Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 09:50, 20 March 2023 (Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (10x)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

In the interests of maintaining clarity on the vote page, I'd like to request that the participants voluntarily move their debates, rants, flame wars and ad hominem attacks to this page. --HK 15:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You may move any comments I've made to this page at your own pleasure. I can not speak for the others. Thanks. --Northmeister 21:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The outcome of this process

It is more than a little dishonest to say that this article was speedily kept; when the article is stripped down to two sentences and renamed, it has been deleted for all intents and purposes. Ironically, this is certainly one instance in which Misplaced Pages may be seen as a gatekeeping organization. However, Misplaced Pages was in the process of gaining that reputation long before this particular controversy arose. --HK 07:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have subsequently discovered that the term "Misplaced Pages gatekeeper" has already entered the blogger's lexicon: --HK 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

So you've discovered the rich and wonderful experience allowed by posting comments on 'blogs. Well done! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

To go about things the wrong way and then to claim conspiracy is a bit extreme. See about finding reliable sources about where foundations give their money, and who gets the money and add it to the articles on the foundations and recipients, as I said. If you don't like the WP policies, then involve yourself in the process of rewriting them, as I said. Your actions in this matter made your prophecies self-fulfilling IMO. Esquizombi 07:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The article as it stood was nonsensical, as it purported to claim that the entire meaning of "gatekeeper" was centered around one specific "conspiracy-theory" Web site claiming that leftists are tools of the CIA. The article spent far too much time dwelling on this one aspect, down to listing dozens of alleged "gatekeepers" based on a conspiracy-theory Web site. You are free to re-add sourced commentary of that particular theory as illustration of one alleged instance of gatekeeping, but in a fashion that does not overwhelm or dominate an article about a broader concept. FCYTravis 08:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If you compare the original version of the article to the one that was ultimately deleted, you will find that that list was added at the insistence of Will Beback, who then campaigned for deletion. My proposal was to include only those names that were frequently named by multiple sources. Will also added all the stuff about the Trilateral Commission, etc. --HK 15:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? As I recall I was working against tht selective inclusion of the partial list, so I added the full list. Picking out a few names, like Chip Berlet made the article seem even more like an attack piece. -Will Beback 11:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think the list was acceptable in either form, and three different bad sources collated is really no different than one. If you want to make a combined list accessible to people online, make your own website, it's not that hard. If you want to make people question how reliable their news sources are, you have to do it in a way consistent with WP policy; see my suggestions above and there are probably other acceptable ways besides. Esquizombi 20:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I like the idea of tracking the foundation grants, and I imagine it is possible to obtain that data. Also, Bob Feldman, one of those who has written on the topic of "Left Gatekeepers," has an article pending in a scholarly journal that will doubtless be considered a more acceptable source. --HK 21:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)