavia. If we have the tag on the talk page, it should be complete. I suggest if people who are connected dont want their names there, form a consensus to remove the tag entirely. Although we might want to get some input from the editors at COIN to see if thats a good idea or not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Russavia has said on his talk page that he has taken this article from his watchlist. As such, no further edits from him are to be expected, so the entire argument becomes moot. I've removed him again. We can rehash all this if he starts editing again. In the meantime, I invite you to add all wikipediocracy members you know of that edit this article, since apparently pointing out that kind of conflict of interest is so important. :) --Conti|✉ 12:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I dont actually think it is that important. I dont see it as necessary to have, or not have it. I do think if it is going to be used it should be used correctly. Although since Russavia has said he is no longer going to edit the page, and as far as I can see his 'contributions' were all reverted, there is not really an abiding need to have his name on it. If he returns to editing the article however, he should be included. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

In that case, how about we remove the template entirely? I think the conflicts of interest here are blatantly obvious: We pretty much all have one. Hand picking a few individuals to specifically point out to have a conflict of interest is silly at best, and disruptive at worst. So we might as well toss the template out of the window and have one issue less to worry about. --Conti|✉ 13:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

As the person that added it in the first place, that sounds fine to me. — Scott • talk 13:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No objection here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly it's quite silly as it currently is with two people whose relationship with Wikipediocracy is ambivalent highlighted. One was blocked there for a while and one resigned for a while in protest at the outing of Russavia.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I've removed the template. --Conti|✉ 15:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources

In this diff we have User:Silverseren placing this template:{{Primary source-inline|reason=Primary sources should not make up an entire section.}} on the "Mission statement" section using this edit summary: When an entire section is made up of primary sources (especially for things like this), it brings into question the relevancy and importance of the sections themselves Since Seren hasn't seen fit to start a section to discuss this I'm doing it here. I wonder if Seren would be so kind as to explain why primary sources should not make up a whole section. Is this some kind of guideline? I've never seen this argument used. I also wonder if Seren would explain what is meant by his parenthetical remark, "especially things like this"? What are things "like this"? What does being "like this" have to do with whether whole sections should be made up of primary sources. I need to understand these objections fully before I can discuss them properly. Thoughts? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I meant the sections of Mission statement and Contributors, the latter especially. If secondary sources aren't covering or even mentioning the information, it's rather hard to claim that it is of enough importance to include. There are a ton of "Contributors" that we could add to that section with primary sources, but that would clearly not be appropriate. If a contributor is all that important, they will be mentioned in a secondary source. As for the mission statement section, I just don't understand why it's included at all or why it is necessary to include. It's certainly not something that needs its own section. Silverseren^C 18:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

(a) Mission statement: This is one single sentence. I think it's a motto. Template:Infobox website has a field for a motto, and surely it's appropriate to use the website as a primary source to fill in that field. Because this widely used infobox asks for this information and primary sourcing is an appropriate way to put it there, it is reasonable to conclude that (i) the motto of a website belongs in the article about the website, and (ii) primary sources are an acceptable way to get it. I originally put it in the "motto" field in the infobox but others were concerned about the formatting, so this section is our compromise. As far as I know it represents consensus on this talk page, although I suppose that now we're revisiting it. (b) As you will see if you read the above section on contributors, it is commonplace in website articles to have lists of contributors. It's been agreed through consensus here that these will be contributors to the blog itself rather than to the forum and this is stated explicitly in the section. Again, this is exactly in line with current practice. The fact that the fact that Larry Sanger blogs for Wikipediocracy obviously falls under WP:PRIMARY and the fact that Sanger is notable makes his inclusion on this list appropriate.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Looking at articles such as World Wide Fund for Nature and Save the Children quoting a group's mission or their self-description is fairly common. Even what less reputable organisations such as the Jewish Internet Defense Force say about themselves are quoted in our articles. On your other points, I've just looked at WPO's list of contributors by number of posts and see that Larry is at No 51 with 123 posts. Number 1 with 4088 is Eric Barbour, whilst exactly 200 accounts have posted anything with another 158 accounts listed without any posts. So Larry is a moderate participant and by no means the most prominent there as an actor. He is, however, one of the trustees but, as I'm not one, I don't really know how much that entails in terms of activity behind the scenes. The numbers are also just the lists of forum posts, not contributions to the blog or who has been involved in speaking to the press. I rather doubt that any of the Arbs and former Arbs who have been active in the forum have been involved in any of those other activities.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a note; we seem to have reached a consensus here only to list contributers to the blog itself, rather than to the forum. As Larry Sanger is the most notable to date, he's the only one listed. I've reflected this decision in newly clarified language in the article text.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

On the mission statement, I could go either way, but I do not think it should have its own section. There's no reason for it, since it's a section of one sentence that has no possibility of ever being expanded. The sentence should be moved elsewhere. As for the Contributors section, if other notable people end up making blog posts, do you really think sourcing all of that to primary sources is appropriate? Silverseren^C 05:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Another possible source

[1]. The fellah's got a Wikipedia article Glyn Moody. Volunteer Marek 16:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

My participation

I'm the only mentioned Wikipediocracy blogger, but I'm not responsible for the blog in any way. In fact, the only thing I've done as far as their blog is concerned is to give them permission to reprint things that I wrote in my own blog. I'm pretty sure I haven't written anything specifically for their blog. So I'd appreciate it if someone were either (a) put my name at the end of a list of their main bloggers (others have written much more frequently than my stuff was reprinted by them), or (b) leave my name out altogether. Thanks.

Moreover, I am not a "trustee of the website," whatever that means. There is no Board of Trustees, as far as I know. If there is, I'm not on it. I agreed to receive a level of permissions that was labeled that way, but I entirely eschew any legal or other responsibility for the content of the site, apart from my own contributions. Nor was I ever asked to do so, by the way. The point is that there is no legitimate sense of the word "trustee" in which I can be said to be a trustee of the site.

Finally, I rarely participate in the site anymore, and I never participated much in the first place. For the record, I'm no longer in the business of Wikipedia criticism.

Do try to get your facts right, Wikipedians. I know it's hard (really--journalism is very, very hard do right). --Larry Sanger (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I think most of what Sanger has written above is correct (I use "most" instead of "all" to signal the chance that there are things I don't know, but I doubt it. There is nothing he has written that I dispute here.) There are people with "trustee" permission at the website, which simply means they can view a few forums that others do not (I can't think of anything analogous in the Wikipedia sense). For the moment, it is a fact that he is a "trustee" in the Wikipediocracy sense, but not in the sense of Trustee more broadly understood.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, Larry, if you have been misrepresented. I had avoided editing this article at all, given some of the politics involved. I've even been told by an administrator that it was not "smart" to have got involved with the topic at all.

But, as you know, we take BLP seriously. So I will take care, from now on, to bring the article into shape. Thank you again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to revert if you'd like, but I see no reason not to mention generic "editors and administrators."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Two people (one of them me) tried to address this issue. My version left Larry Sanger's name out altogether, which I think is preferable since that's what he asked for. I'm going to revert to it now and then keep my hands off for others to decide.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Morris "opinion piece"

Regarding this diff, what evidence is there that this quote is from "an opinion piece?" It looks like straight-up news reporting to me. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"made allegations of"

Regarding this diff, how in the world is "made allegations of" more neutrally worded than the phrase it replaces? Short answer, it's not. The reporters reported on the information in reliable sources without hedging about it, so the "allegations" are, in fact, reliably sourced. Thus the reporters were alerted to them rather than being the recipients of allegations. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"proffered the opinion that"

Regarding this diff. Please, too much hedging. The guy wrote a straight news piece and did a test and said that Walsh's story seemed to check out. What is the benefit to this awkward wording?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Commercial whatever

Regarding this diff. What is this change even supposed to mean? It's a noncommercial website.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of well-sourced material

Regarding this diff. You may think it's "childish nonsense" but it's well-sourced and you should gain consensus on the talk page before removing it. Thoughts? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL, Which thread to respond to? Let's leave it for now, lest the article gets tarred with the editwar brush. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 02:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

conflict of interest

I'm surprised that Alison has been reverting other people's edits on the article without declaring her own involvement as a staff member of the site.

Perhaps I'm wrong about that, or perhaps she would care to clarify her involvement?

In the meantime, I'm sure other Wikipediocracy staff members, founders, contributors etc will wish to "man up" (sic) and admit it.

In your own time, guys. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge, you've already published a list of names including Alison's at one of the many threads on this topic. Stop being an arse. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 04:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Not all of those names were people who are staff members of Wikipediocracy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if User:Demiurge1000 would clarify what they mean by "contributors etc"? Do I have to "admit it" if I only read the site, but do not post? Optimom (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge1000

Please stop reverting things until you have responded to Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's comments above. To talk of COI is laughable when you have stated that we will always be the "boxcutter-crew" in your eyes. Is Larry Sanger such a person? Have you read his post today at WO?:

• I am a contributor, and I'm not sorry about that. Wikipediocracy fills a necessary role, and it fills it rather well.

Until you retract your previous statement, you should refrain from editing the article in any way whatsoever. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 03:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've read Sanger's comments at your website, and I'm very clear on his views of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm intrigued. Do elucidate further. After you've responded to the points above, that is. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 04:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge1000, why do you think it's OK to edit-war over this? You were reverted by two different editors, one of whom started sections on the talk page to discuss every single one of your preferred versions, exactly per BRD. Instead of discussing any of them you revert a third time with no explanation other than an unsupported accusation of COI in an edit summary? Why don't you take it to COIN if you think that claim's supportable? Why don't you talk instead of edit-warring?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Dot

Why does Daily Dot reporter Kevin Morris have so many quotes and references? He and his blog are mentioned more in this article than in theThe Daily Dot itself. This appears problematic and a WP:COATRACK for complaints by a single person from a single blog. It seems appropriate to trim "The List" back to a simple general expression of what Wikipediocracy is as opposed to the discussions contained inside. Wikipedia has articles on the notable discussions and the Daily Dot has more content here than it does in it's own article. BTW, Kevin Morris is also not notable enough to be mentioned so many times. He's not even mentioned in The Daily Dot article. Why is his opinion given so much weight to be referenced so often? This article should be about the same size or smaller than it's major claim of notability, The Daily Dot and sections/paragraphs sourced to "Kevin Morris" collapsed into a single sentence or less.--08:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

FFS, sourcing has been discussed at AfD, AfD2, etc. After those wastes of time, you are welcome to try to reduce the article's use of Morris's article to a sentence, and enjoy being blocked for disruptive editing (I suspect). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you even read WP:COATRACK before citing it here? It's completely inapropos. It has nothing to do with how many different articles are by the same person. You must have meant to make a WP:VAGUEWAVE at some other essay. Please feel free to tell us what it is. Also, Morris is mentioned so much because he reports on the relevant topics. You might have a complaint if all the quotes were from one of his pieces, but they're not. Obviously reporters cover the same story in many articles so it's likely that a Wikipedia article will rely on many sources by one person.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Boring article

If you are going to write an article, write a good article. Put a memorable detail, quote, or illustration for anything important. Explain why things matter.

The article could be expanded (briefly!) using Morris's account of how Wikipedia's self-correction mechanisms have worked, for example. I added a sentence about the banning of Qworty from BLPs, for example. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation section

How is this noteworthy? Someone suspected vandalism coming from the WMF, some further examination resulted in the suspicion being untrue. That's it. And that's noteworthy.. how, exactly? --Conti|✉ 11:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"when complaints are freely heard, deeply considered and speedily reformed, then is the utmost bound of civil liberty attained that wise men look for." "For he who freely magnifies what hath been nobly done, and fears not to declare as freely what might be done better, gives ye the best covenant of his fidelity."

— John Milton, Areopagitica

It was reported in a reliable source. (It also shows the watchdog site finding something funny, and WMF diagnosing and apparently fixing a bug.) See a Milton quote on my talk page, regarding civil liberty. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"It was reported in a reliable source" is not an argument against exclusion, a very common mistake done here on Wikipedia. We can still use our editorial judgement to exclude information from reliable sources, if there's consensus to do so. And in this case, the information seems entirely superfluous. --Conti|✉ 12:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

What is noteworthy about it is that a blog post on WO compelled a response from the Foundation to The Daily Dot. The incident would not be noteworthy on, say, the WMF article or The Daily Dot article, but it is noteworthy here as one of the few instances where criticism on WO lead to a response in the media.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Bong image

Kiefer Wolfowitz claims on my talk page that the image of the bong used here was removed in the Russian Wikipedia version. I can't verify this, the image does not seem to appear on neither the old nor the current revision of the Russian Wikipedia article linked in the Wikipediocracy tweet. Can anyone confirm that? If that's the case, the image caption should make that more obvious. --Conti|✉ 11:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

My caption is neutral and does not involve any appearance of OR or synthesis. Read the source. (The page history shows that this image was removed and the editor blocked on RU WP.) Do the research and try to find RS documentation, if you want a more descriptive title. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have read the source, and it's quite useless right now, as the comparison links link to the current revision of the Russian Wikipedia article. And the current revision of the Russian Wikipedia article happily shows various pictures of bongs, links to their article on bongs, etc. And neither the old revision nor the current one uses this particular image. So at the very least we should mention that a) the Russian Wikipedia article has returned to its original state, and b) use a different image, or none at all. --Conti|✉ 12:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you learn to use the page history feature before you deliver us ultimatums. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

So it appears that the image was removed from Бонг, and not from the ru.wp article that the Daily Dot article talked about. Thank you for pointing that out. :) So we're talking about two articles, the one the Russian government complained about, and the one on Bongs. The former has been shortened significantly, but has since been largely restored, the latter has been shortened significantly up to this day. And we confuse the two articles in this section and treat them as one. That's not exactly ideal. And, again, the claim of censorship is not neutral, no matter how silly you think that is. --Conti|✉ 12:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Read and understand the article. Some students find that reading and discussing paragraphs with a friend increases retention, but you should find a technique that works for you.

• The reliable source refers to images of home-made bongs. The illustration is a Russian home-made bong.
• The reliable source uses the word "censorship".

Please stop wasting time. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you are mistaking Wikipediocracy for The Daily Dot, for some reason. Yes, The Daily Dot pointed out how ru.wp removed information on bongs, among other things. Wikipediocracy, however, only linked to removal of information in the Russian article on cannabis smoking. You are trying to give Wikipediocracy credit where we should give credit to the Daily Dot. --Conti|✉ 12:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps. Let's double check the sources and strive for accuracy and information. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your criticism of my dangerous liason. The new caption should be okay, now. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I have. You seem to blindly revert every edit you see, however. Again, the image in question has never been referenced by the Wikipediocracy tweet, while the article currently implies that it has. That is not ideal, to say the least. It would make a lot more sense to use an image that was actually used and removed in the Russian cannabis smoking article, and it would make a lot more sense to point that out so we let our readers know why the image in question is relevant in the first place. And then there's the issue of the word "censorship". It's not okay to use it just because a source used it, and I'm quite sure that you know that. --Conti|✉ 12:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

As I suggested before, find a better image. Until then, this image illustrates the article, as I've noted already. I agree that better images may be available, but I've spent enough time editing this article.

Censorship is accurate and was used by a reliable source. If you have a better phrase, please suggest it here. You have made good suggestions before, and we've tried to work out a consensus. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Any image removed in the Russian cannabis smoking is better, though I still prefer no image at all. As for a better word, just use "removed information regarding to" instead of "censored", but you already reverted me when I made that change. --Conti|✉ 14:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"removed information"---That's dishonest euphemism. A government threatened RU:WP, which self-censored its content, according to the RS cited. You and others have removed information in good faith, but you are not censoring anything (with the power of the courts and police). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No, "removed information" is a factual statement of what happened, without implying why it happened. Not to mention that the "censored" information is back again at the ru.wp article, right now, which is something we don't even mention. Now that is dishonest. --Conti|✉ 15:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"Suppress" may be better than the RS's "censorship"..., and more NPOV. (Suppressing trial information is normal operating procedures in democracies.) What do you think? (BTW, our image is better than the RS's, which seems to just be a CC BY 2.0 image with a marijuana pipe from Flikr.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the image is relevant to the subject as a whole. In other words, it doesn't illustrate or help in the understanding of Wikipediocracy, the web site. - MrX 14:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The picture illustrates the subsection on Russian censorship, where it follows the RS, which contains a picture of a marijuana pipe and marijuana. Due weight might suggest marijuana also be shown. However, I think that this is a fair illustration that does not try to be sensationalistic. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Conti and MrX. (I'm a moderator of Wikipediocracy.) Andreas JN466 21:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I would note that so

Wikipediocracy's documentation was the source cited for a story on the Russian-language Wikipedia's suppression of information about marijuana "inhalation devices".

me of the information removed on the Russian Wikipedia concerned bongs made from empty plastic bottles.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That particular image was never in the Russian article, so it is twice removed from what the article is talking about. It is just a random image of a bong. It would make more sense to add an image of the Russian Wikipedia's logo; but even that seems like having an image just for the sake of having an image. It does not really add anything to the article that is of value to the reader in understanding the topic. Andreas JN466 21:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Bong animation removed from Russian WP

Wikipediocracy's documentation was the source cited for a story on the Russian-language Wikipedia's suppression of information about marijuana "inhalation devices".

This image was removed between the two diffs listed in the Wikipediocracy twitter twits. You guys write a lot on talk pages when you should have been looking for a better image and double checking citations. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I find your insistence on a bong image in this article completely bizarre. What is it with bongs? Andreas JN466 23:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Could we please try to find a consensus before re-adding the animation or image? These distract from the topic of the web site without adding any real informational value. - MrX 00:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any experience with writing DYKS? An image will dramatically increase the number of readers, obviously, especially an animated image. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems a bit sensationalistic. I propose we focus on writing a good, concise article that informs readers about the actual subject of the article. - MrX 11:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You are the only one insisting on an image of any kind. Perhaps it is time to just let it go. And I have been double checking citations days ago, and explained to you in great detail why the image that was originally used is not useful at all, and that there are other images that would be slightly more useful. In turn, you proceeded to revert every single of my edits to the article and challenged my reading comprehension abilities. --Conti|✉ 00:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I do think throwing in images of bongs makes the whole article seem silly. The animation was particularly bad because of how the caption stretched the image box.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We can get help resizing the image. We can also find another image from Russian WP; for example, one of you can. Previously, Jayen455/Andreas objected to the bong image that was removed from the Russian bong article but which was not cited by Wikipediocracy's Twitter feed. I found an image from the Twitter feed documentation, which also would maximize the number of readers on the article's DYK day. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think resizing the image (or animation) or finding better images is really the issue here. The issue is that the image is distracting, sensationalistic and of marginal importance. I would love to see us spend this energy on other aspects of improving the article for the benefit of our readers. - MrX 11:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Your tone needs improvement, particularly given your slight contributions to this article.

TDA complained about the sizing, and I addressed TDA's concern.

What impact do you think that having an image would have on the readership for a DYK? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I also said the images make the article seem silly.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We should not edit articles to get as many views as possible, and we should not add images just to gain viewers from the main page. That is an inherently wrong approach to editing an encyclopedia article. --Conti|✉ 23:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• The image is retarded, leave it out. Besides, everyone knows that an apple bong is way cooler. Tarc (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  It makes somebody feel intellectually challenged? I cannot address the coolness of apple bongs, since the last contact I had with a bong was watching Bradley's role in True Romance.Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)15:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• It seems out of place in an article about a website that isn't drug/cannabis related, IMO. Optimom (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  Let me repeat. It's not in the article's lede. It is in the section about Russian WP suppressing information about marijuana, and the picture was suppressed.... (Nobody has said that the website is cannabis related. Please try to focus.) How is that out of place? (Our opinions are worthless, as you know. The RS on that section uses a less relevant image of a marijuana pipe and marijuana.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Lede grammar and style and content

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has reverted my edits to the lede, claiming consensus. While the ownership content perhaps does not belong in the lede, proper grammar and style does. The list format seems a little amateurish. I'm adhering to 1RR, but would hope that someone else cares about the quality of this article. - MrX 14:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You attribute the news background to Wikipediocracy, where Leonard attributes news background to Wikipediocracy contributors. Focus on content before worrying about style. You also focused on Koh, a bizarre focus for this article. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't have an opinion on the mention of the ownership in the lead; it's a matter for the talk page to decide if that ownership is important enough to be mentioned there. But while a (short) list is not generally found in the lead, Kiefer's edit has significantly improved the writing in the lead: the "including" clause was ambiguous and unelegant. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies here. Kiefer's version is much, much better. I don't like the bulleted list, though, and would prefer to see us reformat the same material into prose. I feel as if I've reverted more than is seemly on this article today, so won't be doing that myself. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. I quickly edited it. I also try to write for non-native English speakers and ADDers, etc., who have trouble with Proustian prose. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. I read it wrong and in my effort to improve it, I made it worse. My main objective was to convert the list to prose. - MrX 16:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Now let's all make like we're the best of friends, or Wikipediocracy will write us up. Hey Kiefer! How's shakes? Mr. X! Let's go catch a movie again tonight! Kiefer, you coming? Drmies (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

After his "apology", MrX headed over to AN/EW where he gave a one-sided report. MrX is not welcome hos mej.

Hey, thanks for the smear! I wonder if everyone else thinks it's OK to edit war when you think you're right. - MrX 18:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to do something useful, go find the best image by searching on the page history of Russian WP's article and checking with the Twitter source. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer, I was going to ask you to lower the sarcasm level, but indeed, that report was made later, suggesting that the matter wasn't over. Mr. X., I haven't looked at the history and I don't care so much. Breaching 3R is a clear signal of edit warring, but there doesn't need to be a breach of 3R for there to be edit warring on the other side. Frankly, in the spirit of collegiality, you should really have let this go, and I hope Bbb will close that report. Having said that, Kiefer, you know that being right does not alleviate the charge of edit warring. Can't you all do this without resorting to accusations, sarcasm, and noticeboard warnings? I'm staying home tonight. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

We'll try to watch the 2nd half of Get Shorty. The Mrs. developed a taste for Justified. :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• As for that lead thing, the owner--if it's important enough to mention, that's because it's either a real notable person in his own right (and it's clear that he is), or because secondary sources make his ownership notable. If the article body can support that, it can be in there, in my opinion, but that would require more than primary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• I have just reverted four edits (sorry Alf, that yours was part of it), for two reasons. First, the claim that something is covered in the body is not sufficient reason--in fact, the lead should summarize the article, and giving a few salient examples (as listed with bullet points) is perfectly acceptable. Second, given the recent back and forthing, I find it to be a bit disruptive (at least short-sighted) to just jump in and chop like this, when the very content was under discussion. Being bold is nice in many cases, but this is not one of them. Editors should discuss what they're doing and why they're doing it, or we're going to have an even more contentious mess to deal with. Bbb23 has already dropped the suggestion that full protection might be necessary; you all can work to prevent that by discussing matters here. For instance--you don't like the bulleted list? Propose a change. Etc. Happy editing. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Apologies to all. It looks janky to my eye, so I fixed it, unaware that my edits would be problematic. I will leave this to more experienced editors. Optimom (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Several editors have objected to the bullet list, so how about we at least find a way to summarize that content in the lede? For the most part, Optimom's and Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's edits seem pretty reasonable as well. - MrX 01:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Optimom, sorry (and belatedly a happy mother's day), but this is contentious right now. No apology necessary, and you are welcome to discuss the matter here. Mr. X, I can't let half of that lead (that you and Kiefer fought over!) just be scrapped like that, and certainly not with what seems to me an incorrect rationale. Hammer it out here. And there's no rush; all of this will still be here tomorrow. Ethics require, it seems to me, that no decision should be made before your opponent comes back from his European timezone. Come on, we're all grown up here. You all can work this out. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, noted. Thanks Drmies. /)(\ Optimom (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Love the bulleted list. Wiki gets too scaredy of doing anything different from earlier articles. In the big wide real world, having a little list in an exec summary would not be so strange. Plus there is not that much meat on the bone anyhow. No comments on the rest of the teafights.TCO (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not an exec summary, but the lede of an encyclopedia article. I agree with pretty much everyone else that a bullet list just doesn't fit. In addition, it is quite unusual to offer specific examples like that in the introduction of an article, especially on an article as short as this one. A summary of an article is not a reiteration of the table of contents, and I think a more general overview of what Wikipediocracy does would suffice, and as such I would remove all the examples from the lede. --Conti|✉ 12:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, the lede summarizes the article. There are sections or paragraphs devoted to some of these topics. The lede had one sentence on three reasonable representative topics: the most notable, one where WMF had a software error which was fixed after the unlinkable site's report raised questions about the appearance of vandalism---I forget the 3rd example. Nobody has written a RS about what Wikipediocracy does. The reliable sources all cover worthy muck-raking of controversies, and so the controversies must be the focus of the article---unless you want to substitute OR and synthesis for RS. Insofar as we want the reader to consider reading the article, we should make the lead interesting also. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I had a go at incorporating the list into a single lede paragraph. Seems fine now and isn't overly long.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks great. :) Your wording is clearer, in some ways, and the sentence length and complexity are reasonable. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The lede is better. Perhaps I'm grammatically challenged, but does this sentence seem to be a bit awkwardly worded?

"Controversies where their assistance was noted include one where a Wikipedia editor was making negative edits to articles about his literary rivals and another where the Russian-language Wikipedia was suppressing information about home-made drug paraphernalia." - MrX 00:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I edited the sentence to:

"Wikipediocracy has exposed controversies including one in which a Wikipedia editor was making negative edits to articles about his literary rivals and another in which the Russian-language Wikipedia was suppressing information about home-made drug paraphernalia."

"Their" was potentially ambiguous because of the preceding sentence. "Where" refers to place, so I changed it to "in which". - MrX 11:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring over categories

I notice recently that there has been some edit warring over categories and project boxes for the article and this talk page. If you think that a category or project belongs here, please list it below and we'll vote on it. I will start it off:

Category:GibraltarpediA

Support

Several of the media mentions link WO to the GibraltarpediA project. So I think this article belongs in that category. Cla68 (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

• On the basis of scope. I think the purpose of that category is to link pages relevant to the project, based on the pages already in the category and the category talk page banner. - MrX 14:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Telegraph

This edit by Silver seren removed a Telegraph source at the end of the sentence "The involvement of Wikipediocracy members in criticism of Wikipedia has been discussed in news stories covering Jimmy Wales's relationship with the government of Kazakhstan".

The edit summary was: "Absolutely no mention of WIkipediocracy or a link to it. Just because it mentions Andreas doesn't mean you get to include it".

I am identified as a member of the site in the other two sources cited. The Telegraph piece links to this Quora question, which identifies me as a Wikipediocracy moderator. As such, it's a valid source to back up the assertion that "The involvement of Wikipediocracy members in criticism of Wikipedia has been discussed in news stories covering Jimmy Wales's relationship with the government of Kazakhstan". Andreas JN466 14:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Just the source was removed? Seems an odd thing to do when it supports the content. Maybe he thought there were too many sources - can't see why - it certainly helped me understand the context of the content, and served to confirm it for me. Who do you suppose he means by "...doesn't mean you get to include it"? I suppose that's the problem with communicating in edit summaries (something I can often be guilty of myself). I guess the other confusion could be between sources supporting content and sources being used to show overall notability for the article - that confusion can happen sometimes when an article is at AFD and people are thinking in a particular way. Unlikely with Seren, and all his ARS experience, though, I'd have thought. Anyway, as far as I can see it's a useful source to support the content, so I'd say we should reinstate it, but we should probably give User:Silver seren some time to reply here, since there may be more to his reasoning for removal than the edit summary. I have noticed he seems very focussed on this article in his recent contributions, so he'll probably spot this discussion, and I've linked his name for 'echo' too. Begoon ^talk 14:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand the removal of that source; it seems to corroborate the others. I assume that there is a WP:SYNTH concern, but I'm sure Silver will explain his reasoning himself. - MrX 15:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As we're all equally mystified, I've put it back now. Andreas JN466 15:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"Domain ownership" section

The final section called Wikipediocracy#Domain ownership seems tacked on and not really relevant, unless it is there to lend credibility to (or remove credibility from, depending on your views) the site. I've tried to change this section into a short section called "Community", explaining that administrators and current and banned editors contribute there, which is more useful than who owns the domain name, IMO. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? I do not think it is an extraordinary claim, and Kohs' ownership of the domain would fit in such a section quite nicely. Optimom (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Putting my reader's hat on for a moment, I would find this information very important. The domain owner is typically the owner of the web site, although not always. If we can find better information from secondary sources about the ownership or control of the site, then of course that would be preferable. That said, I don't think the ownership sentence needs it's own section. - MrX 22:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

What are your reliable sources for "banned editors"? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping for the section to say 'current and former' Wikipedians, or similar, without specifying banned or unbanned. Optimom (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be equally non-informative to write "dead and living Wikipedians" or "male and female and sexually ambiguous Wikipedians". Despite conditioned reflexes acting at multiple fora (ANI, talk pages of the future Qworty's etc.), Wikipedia's daily two-minutes-hate is neither a reliable source nor interesting. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well okay then. I just think the last section on "domain ownership" seems tacked on is all. I will leave it to others to decide. Optimom (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That was what the section was about originally, but someone kept trying to force it to be about Kohs and entitled the section "commercial ownership" with the change in the section heading to "domain ownership" being my attempt to appease him.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This would fit in a subsection for "Community" quite nicely. :) Optimom (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed per WP:BLP, RS, V

I removed the original research. Please add a reliable source before re-adding it. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

"Criticism of Wikipediocracy" section

There ought to be one. After all, it's not like the site hasn't had some cogent criticisms made against it. There aren't many (or any) published ones, because the site's not that notable, but there have been some made here. I could be wrong about this, but I think those can be used if published anywhere, even a blog post, if that post then ref's back to the diff here. Even though blog posts are generally unreliable, I suppose that reliably ref'd statements in them are OK, and Wikipedia diffs are reliable, so Bob's your uncle. Right?

So if anyone here who has a blog wants to publish such a post and link to it here, that might be good. Herostratus (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope.

Your stylistically and factually slovenly posting demonstrates why Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Please see WP:RS, WP:V. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I like this idea. Perhaps title the section "Wikipedian reactions", and include some of the things Wikipedians say about the site and its members and readers. Optimom (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you joking, or just don't care about core policies? Why don't you two write an article with such OR and get it published in a forum with a professional editorial process (WP:RS)? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not joking that I like the idea. Optimom (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's too OR to roll like that. However, if the thing gets moved to WP-space, I could see that being a good way to go. Problem is the Wikipediots really don't have the dispassion to handle it properly even there.TCO (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It might be too original-research-ish. Maybe not. But that's debatable I think. The reliability of the sources really isn't, I don't think. Kiefer Wolfowitz, there's no need to be shirty here. Suppose (let us say) that it was considered worthwhile -- that is, of sufficient interest and notability -- to include a passage such as (for instance) "Some commentators on Wikipedia itself have characterized Wikipediocracy as 'a nexus of ill-tempered, shirty little whiners' (etc etc etc)<ref><ref><ref>" (assuming that anyone was rude enough -- or insightful enough? A matter of opinion I suppose -- to make such a statement.) Well the purpose of WP:RS rules is to establish that the citation is accurate -- that the person (in this example, a member of the class "Some commentators on Wikipedia itself") really did make the statement, for instance. If the New York Times says so, that's pretty reliable. But Wikipedia diffs are 100% reliable. Even if it's Joe Blow's Basement Blog -- even if its a post in the comment section of Joe Blow's Basement Blog -- it's actually better than an article in the New York Times. Because any reader can trace to the diff (assuming that Joe Blow's Basement Blog provided them), and Wikipedia diffs can't be convincingly faked. So reliability is not an issue, it's off the table. That's my view, but it's a strong position I think. Again, notability and so forth is different. But we can't leave the impression that the entity in question is, or is viewed as, an entirely anodyne and upright little website, I don't think. That wouldn't be accurate, or fair, or right, or neutral, and'd be a disservice to the reader. Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work. Who here has a blog or website, show of hands. Herostratus (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that criticize the subject of the article, then that is the basis from which to begin a discussion. Absent such sources, this "there oughta be" proposal is dead on arrival. Blogs will not be used to establish a criticism of section. Tarc (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's too troll to trawl like that. ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

But Tarc, couldn't we have a section on why there's no section on Wikipedian commentators on this article, and source it to this section of the talk page? And if we can't have that, can we at least have a section on the conspiracy to suppress the section on why we can't have a section?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A "Wikipedian reactions" section would be quite entertaining but at this point, yes, OR.Volunteer Marek 21:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A "List of opinions about Wikipediocracy and its contributors by Wikipedians" would be really funny. Cla68 (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

We could start a Web site to talk about how we want to talk about deleting the page that that has (or should have) a section that talks about how Wikipediocracy keeps looking at us funny. We could call it....Wikipediocracy. Oh wait.... MarkBernstein (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to go register the domain wikipediocracyreview.com right now. And before you get any ideas, that's Wikipediocracy Review™.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Why? Herostratus (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That's an excellent question.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Entities are reliable sources for their own contents

Thanks for responding, User:Tarc, User:Cla68, User:Volunteer Marek, User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, and User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Hi guys! I hear you.

Well, it's quite an interesting issue. Let's drill down a bit. (It's troublesome to constantly type "Wikipediocracy", so I'll use the common shorthand "WO" throughout instead.)

Regarding reliability, well of course Entities are always reliable sources for their own contents. I don't suppose that this is stated anywhere, nor need it be. It is as obvious as the sun. We also probably don't state anywhere "Entities are themselves" or "Entities that exist are not non-existent" and so forth. We are encyclopiasts, not doctors of philosophy, and we needn't and don't have passages such as "Rule 37.B.4: Entities are themselves; for instance, the New York Times is the New York Times and not a freeway bypass in Fresno".

Let's look at a concrete example of this. For instance, take this passage (from Wikipediocracy): The site describes its mission as being: "to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, along with its structural flaws; and to inoculate the unsuspecting public against the torrent of misinformation, defamation, and general nonsense that issues forth from one of the world’s most frequently visited websites, the 'encyclopedia that anyone can edit'."

Of course we're not saying that this is their mission -- that their statement is true. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, or maybe it's partly true. What is true is that they assert it.

Anyway, the ref for the passage is WO itself. But is WO a reliable source? No, it's not. We wouldn't publish "The capital of New York State is Albany", or anything else, with the cited ref being WO.

So how on earth can we publish the passage? Because it's on the website. The ref points to the passage. No sane person is going to go there and be like "Well, I see these words on the website, but they may not actually be there because the website is not a reliable source". That would be, literally, insane. Another way to state this is "Entities are always reliable sources for their own contents".

Hopefully we can all agree on this, at least. Herostratus (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I got some pushback on these two recently added sections, so just to make sure that at least this first section can be put to bed, let me state it another way using examples.

1. If the New Yorker prints "Cornel West was born in 1953" then we can, in an article, write "Cornel West was born in 1953" and cite the New Yorker, because the New Yorker is a reliable source -- we know that The New Yorker runs a vigorous fact-checking operation and we can assume that they have vetted the statement.
2. If Joe Smith's Personal Blog prints "Cornel West was born in 1953" then we cannot, in an article, write "Cornel West was born in 1953" and cite Joe Smith's Personal Blog, because Joe Smith's Personal Blog is not a reliable source -- we can't assume thatJoe Smith's Personal Blog runs a vigorous fact-checking operation and have properly vetted the statement.
3. And for the same reason, if Joe Smith's Personal Blog prints "Reggie Jackson was in the Jackson 5" then we cannot, in an article, write "Reggie Jackson was in the Jackson 5" and cite Joe Smith's Personal Blog, and this applies to anything else appearing in Joe Smith's Personal Blog.
4. But we can write, in an article, write "Joe Smith's Personal Blog said that 'Reggie Jackson was in the Jackson 5'" and cite Joe Smith's Personal Blog -- if for some reason we felt this was enclopedic. Joe Smith's Personal Blog is probably not notable enough for us to cite what they say, or maybe the blog has gone west and so the statement is not verifiable, and there may be many other good reasons for not including that passage in an article. But lack of reliability would not be one of them. Herostratus (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be amazed to see a refutation of this particular point, but maybe I've missed something; but absent some refutation appearing presently and their are no objections, I'd be OK with collapsing this subsection with a note that "It's established that entities are reliable sources for their own contents" and moving on to other matters. Herostratus (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

We need to present the subject fairly and evenhandedly, per NPOV

So we've established a basic point regarding reliability. Now let's move on to neutrality, with a side trip to notability.

OK, now suppose I assert that the mission of WO is to ruin people's lives for sport; to discern the identities of the Wikipedia's editors and falsely accuse them of infamous crimes; to attack, damage, and if possible destroy the Wikipedia; to send agents to the Wikipedia to troll, whine, insult, degrade, and render the Wikipedia's editing processes as unpleasant as possible; and, in a larger sense, to degrade the concept of community, volunteerism, non-profit charity, and social good on the internet, and to the extent possible impede the dissemination of free information to the peoples of Earth. For the purposes of moving the discussion forward, I now so assert.

Of course I don't know for a fact this is true; maybe it is, maybe it isn't, or maybe it's partly true. What is true is that I assert it.

(Granted, there is a notability difference between little me and WO. I'm just one instance of the class "some Wikipedia editors" while WO is a collective. Suppose then that I get five Wikipedia editors to sign on to the above statement (which for that would have to become a lot less purple; the exact wording isn't important for our purposes here). This then becomes the assertion of "several Wikipedia editors", which I would say is class comparable in notability to the WO brain trust actually responsible for crafting their mission statement, which is small (the brain trust, I mean, not the statement).)

So then we have an almost exactly parallel statement in include in the article:

Conversely, several Wikipedia editors describe the WO's mission as being: "to ruin people's lives for sport; to discern the identities of the Wikipedia's editors and falsely accuse them of infamous crimes; to attack, damage, and if possible destroy the Wikipedia; to send agents to the Wikipedia to troll, whine, insult, degrade, and render the Wikipedia's editing processes as unpleasant as possible; and, in a larger sense, to degrade the concept of community, volunteerism, non-profit charity, and social good on the internet, and to the extent possible impede the dissemination of free information to the peoples of Earth."

(For various good reasons, we don't source directly to Wikipedia pages and shouldn't start now. But no matter, we can source to any second party pointing to a permalink displaying the requisite material, as I've pointed out earlier, as soon as one exists.)

Should we include (something like) that? Yes, of course we should. Or, at any rate, some significant material somewhere indicating that WO is controversial. Because... does the article, Wikipediocracy, as it stands, provide the useful service to the reader of helping her understand what WO is? No, it doesn't. It makes WO look like the Little Sisters of the Poor or something. A person, after reading our article, would be gobsmacked to discover the WO is controversial, that they've been credibly shown to engage in various nefarious activities, or that some people don't like WO. That is not fair to the reader.

Mind, I may be dead wrong about WO. Maybe it really is the bee's knees. That's not important. What's important is that a lot of people, wrongheaded as they may be, don't think so. And the reader needs to know this. That is why we write articles from a neutral point of view, and why WP:NPOV begins "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (Emphasis added.)

That's not a suggestion. It's something we're really supposed to do. It's time to get to work on this. I'm hoping that my esteemed colleagues of the WO persuasion will be big enough to realize that WO -- they WO that they love and cherish, I guess -- does have detractors, and isn't perfect, and we need to fair and forthright about that, and we can work together on this as we move forward on details. Herostratus (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm collapsing this WP:IDHT behemoth/proposal to violate core policies, despite its being rejected by the talk page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mr Wolfowitz, and I appreciate your contribution, but I don't agree that that's a good idea, so I undid that. It is long, but I'm trying to work through this; it's not like it's just a rant or screed. I can't agree with your characterization of the text, so let's discuss it on the merits rather than just capping it, if you please. Herostratus (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

All well and good, but again, you are glossing over the "...that have been published by reliable sources" part of your WP:NPOV quote. Until you produce a criticism backed by a reliable source, there is really nothing to discuss here. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, right. Yes, a collection of good statements about WO would have to be collected -- perhaps a statement(s) signed by several Wikipedians, as suggested above -- and a post made outside of Wikipedia pointing to it. These are both pretty easy to do, and I'll get on that presently (I don't have a blog to point to, and I'm only willing to set one up if I'm 100% sure that doing so would not make it even slightly easier to track me down, which I don't know and will have to look up. If anyone can help in this matter, post to my talk page please). Simultaneously while doing this, I also want to establish that this will be acceptable to the community. Herostratus (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It would not be withing spitting distance of "acceptable"; you or a buddy or whoever can't just throw up a page to the likes of wordpress or blogspot, collect your opinions, and then cite it in a Wikipedia article. If you think that this is in any way, shape, or form acceptable in this project, then we (and by we I mean you) may have a serious competence issue. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to read anything more on this topic. Please don't waste any more time, even your own, on an OR proposal. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it appears that we've lost Mr Wolfowitz, this is too bad as every hand is helpful as we work this out and move forward, but we'll have to carry on I guess. Let me try another way to explain this. Wikipedia is not normally used as a source, but this is because Wikipedia articles aren't reliable by our standards. You would never cite a Wikipedia article in another article, rather you would go to the sources used in that article and use them to construct the second article. In other words, if you were working on the article New York State you would not write "The capital of New York is Albany<ref>{{cite web |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany,_New_York |title=Albany, New York |author= |date= |work=Wikipedia |accessdate=June 10, 2013}}</ref>". Everybody is clear on this, right?

However, doesn't apply to non-article space. Wikipedia is a large and important website and could be cited if it's called for. Of course, there are very few instances were it would be called for. But there are some. For instance, the article Wikipedia cites Wikipedia, as here: "The open nature of Wikipedia has led to various concerns, such as the quality of writing,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About |title=Wikipedia:About – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |publisher=English Wikipedia |accessdate=2012-07-05}}</ref>", where the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:About is cited. There may be other cites of Wikipedia in that article, where Wikipedia or Meta is cited to source data such as the date of founding, number of employees, or whatever, and if so that would be in line for common practice about entities -- for instance, the IBM website might be used to ref IBM's address, and so forth. Is everyone understanding this so far?

Well, that's for the article Wikipedia, which is about Wikipedia. Are there any other articles that might use Wikipedia non-article pages as a ref? Yes, although not very many. For instance, the article History of Online Encyclopedias, if and when it is written, might. A few others maybe. The same applies to Wikipediocracy -- it wouldn't be appropriate to use it as a ref in most articles, but it could be used in the article Wikipediocracy and in fact it is. (Wikipediocracy is very much less notable than Wikipedia so it's not likely to be a good ref in many other articles or even any, as Wikipedia might, but it's possible.)

The article Wikipediocracy would certainly be on this small list, if any are. Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy are very closely related -- Wikipediocracy is about Wikipedia and little else. So it'd be OK to cite Wikipedia non-article pages if it's called for (if the material is germane and belongs in the article, and the ref supports it). After thinking about this some more, I don't think there's no need to use an indirect cite through a separate website; directly ref'ing the Wikipedia would be just as good (better, in terms of WP:V, since as Wikipedia permalinks will always be available -- unless Wikipedia no longer exists, in which case the issue is moot.)

With the above two paragraphs, we get into arguable territory. We've addressed WP:RS and WP:V, but what about WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and notability of the cited source? That's outside the scope of this post, but briefly: WP:NPOV not only allows but requires that we give readers a fair view of any entity, and inform the reader if there are criticisms that are cogent and worth noting. Advisements against using primary sources don't prima facie trump WP:NPOV, which is an extremely important rule. We can return to these points after the primary source is established, which I'll be doing in the coming days.

Seems right to me, and if not right then at least reasonable. If there's something I'm missing we can talk about that, and maybe together find a way to fix it. More arguments-from-authority and ad-hominum arguments probably won't be especially helpful, though, I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite a clever card house you're constructing here, but if an opinion is "worth noting", then it will be noted by a reliable source; if it hasn't, then it isn't. I'm reminded a bit by a recent discussion at Talk:Kurt Cobain#Authenticity of recent image additions, where there is a dearth of non-free Cobain photographs, and a user wanted to insert a new one. The image is of rather poor quality and the authenticity IMO in doubt, but the counter-argument ran along the lines of "bad photographs are better than no photographs, the important thing is that it is free-use". I disagree, as I'd rather have an article devoid of images than one containing poor-quality free ones. Here, the contention is "an article with primary/non-WP:RS criticism-of-Wikipediocracy" vs. "an article without criticism-of-Wikipediocracy at all". I don't think NPOV is achieved by relaxing sourcing requirements; in fact the opposite, IMO NPOV is further violated if fringe criticisms are added...WP:UNDUE and all that. If and when a reliable source quotes Jimbo saying "Wikipediocracy sucks", then I'll be the first one to put it in. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

truncate the lede to make the article stronger. WP:BOLD

The lede had a brief summary of several, but not all, of the controversies in which Wikipediocracy has been embroiled. I truncated it so that the body of the text could stand on its own, and because it was awkward. I think it's better now for being shorter and more likely to be accurate over time. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Your other edits were also good. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you vehemently oppose the idea of shortening the lede just a few sections above? :) --Conti|✉ 23:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Edward can write, and his edits improve the article. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Nature of MyWikiBiz, LaRouche connection

Forgive me if I'm out of line here. I haven't been much involved with Wikipedia lately. I'm looking for reliable sources for the following assertions:

1. MyWikiBiz is a competing wiki encyclopedia to Wikipedia. Kohs was perpetually in conflict with the owner of Wikipedia Review because she alleged that he was using the site as a platform to promote MyWikiBiz.
2. Wikipediocracy was started as a splinter group from Wikipedia Review, soon after the owner discovered that the #2 staff member had been using the site primarily to promote Lyndon LaRouche on Wikipedia. That staff member, Hersh, then went on to co-found Wikipediocracy, and remains affiliated with the Lyndon LaRouche organization.
3. Wikipedia Review had also been infiltrated and subverted by paid employees of Patrick Byrne, the nutty conspiracy-theorist CEO of perpetual money-losing retail site Overstock.com.

Any help would be appreciated. I am only trying to improve Wikipedia, because to understand Wikipediocracy it helps to know a little history. Sole Flounder (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You're forgiven, since you are out of line here, Auggie. And specifically, your comments about Patrick Byrne are probably WP:BLP violations, given that much of Byrne "conspiracy theories" turned out to be based in fact, and that it's impossible to be a "perpetual money-losing" enterprise, if your most-recent quarterly earnings report shows net income of $7.7 million. (And the quarter before that, $8.8 million; and the quarter before that, $2.7 million; and the quarter before that, $470K; and the quarter before that, $2.7 million.) How much did Encyc.whatever earn over each of the past quarters? - Awaken lemon (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, Encyc earns $0 every quarter. Sole Flounder (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

1. MyWikiBiz is more relevant to the Kohs article than here. Greg doesn't have an ad for MWB in his sig on Wikipediocracy. It is mentioned but not linked on his profile. It does not get mentioned very often now. Greg downplays it as a significant part of his income and I see no reason to disbelieve him. In any case, there are now plenty of people who advertise services even on WP. Look for a Gibraltarpedia-related TFA real soon now.

1. Hersch is less prominent on Wikipediocracy than he was on WR. He does manage the blog but other people write far more than he does and I have not noticed any LaRouche stuff surface in the blogs. It does occasionally appear in the forums but Hersh does not do any of the moderation there and there are enough people who say it is crackpottery whenever it is mentioned.

1. I can't recall any Patrick Byrne stuff on Wikipediocracy and therefore I don't think it is relevant here.

1. If an RS ever writes a feature on Wikipediocracy, then I would hope that the split with WR would be covered in a neutral manner and that it could then be added in here. As it is, there are insiders on each side throwing the occasional mud but nothing neutrally researched to allow a mention in this article. I kept an eye on both sites in the months after the split. Wikipediocracy was much the more active. If you, Ottava and the other people who did not move over had sustained a level of activity there to match Wikipediocracy, then I would have remained active there. Greg is the third most prolific contributor to the forums and Hersch the ninth most so they are prominent but not dominant posters. There are plenty of other people posting at comparable or greater levels who are staff, global moderators or trustees such as the authors of the planned book (Eric Barbour who is most prolific contributor to the forums and Peter Damien who is sixth,) and Andreas who is second most prolific forum contributor and the person who gets quoted in the general press most often. In the absence of any press expose, I don't think the case can be made that Wikipediocracy is either a MyWikiBiz front or a LaRouche one. It attracts all sorts and, in the absence of an active alternative criticism site, I can't see it becoming one.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope you are a salted and grilled Flounder.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

:) Thank you for the responses! Sole Flounder (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hoax article sub-section removed

I've just removed the statement attributing the investigation of the author of the Bicholim conflict hoax to this website. The editor who started the AfD didn't note any link to the website at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicholim conflict or elsewhere (from memory), and the identity of the editor responsible was obviously visible throughout the AfD discussion, and remains a trivial matter for any admin to check since it was deleted, so calling the identification of the user responsible an "investigation" is rather over-blown - it would have taken a matter of seconds to jump to the first edit in the edit history. Moreover, the wording of this material "One investigation identified a Wikipedia editor likely to have written an article about a war that never happened. The since-deleted hoax article" [emphasis added] implies that the the Wikipediocracy link contributed to the AfD, which I don't think is correct - it appears to have been the other way around (I'm bemused to see that I appear to have been the initial source for the Wikipediocracy thread on this, which then contributed to the other media coverage!). Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The previous text did not imply that the Wikipediocracy link contributed to the AfD. The RS credits a Wikipediocracy thread with fingering an editor---the old word choice "investigation" was too strong. The fake-article section was the weakest in this article, which is better without it, imho. (However, it is sourced, so it may be reinserted.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, my reading was - and is - that it did imply that Wikipediocracy was responsible for stopping this hoax. Identifying the editor responsible wasn't that big a deal - they'd been inactive for five years by the time of the AfD and had only ever made a small number of edits so it didn't lead to any further issues, and any admin would have have named the account which created the article if asked. I note that SB_Johnny (talk · contribs), who confirmed the identity in the Wikipediocracy thread, is an admin. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The RS credited the Wikipediocracy thread with identifying the creator of the hoax. You are correct that the "since-deleted" modifier was inaccurate. A discussion of WP-administrators' "woulda coulda shoulda" is inappopriate here, per WP:NOT (a forum). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, the RS stated this, but it was hardly a significant achievement for Wikipediocracy - the identity of the editor was known to participants in the AfD (via the FAC link, as well as checking the history of the article) and was never a secret or an issue, and identifying the person responsible didn't lead to anything further at all given their (thankfully) short editing history; the flawed Daily Dot story rightly doesn't say that anything came of knowing the editor's name. As such, I've just re-removed this material given that it really isn't very significant. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your action need not be unreasonable. However, if another editor restores that small section, which is reliably sourced, then you should not remove it without gaining consensus. (I did copy-edit it in response to your just criticisms.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There did seem to be support here for not removing it (from me, with you not voicing any firm position either way and Devil's Advocate not joining the discussion - apologies if I misunderstood your position though). I'm sure not going to re-remove it though. I like the irony of an unimportant fact sourced to a somewhat confused news article being included in the article on Wikipediocracy given that this is the kind of thing which seems to spark threads there. I have no axe to grind against Wikipediocracy BTW - I came to this via the DYK and spotted the mistaken material. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The section was sourced and should be restored. For journalists and the general public, it would have been impossible to identify the editor responsible, as the article along with its editing history was deleted. Moreover, if it hadn't been for the Wikipediocracy thread, the general public would not have learnt of this case at all. So Wikipediocracy played a key role in this hoax coming to light, which subsequently turned into a major international news story. Andreas JN466 08:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

How about this wording:

Hoax article

One Wikipediocracy forum discussion identified the Wikipedia account responsible for a hoax article Wikipedia admins had recently deleted. The "Bicholim conflict" article described a fictitious 1640–1641 Indian civil war. It was awarded Wikipedia's "Good article" status in 2007, and retained it until 2012, when a Wikipedian checked the article's cited sources and found that none of them appeared to exist.

This gives due credit for the discovery and deletion of the hoax to Wikipedia admins. Any objections to that wording? Andreas JN466 08:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The original wording was sourced and so ordinarily could be restored. Your proposed wording clarifies the Wikipediocracy contribution, according to the sourced reference, and avoids the possible misrepresentations raised in this discussion. Please insert your suggested paragraph. I would put it at the end of the specific "controversies", since the others may be more important. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Inserted per your suggestion. Andreas JN466 10:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sentence about WR

Wikipediocracy was created in March 2012 by Wikipedia critics following disputes on another Wikipedia criticism site, Wikipedia Review - I think the problem with this claim, aside from it being unsourced, is that according to some, um, inside sources, the preparation plans to start Wikipediocracy began BEFORE these disputes broke out on WR, so the statement isn't factually correct (by the way, "less likely to be falsified" would mean that it's harder to run an experiment to disprove the statement. The proper phrasing is simply "less likely to be false") or at least it puts the cart before the horse.Volunteer Marek 01:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, my understanding is that there were "disputes" on WR preceding the ultimate blow-up, so the sentence as I wrote it was still accurate, but I understand your point. As I said on my talk earlier today, my concern in adding the introductory sentence was that readers should not see that Wikipediocracy was started early in 2012 as if from the blue. There is a clear continuity of some themes and some contributors from WR to WO and I believe that should be mentioned in some fashion, if only in fairness to those members of the critical community who don't want to be perceived as (SB) Johnny-come-latelies. There is of course no pride of authorship in the wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The sentence could undoubtedly be improved. However, I preferred it to the competing sentence ("Wikipediocracy was created in March 2012 by writers from Wikipedia Review") because it only indicates sequence in time (although "after" would be a better word for this purpose than "following"); it does not add details about a real or inferred relationship between Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia Review. When I used the word "falsified", I knew it wasn't the right word, but not every short edit summary can be a masterpiece of written expression. The point (which I figured that most readers of the edit summary would probably discern) was that the sequence in time was unlikely to be demonstrated to be false at some point in the future, whereas the statement that the creators were "writers from WR" could be less than 100 percent accurate and could be disputed. Note that the "creation" date given for the website is the date that it went live. That's really the only relevant start date for the new website, as the date that its creator(s) hatched the idea or started planning is essentially impossible to verify. --Orlady (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What is the reliable source for "Wikipedia critics" or any of these allegations? Bbb23and other administrator-enforcers can block editors who try to enforce WP:RS and WP:V (or preserve compliance with WP:MOS) on this article, but is that really what you want? Why not pull the unsourced original-research? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Misuse of administrative tools

Dougweller (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

Administrator Dougweller blocked non-administrators from editing this article immediately after Weller unilaterally removed the external link to the website. The Alexa ranking of

http:wikipediocracy.com

was left. Should we remove all links to Wikipedia, which contains BLP violations?

Weller failed to explain his use of administrative tools, after he removed content from the article. He needs to account for his actions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to hear that explanation as well, how is a link to a website in an article on said website a BLP violation? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Because the current blog post is about a long-standing problematic user who probably complained, much the way Russavia did when the story on him went out. I wonder if they scurried around deleting every link to newyorktimes.com back when they outed Qworty. Tarc (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've asked for advice. If this is an error I'll unprotect - this shouldn't take long. AGF not working? And as you mention Qworty, is the screenshot we have now really appropriate? Why that screenshot? Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You never heard of the Streisand effect? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller removed the website's information despite similar removals being removed repeatedly by the community, e.g., in the badsite debacle.... Despite his involved status as a party in a content dispute, he mis-used his administrative tool by locking the page. Weller violated policy deliberately, regardless of AGF mutterings. (Edit conflict 12:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC): It's hard to see the point of the censorship. There's a forum discussion of a months old, unaccountably long delayed block of somebody who writes about having sex with pre-pubescent girls, and there's a blog about somebody adding references to unpublished notes, despite the wise disapproval of the wise User:Sławomir Biały.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and a little time to get the advice he sought. I don't think this temporary measure will cause the universe to fly apart. - MrX 12:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please avoid distracting discussions with irrelevancies.

WP has policies for locking pages and removing external site information, and Doug violated them. The page locking was done when there was no discussion despite there being no edit-warring, and so seems especially against policy, especially for an involved administrator. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this is probably a personal thing, Kiefer doesn't exactly love me. I don't understand the bit about a content dispute - what content dispute? Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@KW: Please avoid repeating yourself and manufacturing more drama. Obviously DW believes this is a serious issue requiring decisive action and I'm not aware of any policies that explicitly proscribe this. - MrX 13:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing personal, here. Dougweller and MrX are not worth remembering for me. Weller is not a spectacularly bad administrator, usually, but I don't remember his past mistakes. The community has discussed links to Wikipediocracy enough that Doug is being disruptive in removing the link with no discussion. He is abusing his administrative tools in locking a page that has had no edit warring (apart from fantasies of administrators). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What policy is it that allows the specification of "contact me privately if anyone wants to challenge this" in a page protection rationale again? — Scott • talk 13:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

None. Even Wikipedia's do-nothing Child protection policy, which seems written to protect WMF and child predators and fails to comply with US law's prohibition on minors editing without parental approval, would specify that inquiries should go through ArbCom. However, since Arbcom makes up its own rules, why shouldn't Doug? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What I curious to see is the reason for the removal. There's no outing, as in a previous case where there were hissy fits over the linkage. Criticism of one's actions isn't BLP-violating, and just because someone blogs about you it doesn't make it automatically 100% true, either. Rebut it. Tarc (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, you're wrong. I wouldn't have done this if it were just about criticism. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate an answer to my separate question, please, Doug; and if you're unable to present a policy-based reason for the quoted rationale, could you please unprotect the page before reprotecting it specifying an appropriate rationale. Thank you. — Scott • talk 14:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I was mistaken. Thanks. Tarc (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Dougweller has indeed asked for advice and discussion is now ongoing; could I please ask everyone to table this discussion for the moment? It's not like this is a matter of life and death, after all... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, I think this is well-trodden ground. A link to the main page has been determined to be acceptable even though people have been "outed" on Wikipediocracy. I think that is consistent with other sites which may contain outings or personal attacks on WP editors, or BLP violations generally. I do not know why Dougweller chose to revisit this situation now, but it seems odd that the people who object to his actiion are asked to be patient where he has chosen to shoot first and ask questions later. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Call it "precautionary principle"... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

      WTF are you blathering about, Salvio? There is no policy basis for the page protection, so remove it. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

      Uhm, no. Sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Ok, any Admin who wishes to revert, go ahead. I've managed to get some advice on this and although I don't like links like this specific one at this specific moment, we evidently do allow links that attack or out editors here no matter what they say. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller, if that is the advice you have received (presumably from ArbCom), then you should unprotect the page and restore the links. Failing to do so is only going to lead to people asking for you to lose your bits. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course if it had been formal advice I would have done so. But it wasn't, and I've followed the informal advice I was given by someone whose views I respect. And I certainly would be wrong to restore the links while a survey as to whether we should do so is taking place - I expect if I did that people would be asking for me to lose my bits! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

Doug, remove the page protection now. Clean up your mistake. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Survey: Linking to Wikipediocracy.com

I have though of reversing the protection but that might lead to a wheel war or and edit war neither of which are desirable. So we should really go through a consensus process and edit based on that consensus. If anyone want to make this a formal RFC feel free.--Salix (talk): 14:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The protection was against policy, and should have been immediately reverted. The link should be restored, pending the outcome of this discussion, to avoid rewarding Administrators thrill-editing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Should the article "Wikipediocracy" link to the Wikipediocracy site?

• No vote --Salix (talk): 14:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment There is of course an alternative. Show the link but make it unclickable. It's a problem. Tarc mentions outing above. What do we do in general if there's a link to any page anywhere that outs an editor? It's more relevant here, but it could be anywhere. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. – The article here is not committing any BLP violations and we are not responsible for what Wikipediocracy put on their site. — Richard BB 15:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, restore link per the community consensus in the episodes involving Qworty, etc. (Further, an editor adding his own preprints to various articles has already outed himself, obviously---I'll add for the disruptive editors wishing to disregard consensus.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Yes of course, but I'm willing to wait until the present issue is resolved. Besides, it's not that hard to figure how to get there, is it? (P.S. - I think you mean Wikipediocracy) - MrX 15:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: It has a link to the site. Dougweller should perhaps be more careful and less hasty in his unilateral actions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Leave it out for the time being, until this matter is decided once and for all. We need a larger discussion somewhere on this matter, otherwise its just going to come up every time this style of focus-on-the-person blog entry is published. Tarc (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Changing to restore. May as well restore status quo ante, then have a wider discussion if need be. Tarc (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• of course since it's an article on a website. Wikipedia:Attack sites is a failed proposal and has failed again every time the issue has been re-raised. I also concur with Richard BB's observation about our lack of a duty to police other sites, a point I have raised myself in the past. Mangoe (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

  A lack of a policy prescribing a duty need not negate all duties, of course. I can imagine this and other pages (at WP) removing links to Wikipedia pages with reprehensible content. ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

  I would expect sites criticizing Wikipedia to name editors from time to time, given that they have no obligation follow our rules. If you as an editor make it possible to figure out who you are, that is in the end your problem. All of this has been hashed out before WRT other sites. Mangoe (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• of course. Wikipedia looks petty and vindictive by constantly striving to delete, minimize, or hobble this subject. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Yes per most everyone else. Crazynas ^t 19:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• no, but I don't care strongly My general thought on this sort of 'badsites' thing is that links are ok, though not important, as long as the article also brings up the problem stuff, such as the culture of outing that WR used to have. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Administrative help needed: Reverting page locking by involved Dougweller {{Admin help}} Administrator dougweller abused his policies and protected the page after removing an external link that he "did not like". There is no policy basis for his page blocking, which is disruptive editing following weeks of discussions. He admits his mistake but has failed to clean up his mess. He has already okeyed another administrator cleaning up his mess. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Y'know, it isn't like dougweller kicked over a basket of puppies while flashing a choir full of nuns, so can we all just calm the fuck down with the "high crimes & misdemeanors" attitude? It's one link to one website, currently under discussion above us right now. Addendum; I'm fine with restoring it now as well, but it isn't really as dire as it's being made out to be Tarc (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC). The link can be discussed. What is clear is that Dougweller, who never has edited the article, removed the external link (ignoring consensus in weeks of discussion) and then misused his administrative tools in locking the page. Against policy. And he has admitted his error. It is a textbook example of misusing administrative status for his side in a content dispute. Only Weller didn't even bother trying to discuss it or letting his edit stand. He immediately locked the page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Also Dougweller is secretly a wolf and has just eaten Grandma. Seriously Kiefer? You think anyone cares about this sort of drama-farming? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I have it on good authority that it was he who stole the cookies from the cookie jar in 3rd grade. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice of ArbCom case

It is my belief that the community, the administraive corps, and the oversight team are not able to resolve these issues by themselves. I have therefore just submitted a request to the Arbitration Committee to ask them to get directly involved and provide some clarity on this matter. See WP:RFAR. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)