Talk:Wikipedia Review/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Citation

• Rauschmayer, Axel (2008). "Next-Generation Wikis: What Users Expect; How RDF Helps" (PDF). Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. p. 3. Retrieved 2008-07-01. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 23 (help) - Wikipedia Review cited as an example of an information site alternative to Wikipedia

Verification

The first sentence is attributed to an article from the "New Straits Times," a Malasian daily that is not archived by L-N. The free excerpt does not give the information presented. Could you quote from the article where they describe WR?

The hosting by proboards is sourced to a link at the bottom of a Register article titled Wikipedia Review that goes to a dead pro-boards site. Is this reliable enough sourcing? If it is, the 2006 launch date is unverifiable.

I attributed Seth Finkelstein and Cade Metz's opinion pieces to their authors. The other peices appear to be feature articles which do not require attribution to their authors.

I can see how you inferred that the Cyberclinic piece attributed the Utah thing to WR. If you re-read, however, I don't see them making that attribution directly.

I removed the french blog as I don't think blogs are reliable sources.

Thank you for the time you put into making this article. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, one at a time:

• The High Straits time - I will temporarily copy the info below for a day or two.
• The 2006 launch date is verified from a primary source (the first post on Wikipediareview.com). For basic matters of fact, this is I believe okay.
• No problem with your attributing - how about we go with "Seth Finkelstein in The Guardian" or something similar?
• Cyberclinic - I think it is connecting the two ... perhaps you should re-read?
• The French blog is considered okay by Google News - [1]. Neıl 龱 18:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

High Strait Times

(Now removed, see history if you need to verify. Neıl 龱 08:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC))

1. Thanks, that's perfect.
2. I'm concerned the proboard launched before 2006.
3. That's fine with me (SF in the guardian)
4. I looked at cyberclinic again. You are right.
5. I am really concerned that the french blog is the french equivalent of Gawker, which is really not a reliable source, regardless of it's indexing in google news. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Proboard did launch before 2006; I'm going by when Wikipediareview.com started - first post was Feb 19 2006. I've commented out the French blog for now. Must go now but will be back tomorrow. Neıl 龱 18:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

On Cade Metz and Seth Finkelstein

It would seem to me that those pieces are opiniony enough that their author should be listed. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Google News

Google news has a whole bunch of blogs which are almost certainly not reliable sources:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=pajamas%20media&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=gawker http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=Overlawyered&btnG=Search+News

just to name a few. If the french blog is reliable, surely other sources will have cited their news stories. Can we make sure that the french blog isn't a gossip rag like gawker or the like? PouponOnToast (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, and my french is very very dated, shouldn't we be calling it the Brian Chase incident? ("L'affaire Brian Chase") PouponOnToast (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Our article calls it the "Siegenthaler incident". We - very rightly - do not have an article on the person, we have an article on the event. Neıl 龱 18:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"secret mailing list"

You might consider putting "secret" in quotes, since it was repeatedly stated at the time, but the person that created it the list, that it was a private mailing list, not a secret one. Those criticizing it preferred the other adjective, of course. Rockpocket 02:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Okey dokey. Neıl 龱 08:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary Weiss

We have an article on Gary Weiss, an investigative reporter. Would his blog be a suitable reference to add to the criticism of Wikipedia Review if appropriately contextualized? Suggested text:

Investigative reporter and author [[Gary Weiss]] described Wikipedia Review as a "limited-readership message board dedicated to attacking Wikipedia" in his blog, and accused members of "vandalizing Wikipedia and threatening Wikipedia administrators".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/06/overstockcom-to-regulation-fd-drop-dead.html|title=Overstock.com to Regulation FD: Drop Dead |date=2007-06-04|accessdate=2008-07-02|publisher=[[Gary Weiss]]}}</ref>

Which is:

Investigative reporter and author Gary Weiss described Wikipedia Review as a "limited-readership message board dedicated to attacking Wikipedia" in his blog, and accused members of "vandalizing Wikipedia and threatening Wikipedia administrators".

Thoughts? Neıl 龱 08:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is he considered a reliable source? Looking at his article I'd say he is, in which case there should be no problem. —Giggy 08:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no. He may be a reliable source on financial issues, but not websites or Wikipedia. At least not officially. Risker (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I wanted the text to mention it was in his blog. We have an article, so the person is considered notable by Wikipedia standards. Typically, the blog of a notable person is considered a reasonable reference for a quote from that person. Neıl 龱 08:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Only when they are writing about the subject for which they are notable. For example, if Julia Roberts had a blog, information about (for example) how a scene is blocked would be notable; what book she was reading between shots wouldn't be. Seth Finkelstein's blog about websites would be notable; if he was to write a blog about how he made money in the stock market, it probably wouldn't be notable. Do you see where I am going with this? Risker (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, but surely if referenceable criticism from a more august source comes around, it can always be swapped out, no? Neıl 龱 09:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that such things should be included. Right now it reads too much like an advertisement. A bit of criticism of Wikipedia Review would be good. It's not like it's hard to find! As for whether Gary Weiss is a valid critic of Wikipedia Review, I think that he is. He uses Wikipedia, therefore he can be a critic of Wikipedia Review. Critics of Wikipedia, on the other hand, are a whole different group of people. I would be surprised to find too many critics of Wikipedia who dislike Wikipedia Review. But then again, if there are, that would be even more notable. IMO the Gary Weiss quotes should be included. Dyinghappy (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews

Is it too self-referential to say Wikinews describes Wikipedia Review as "[run by] disaffected former editors of Wikipedia bias, but plays decent watchdog role" ([2]) Neıl 龱 08:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Being a wiki there is the obvious issue of who added that comment there? Probably better not to; it's only a (relatively) minor mention (as opposed to putting that in an actual story they ran on their Main Page). —Giggy 08:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Neıl 龱 09:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is *STILL* in the Wikinews front page is quite relevant. This implies that the Wikipedia community has accepted that it should be included. Note that they do not have a link to either Wikitruth or Encyclopaedia Dramatica, which implies that Wikinews considers Wikipedia Review to be a more reliable source. Dyinghappy (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mission statement

From the page when Wikipedia Review was down on June 24:

"Wikipedia Review is not a conspiracy, a team-building exercise, a role-playing game, or an experiment in collusion. It is not meant as a resource or training ground for those who would instill fear and misery in others. It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption; it does not exist to tear down institutions, but to expose the ways in which institutions are torn down; it does not exist to hate, but is meant to expose hate in others. To expose these things is not evil. It is not a monolithic entity, nor the sum of its parts. Like-mindedness does not imply singularity of purpose; respect for the rights of one group does not imply disrespect for the rights of another. It is not intended to be predictable, consistent, or dull."

"Imagine a world in which human beings are not user accounts, are not programmable, and are not mere words on a display screen. That's what we're doing...".

Taken from [3]. Trying to find a stable version. Neıl 龱 11:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ownership/administration of WR

I don't think that this is a secret.

Igor Alexander started Wikipedia Review on 4th November 2005. Blu Aardvark was made the administrator in December 2005 and on 8th February 2006 it moved to its own servers, when it was owned by Blissyu2 and administered officially by Blu Aardvark and coded by Selina. At some point Selina took control it seems, and eventually banned Blu Aardvark sometime mid 2006 before Somey took over ownership and banned Blissyu2 from the site. Currently it is owned by Somey.

This doesn't seem to be in any dispute, so I don't know why it isn't mentioned. Is there an issue that the people don't say their real names? Or is this seen not to be relevant? I would think that it is very relevant with regards to analysing the site, to note the sheer extremity of the internal squabbling, to the extent that they have not only banned their own administrators but even their own owner - twice - both times while they were still the owner.

For the reference, see http://encyc.org/wiki/index.php5?title=Wikipedia_Review

There is quite an extensive write up of it. Whilst Encyclopaedia Dramatica's version differs slightly, in essence it says the same thing, but with a comedic perspective:

ED @ The_Wikipedia_Review (I can't link directly due to spam filter)

I am not sure how to word all of that, but I think that it should be included. Dyinghappy (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In short; we need verifiable reliable sources. Can you present any? (Wikis generally aren't.) —Giggy 12:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh well I put in what is the truth of the issue, which isn't in any dispute. There was a link to e-mail headers that prove who hosted the site, the dates and ownership issues. Is that good enough? [4] Dyinghappy (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I know the history, but it's currently not recorded anywhere other than ED and Blissy's site. Both of which are wikis, so are rightly not considered reliable. Virtue.nu is like geocities - again, not a reliable source. Neıl 龱 12:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason to doubt the truth of the e-mail or the screen shots? What is Blissy's site? Dyinghappy (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Does Blissy own Encyc.org? I thought it was owned by Emperor. Or is that wrong? Dyinghappy (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's Blissy's page on Emperor's site, I think. There's not much point in getting into this discussion - wikis and free webhost sites are not "reliable sources", therefore the information can't go in - it will take a lot more than me and you talking about this here to overturn that. I wish it could go in there. Neıl 龱 12:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I will go back to the version before. Sorry for editing before discussing (or during). So will we just leave the ownership question blank? Furthermore, what about the dates and the hosting? That seems to be pretty reliably known. Or does that need to stay out too? I will leave it up to others how to word that and take out my contributions. Sorry. Dyinghappy (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you put the ownership / dates / hosting information here, on the talk page, in as much detail as you can? And any references you have. Neıl 龱 12:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Blissyu2 does not own Encyc.org. However, he is the most prolific contributor on the Encyc.org Mediawiki. Duck of Luke (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As for whether it should be an article...

I think that they have something like 1,000 people browsing at the same time as their record, and anytime you look there are in the order of 100 people browsing. Not many members though, maybe 10 members online at a time at most. Are those numbers big enough to warrant an article? Or are they misleading somehow? They also seem to have been responsible for uncovering many Wikipedia scandals, which have their own Wikipedia articles, such as the Siegenthaler and Essjay scandals. If there are 2 articles on scandals uncovered by their site, then that would seem to me to be enough to justify a site. However, it seems strange that that isn't mentioned in the article. Isn't that the main selling point for the article? In both cases, there are news references that prove that they are responsible, or at least that Daniel Brandt used the site to uncover the scandals. Dyinghappy (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Essjay one is in the article. I cannot find a reference for WR's involvement in the Siegenthaler incident. Brandt's, yes, but not Wikipedia Review. The only reference I found was on fluctuat, which is a French-language equivalent of Gawker, and is not particularly reliable, really. If you have one, please do let us know. Neıl 龱 12:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Daniel Brandt state that he had asked people on Wikipedia Review for help in trying to track down who libelled Siegenthaler, and then with their help he was able to find them? I thought that that was in the New Yorker article written by Siegenthaler himself. That was WR's very first post too, I think. Dyinghappy (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't find that article. The NYT article about the Siegenthaler thing doesn't mention WR ([5]). Siegenthaler's article was in the USA today ([6]) and contains no mention of WR. Neıl 龱 12:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ownership/dates etc

Okay.

4th November 2005: Igor Alexander opens Wikipedia Review. We can get this by either the oldest remaining archive.org entry or by the oldest entry advertising the site, where Igor Alexander posts on a blog saying to come to the site. Either way, that's the date.

mid December 2005: Blu Aardvark takes over administration of the site (but Igor Alexander remains as owner). This may not seem particularly relevant, as it was still a free site run on ProBoards software, but nonetheless this ends up being a power struggle later.

16th January 2006: Blissyu2 buys the domain name wikipediareview.com from GoDaddy and lists it as a redirect. Best reference is the e-mails provided, although archives of various posts on the forum also state this.

16th February 2006: Blissyu2 buys Invision forum software from Lunarpages and the site begins to move to its new server. Best reference is the e-mails provided, although once again there are lots of archives of lots of posts.

19th February 2006: Selina, in her role as coder, opens the site, having set it up for Blissyu2, with BluAardvark running the site. Selina bans Igor Alexander, in spite of him founding the site. Best reference is archives, which are actually provided in the page as it currently stands, although it fails to mention the 16th February date.

19th February - April 2006 (exact dates not known): Igor Alexander keeps his site open as a rival, as a mock neo-nazi hate site (as he was accused of being Alex Linder). Whether it was a mock or serious is in dispute.

mid 2006: Selina bans BluAardvark, along with many other senior administrators, as they try to take the site from Selina and give it to Blissyu2. They briefly set up their own site, but that is not significant as it closes a week later.

mid 2007: Somey buys the domain name wikipediareview.com from Gator, before the previous purchase had expired, effectively changing ownership. He also hosts the software with Gator at about the same time. This is done in secret. Can't verify times or dates for this as it is unknown what time or date it happened.

7th November 2007: Blissyu2 is banned from Wikipedia Review whilst still the owner. In fact, because Somey had purchased additional domains, etc, he may not have been the owner (get a lawyer to solve that one). The reason for the ban was because of Blissyu2 stating that Kato, a new administrator, had hurt a lot of innocent people on Wikipedia and he said that that is not the WR way. Reference for this, well, officially the ban doesn't exist, but there are numerous quotes from blogs. It was in relation to a scam surrounding a Lockerbie Bombing expert, a scam that was created by Kato and involved Private Musings. I am not sure of the details there.

I don't know what of that you would want to include or how to include it. Some bits there are no direct evidence, only general agreement. Other bits there is direct evidence, but perhaps not up to Wikipedia standard. Dyinghappy (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Front page statement

It seems odd to me that it's placed to the right. It seems like an editorial pull quote and is, in fact, formatted as such using cquote, which is not within MOS standards. It's a bit too long for a framed quote, so should it not be a box quote, with center alignment? LaraLove|Talk 18:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not friends with the MOS. If you want to change it Lara, feel free. Neıl 龱 21:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is currently displayed slightly inaccurately. I know what you mean, but you're saying it wrong. This isn't a "Front Page Statement"; rather it is what was displaying during a period when they were shut down. I believe that it was written by Somey, and wasn't endorsed by anyone else; hence it might be inaccurate to suggest that it was representative of the site as a whole. Dyinghappy (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Original research

It seems to me that this site is probably ready for its own article, but if so that article has to follow Wikipedia guidelines in its entirety. If this is a serious candidate to be moved to the article space it has some serious issues, at least in the state which I found it. Most of the general history is original research, citing primary sources and synthesising the history from them. It seems to me that people have been trying their hardest to find reliable sources that contribute to notability, so it should be assumed until any further sources are uncovered that details not mentioned by something resembling a reliable third-party source are not notable enough for mention here either. BigBlueFish (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Cack. Read WP:SELFPUB. Neıl 龱 21:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please try to stay civil. Thanks. WP:SELFPUB has very little to do with original research, since you can synthesise claims of notability from as verifiable and third-party sources as you want and it's still original research. The biggest challenge to the undeletion of this article is its assertion of notability, so it is important that the article sticks to what is notable about Wikipedia Review—to the world, not Wikipedians or Wikpedia Reviewians. BigBlueFish (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly civil, thanks. Primary sources are solely being used to reference straightforward, uncontentious facts about the article topic itself. This is appropriate under WP:SELFPUB when secondary sources do not exist. The history is not synthesized - it states that the site was originally on Proboards (referenced) in November 2005 (referenced), and was then on its own domain (obvious) from Feb 2006 (referenced). That is not synthesis under the Wikipedia definition - no conclusions are being made from the references. there is a lot more history that is left out because there are no reliable references - this very basic verifiable information. The topic's notability is established by dint of WP:WEB criteria #1 - non-trivial mentions in multiple reliable media sources (The Guardian article, The Register article, The Independent article, etc), and its being cited in published journals (the PARC research papers). Also, please stop taking out swathes of the article you dislike for poor reasons. Not every fact in the article has to establish or be "important to the notability of the subject" - articles would be very staid and boring if that were the case. Neıl 龱 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate from this that there are other valid reasons to include the information you suggest, and I happily change my stance on most of it, and will leave my contributions to if and when it is accepted as a proper article. However, if the mention in The Register is non-trivial then I have no idea what counts as trivial (however this is not the purpose of that reference so it doesn't even matter). You also didn't really mean to accuse me of deleting content which "I don't like" when all the undisputable details that I like the least about the WR's notability have stayed untouched. I made the edits because I thought it improved the article and because (and this is still a problem which should be solved if possible), when almost a third of the references in the article are self-published, the article starts to look a little phoney, which is a shame because on the whole it is well-sourced and justified. BigBlueFish (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Orlowski article in the Register is wholly trivial, and is solely being used as the only reliable non-primary source I could find to indicate Wikipedia Review was formerly hosted on Proboards. The Metz article is the non-trivial Register article. Neıl 龱 23:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Shankbone source

I believe the David Shankbone source and the "criticism" section should be removed because Shankbone does not constitute "Wikipedia editors". He has criticised WR, and diehard Wikipedia apologists, but since there are no reliable sources for these critics of critics (they have complained on-wiki mostly), this section should not exist.

I do have opinions on this; I think "harassment" and "trolling" are excuses for not having a counterargument to legitimate criticism. So they censor it as harassment, trolling, evil, et cetera, which is harmful and arrogant. 68.96.213.118 (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Brooklyn Rail is a notable publication. Shankbone is a Wikipedia editor. He has written in an article for the publication that he was "harassed". I don't see the problem? Neıl 龱 10:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem fixed. He is a Wikipedia editor, not Wikipedia editors. 68.96.213.118 (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Howtosplitanatom

Before anyone complains, if it passed as a suitable reference to use in a featured article, I presume it's okay here. Neıl 龱 10:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)