Talk:Consumerist

Big stuff

I think we should add the stories that Consumerist has followed alot, such as jet blue, great moments in comercial history, and at least on of those boxes in the upright corner showing logo, and statistics, wikimindless (15:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

I'd say the undercover work at IDT is worth noting in the article's notable campaign's Quabarrick 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I disagree with the speedy deletion. When I created this article, the "what links here" feature showed incoming links from two Wikipedia articles, neither of which I had ever edited. If Wikipedia editors completely unknown to and unaffiliated with me are linking to this blog, then surely it must be even a little notable. JIP | Talk 19:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Consumerist readers

A call to expand this entry was recently (12 April 2007) posted on the subject blog of this article, Consumerist. While all contributors are welcome, please familiarize yourselves with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. Thanks. --Stlemur 14:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox and Refs

I put together a template for blog infoboxes and used it here. Feel free to tweak it. Also, I added in some references and removed the unsourced tag. – Fʀɪɺøʟɛ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

More sources

This article could use more sources that aren't Consumerist posts, to establish notability and show the effect they've had. --Stlemur 20:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

Added a section on censorship since it's apparently part of the culture at consumerist to engage in that. I linked to proof of the practice and avoided using "weasel words." Hopefully they won;t have this deleted as well NYDiver 22:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, apparently they have. The infomation is notable to the topic at hand and it is sourced. I'll repost the section on censorship later today when I have time and unless this is just an advertisement for consumerist, I'd ask that it not be further vandalized. NYDiver 14:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish the consumerist fanboys would settle down. NONE of the stories here are sourced beyond consumerist. In the case the story IS consumerist so it was a proper source. The fact that it's a single person (that is known) doesn't make it unnewsworthy (since when is wiki a news site?) If these are the parameters for wiki, I'll remove the rest of the entries since none of them meet the criteria stated by the people that keep deleting this entry. At any extent, the entry reads like an ad for consumerist and I'm sure that's not wiki's goal, either. Thanks again for not deleting this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYDiver (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's see...one person was banned and it's worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? That isn't much of a culture of censorship. The Gawker Media sites all ban users on occasions, sometimes just for fun. Find an article that talks about it and then we can consider it. Otherwise, it's just a random event which doesn't constitute a trend and comes across as more of a personal attack. Feel free to edit the rest of the article and get outside references; that's what the site is all about.

BostonRed 18:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And lolcats and a contest are what this site is about? Come on. The entry carries the same sources as the other entries do. In fact, there is only one source that ISN'T from consumerist so I'd have to say it meets the same standards as anything else in the article. I'd ask you to be reasonable and let my entry stand as is. there really isn't an overwhelming reason to delete it unless you delete 95% of the entry itself. Thanks. NYDiver 18:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, those aren't exactly substantial either, but defending your comments by using other weak entries doesn't make yours correct. You say that "Consumerist has been accused"...by whom? There's absolutely no meat to this. Are there others who have been banned? Is that germane to the article? Shoplifters have been banned from Wal*Mart, too, but I doubt that's mentioned in their Wikipedia entry. Feel free to delete the other elements of the article --- if they add value, they will likely return. BostonRed 19:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, so let's do it this way - what wording would make you happy. I will agree that "consumerist has been accused" can be biased. If you want, I can create a site accusing them of it to link the entry to it:) Walmart doesn't present itself as a bastion of law and order. They sell crappy Chinese stuff. Consumerist and Gawker Media DO present themselves as anti-censorship, all comments welcomed places, as evidenced by the TOS I linked. Have other users been banned for BS? Sort of hard to tell since you, know - they've been banned. I tend to believe that others have been; where there's smoke there's fire. I also think presenting the poster's (my) comments for scrutiny DOES give the entry a bit of weight - it shows that there is indeed censorship (and dare I say a healthy bit of hypocrisy) going on there. Actually, the entry shows more "meat" than just fan links to stories the site has done. My entry at least makes a story of Consumerist itself. I'm putting the entry back up again (I'm assuming you took it down yet again.) I invite you to share how you would add the substance and weight to it that the rest of the article has. Thanks. (edit: I just realized you didn't take it down. My apologies) ( NYDiver 20:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, to avoid wimpy references, usually I would prefer something like..."Several publications, including the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal, have noted consistent banning of commenters for remarks that appear to be within their terms of service." All you show us is that ONE commenter has been banned and we have no reason as to why and no context. If you linked to an article or a blog or discussion board where this phenomenon was being discussed, then we would at least have an opening for a discussion on whether this merits inclusion. In an encyclopedia, the belief that 'where's there's smoke there's fire' doesn't really have a place. We try to deal with facts and at least have some outside confirmation on those topics that aren't really verifiable. Again, you are using other less than ideal entries in the article to advance your argument. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Let's focus only on this entry, since the links are only to the TOS and the banned user. Is there anything else out there that discusses the banning issue? That would be valuable. If there isn't, then it doesn't really belong here. We can't verify that it's happening (Encyclopedic content must be verifiable -- says that on the bottom of every edit page), and that means it's strictly speculation. At least with LOLcats, we can verify they have been posted. There is an article about Gawker Media in the latest NY Magazine (http://nymag.com/news/features/39319/) that discusses at the banning of commenters (though usually done in a public 'execution' or similar mocking online piece). But no real mention of the issue you have brought out.

I can't say that Gawker is 'anti-censorship, all comments welcome' as their TOS clearly state that comments can be removed if they violate TOS. It's an invitation only site and we have to assume they have the right to revoke such an invitation. Other users have specifically be banned (see Commenter Executions http://gawker.com/news/commenter-executions/ on the main Gawker site). There was even an announcement (http://consumerist.com/consumer/psas/introducing-commenters-moderator-acambras-301859.php) that a moderator would be watching comments and that commenters might be banned.

I noticed that you have only recently begun editing on this site and that the only edits you have made relate specificially to this blog and this particular issue. Are you OKH or in some way closely connected to OKH?

BostonRed 21:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I've made my connection quite clear had you been reading along. Nothing to hide here. What's your connection to Consumerist? Anyway, in the interest of fair play, I'm deleting all the entries that don't meet the standards that caused my entry to be deleted. NYDiver 18:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. Once I dug into your comments again I noticed this: I also think presenting the poster's (my) comments for scrutiny DOES give the entry a bit of weight. I wasn't exactly clear what you meant when I originally read this. I believe writing about your personal grudge with Consumerist would constitute a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and even continued editing of the Consumerist entry would not be in the best spirit of Wikipedia.

I am simply a registered commenter on Consumerist, nothing more. I have no personal, professional or fiduciary relationship to Gawker Media, Ben Popken or any other employee or former employee of Consumerist.

I have returned the Worst Company of the Year contest because it is certainly a fact (not editorialization) and have added some outside links to show it exists.

BostonRed 19:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fact that they had a contest, not fact that it found who the worst company is. Re-deleted all the entries that linked back to consumerist since, well you know...

At some point, this page is going to have to be re-assessed as to whether its just an ad for a website and why it's on wiki. Good luck to the Sox tonight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYDiver (talk • contribs) 14:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To St Lemur - so wait "OMGZ THEY HAVE LOLCATS!!11" is just fine and everything else on the page is sourced just fine even though it uses the site itself AS the source but by entry, for the same reason, is no good? And what name do you post under at Comsumerist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYDiver (talk • contribs) 14:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A source proves that an assertion is true. So when it says that "Consumerist has reported on..." that's verifiable by directly showing where the blog has done so. When someone says "Consumerist has censored..." and only shows that a particular user has been blocked, or asserts that there's a "controversy" over a user being blocked without showing any evidence of that, that's not sourced at all. See the verifiability guidelines for more.

I don't post at Consumerist. I'm just an interested Wikipedian. --Stlemur 15:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not precisely - it shows the User is banned, it his comments for appraisal, itlinks to show those comments were deleted AND it has a link to the terms of service to show that the items in question weren't running afoul of their stated terms. I don't know how much more sourced that can be. Shall I blog it somewhere so it can then be a source? Is that REALLY wiki's level of being a source? I fail to see how that is so terribly different than lolcats or some contest. I'm really questioning whats at play here.