Talk:Wikipediocracy - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Conti (talk | contribs) at 11:30, 20 May 2013 (→Why so shy?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:30, 20 May 2013 by Conti (talk | contribs) (→Why so shy?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipediocracy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet culture

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Websites: Computing

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Misplaced Pages

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Reliability

This article is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Misplaced Pages articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability

The following Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)
The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages? 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: media@wikipediocracy.com - 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? Misplaced Pages doesn't have a section listing notable people that have an account on Misplaced Pages, 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article.". What it *should* say is "The following Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Categories: