Talk:LiveJournal

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the LiveJournal 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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2

Computing Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

LiveJournal received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

Abuse team citation

This: LJ community is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination for this section The abuse team at LiveJournal has come under criticism for their handling of alleged violations[12] and some users feel that the abuse team over-reacts to cases in disregard of the actual Terms of Service (or the reverse, that it disregards blatant Terms of Service violations). Its a self-published source of no obvious notability or reliability.--Crossmr 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding suspension of accounts, the article states falsely that, "The offending user is notified by email of any journal suspension or, if any offending material must be removed, the user is given a deadline for its removal. When a journal is suspended, it effectively removes from sight everything the user has written on LiveJournal, including comments in other people's journals; however, the user is able to download the material while suspended."

I just had my "permanent" account suspended without warning or explanation, as did a friend of mine. You cannot download the material that was in your account once they suspend it. I see that the main article is protected from changes, but this really needs to be noted. Bostonrobin 16:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement in the article is not false; there are certain Terms of Service violations for which suspension is permanent and the user is subsequently banned from the site. That should probably be added to the existing content.

If your account has been suspended, you are still able to download your account contents. The Export Journal page still works even if your journal has been suspended. Tamara Young 18:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I was able to use the "export" feature. However, the article should note that LiveJournal users are being suspended without warning or explanation. I personally don't even know what I am alleged to have done, and I find the article as it stands to be blatantly biased towards LiveJournal. It needs to reflect the sometimes inconsistent ways that the Abuse team applies the TOS. As it's written now, it looks like only "really bad, bad people" get suspended. Not true. And if you are going to suddenly stop providing a service that people have paid for, it's not unreasonable for the customer to expect an explanation. People who are thinking about paying for an account need to know that it's quite possible that LJ could cancel the contract at any time, for any reason, without explanation. If I had read that, I would not have bought a permanent account, because it sounds like a lousy deal. Bostonrobin 12:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find a Reliable source. Unfortunately anecdotal evidence is neither reliable by wikipedias standards nor notable.--Crossmr 15:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LJ Rabbit Hole Day is tomorrow

I think mention of this LJ/geek holiday on January 27th, the birthday of Lewis Carroll, would make a good addition to this article. Don't forget to create an entry about the day itself and add it to the Geek holidays category. (I would do it, but I should be working right now.) --Geekers 14:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day. [1]. In short, no its not a good addition.--Crossmr 15:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for an implied attack (it was not an "original idea" by myself or a friend); especially since your user page states the following: "Don't resort to personel attacks and don't take things personally." (sic) and "I believe everyone should strive to behave with respect when in a group."

It would have been sufficient to say that you believe the observance is not of enough importance to be worthy of an article. In that case, what do you feel about some of the other holidays in the humorous observances category, such as "Ask a Stupid Question Day" and "Blame Someone Else Day"? Also, supporting your claim with a very specific Google search (using quotes and LJ instead of LiveJournal or doing the search simply with Rabbit Hole Day) is not a strong endorsement.

In my experience, this "humorous observances" has seen a lot of action in LiveJournals over the past few years. As best I can trace, it was started by LJ user crisper, who refutes your claim that it was "made up in school one day." [2] Even so, I understand the spirit of your statement; essentially that you feel its beginnings are too humble/it doesn't have a verified secondary source. That is a valid reason to not give it its own article, but that does not keep it from being mentioned in the LiveJournal entry itself.

The observance is in memory of a living author, and in my opinion that at least places it as worthy as Towel Day. --Geekers 17:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no attack intended. That was a simplified and direct way of saying this is a non-notable event in the daily goings on on livejournal. Being direct doesn't constitute an attack. As far as other articles and humorous observances go you'll have to ask on their pages why they exist. We're here talking about the livejournal article and the inclusion of a holiday made up on a journal which has gained no coverage. Wikipedia is also not for things made up on liverjournal one da or anywhere else you could make something up. Whether what you made up is completely nonsensical or a humorous holiday celebrating something real. Crisper's journal, while I'm sure entertaining, isn't a reliable source. The threshold for something having an article or being included in a parent article in terms of Neutral point of view, verifiability and Original Research are identical. If it fails those, it doesn't get an article and doesn't get mentioned in a parent article. Notability makes the distinction between whether something gets a brief mention in a parent article or its own article. The material in all articles must be verifiable, neutral, not contain original research and come from a reliable source. If a reliable source does a news story on it, then it can be mentioned. and I just went through all 151 unique hits, and there isn't anything there that gives any indication this is anything beyond an extremely minor livejournal trend with a very tiny amount of spill over to a couple of other blogs. [3]--Crossmr 23:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up Controversies and criticism

There is 1 citation still needed, but it wasn't previously marked so I'm leaving it for a bit. I've removed any commentary which isn't directly supported by the current citations. If other reliable sources are found to support any of that material feel free to re-add it with the appropriate material. Please remember that a users journal isn't reliable, nor are the comments made in response to journal entries. Analyzing those comments is original research.--Crossmr 16:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ED

Shouldn't LiveJournal#Encyclopedia_Dramatica mention Wikipedia as a satire/attack target alongside "DeviantART, YouTube, 4chan and other popular Internet forums" ? —Alde Baer 15:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Encyclopedia Dramatica even linked here? WTF IS THIS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.164.129.203 (talk)

A good point, slightly invalidated by your use of the letters W, T and F. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship controversy

Very recently, there has been a mass amount of bannings due to pressure from- I'm not actually sure of all the facts myself, some fundamentalist group. The people at the newly formed Why Does LJ Censor? community know more about it than I do.

Yes, within the last day, hundreds of journals and communities have been deleted. Purportedly due to the group Warriors of Innocence contacting LiveJournal about possible pedophilia-related communities and journals. Controversy has been erupting all over the site, not just in this one community. I think most people are currently trying to just grasp what happened right now (questioning and ranting) so everything is more or less at a stand-still. Until more information and/or this starts moving somewhere, it shouldn't be placed in the article quite yet. --pIrish ^Arr! 15:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been mentioned on the Firefox news site now, if you want a source. http://firefox.org/news/articles/407/1/The-Purity-Police-and-Fanfic/Page1.html

That source seems to be a little sketchy. The article sounds more like a blog, ranting about what happened, rather than focusing on the facts. I'd like to see something from a more reputable and reliable source before anything gets added. I guess I just feel like the person who wrote the article is extremely biased and, the only difference between this and any other rant on the journals, is that this one got published on this site. I really think we should really should get a more neutral source for this before adding it. --pIrish ^Arr! 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try this CNET article if you want a balanced source: http://news.com.com/Mass+deletion+sparks+LiveJournal+revolt/2100-1025_3-6187619.html RPM 23:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. It seems legit, adding it now unless there are any objections. Fractalchez 23:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note-- many of these deletions seem to be happening because of interests listed in journal profiles, rather than the contents of the journals themselves. These interests lists are generally just comma-separated text (eg. "Star Trek, laser swords, octopi"), rather than anything in-depth. If somebody can find a good source to verify this, I'd suggest changing the wording of the sentence with "sexually-themed" to something that would describe this sort of thing instead.

From what I've seen, none of the fandom deletions were for content, only for listed interests such as incest. I'll try to find a real source for this other than LJ posts. 02:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

For anyone keeping track, there is a community created called [Fandom Counts] who is asking fandom-related journals to join. There are over 15,500 members right now, so those are the number of users rebelling against LJ.Kyuu 03:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We get it. I'm even a member of it. But Wikipedia is not an advertizing service, so please stop advertizing it here. Kolindigo 04:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine. It'll be avaliable when it cools down, and we can use it as a community reaction perhaps? I'm just saying it exists. I understand why we wouldn't advertise right now, but it would be useful to the article in the future when people no long are protesting.

HOWEVER, I added a citation. Please don't delete my citations, at least.Kyuu 04:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got a reply from support. "Dear LiveJournal user technobubblegum,

Material which can be interpreted as expressing interest in, soliciting, or encouraging illegal activity places LiveJournal at considerable legal risk.

When journals that express such an interest are reported to us, we must suspend them. Because LiveJournal's interests list serves as a search function, and because listing an interest enables other people also interested in a similar topic to gather and/or congregate, we have been advised that listing an interest in an illegal activity must be viewed as using LiveJournal to solicit that illegal activity.

We recognize that many people list these types of interests for many reasons including expressing opposition for these illegal activities, or to indicate fictional activity. Unfortunately, we have no discretion in these cases; if a journal profile is reported to us and contains interests that support illegal activity, we must suspend the journal.

Journal entries themselves, on the other hand, may express or imply interest in illegal activity or express or imply a desire to meet and/or interact with others with similar interests, but only if the journal clearly (1) is in opposition to or condemnation of the illegal activity, (2) does not encourage the illegal activity and (3) is not used in furtherance of any illegal activity.

Regards, Kim LiveJournal Abuse Team"

- anonymouse of doom!

Duuude, a cutesy nickname and a teamsong? Any other ways you wanna show people they are a bunch of dellusional geeks who can't be taken seriously?

I've been bold and removed this subhead. This is not encyclopedic content. Most likely this should be on wikinews. Kyaa the Catlord 09:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean it's not important. It sparked a lot of controversy in several places in a short amount of time, and that, I think, is quite notable. Furthermore, if the section as it stands seems unencyclopedic, then perhaps it should be edited so that the tone is more fitting. -Tacubus 09:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it is important to you, but this does not mean it is anything but LJ-drama spilling over to the web. Did this get any airtime in reputable, mainstream press? No. Simply because it blew up in fandom does not make it notable or due the weight given in this article. It should be noted in the existing controversies article, properly sourced when it is summarized and not given its own heading in any case. Kyaa the Catlord 09:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually, it did get reported in the press. There is a link to the article right in the entry. Cnet is a legitimate news source, and the article interviews the company's CEO. It has also resulted in an official statement from the company. So try not to be a pompous asshole, okay? Grianne

I'd refer you to WP:CIVIL, Grianne. Thanks much. CNET is not the mainstream press. Was this reported on CNN, MSNBC, ABC? No. The notability and weight given to this instance is undue at this point. The sources, mainly being blogs, do not meet our criteria either. This needs to be cleaned up, summarized and not given so much weight. Kyaa the Catlord 14:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was also reported on Wired.com (http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2007/05/livejournal_we_.html). Is a nationally published magazine's website mainstream enough for you? You seem to have an agenda yourself, Kyaa. 24.80.111.234 07:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Zygal[reply]

The livejournal based blog sources are not suitable for this project. Please find reliable, verifiable sources to replace these. Kyaa the Catlord 10:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also removed the official statement from LiveJournal's CEO and a CNET News.com reference. Doesn't sound like you're being very NPOV, either, Kyaa. Diminutivething 18:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I reverted back 1 too many edits since it appeared to be the same pattern of blanket removals of fact tags that you had been engaged in. Do not remove maintainence tags until the issue is resolved and WP:AGF. Kyaa the Catlord 18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well? Did you fix your screw up? Diminutivething 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you fix your lack of sources? Kyaa the Catlord 18:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't MY lack of sources. I didn't write the section. I was trying to fix it to begin with. Who's not WP:AGF now, Kyaa? Anyway, I think you were over eager... Check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves I think maybe some of the LJ stuff can go back in? Perhaps if we worked together on it instead of against each other? Diminutivething 18:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than accusing me of being overeager or trolling this talk page, why did you not check the history of the page? This is not an article about the bloggers, it is an article about LiveJournal the company, using blog posts by anyone not posting as the company does not meet the requirements of WP:V Kyaa the Catlord 18:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I legitimately offered you the olive branch so that we could improve this section together, as you seem just as invested in it as me, and instead you insulted me. WP:WTF? Anyway, per WP:CITE, I'm removing the refimprove tag. one citeneeded tags out of 10 is not enough to warrant it. It has more than the "very few" deserving the refimprove tag. I leave the citeneeded in place, though.Diminutivething 19:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carrot and stick. You offer to "work together" on one hand, and name call on the other. How am I supposed to react? Kyaa the Catlord 19:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I called you "overeager." How is that name calling? You called me a freaking troll! You WERE overeager. You DID delete legitimate citations. I came to the talk page to question what was going on instead of instigating an edit war, as per wiki etiquette I believe, and I get called a troll. I think you're being too sensitive. And no, sensitive is not a "name." Troll, however, is. Diminutivething 19:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My, my, how argumentative. Whining back and forth at eachother won't improve the article, so how about you forget your petty quarrel and focus on the main issue? -Tacubus 00:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point to begin with.diminutivething 03:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LiveJournal's official statement to users: http://news.livejournal.com/99159.html Sylc 10:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warriors for Innocence links

From what a couple Slashdot posts say (see [[4]] and the replies to [[5]]), the W.F.I. link is "loaded with spyware", "will infect you with malware", and other similar comments. I wasn't sure if there was a standard Wikipedia policy for what to do in these situations, so I added a note to the references warning of this. (Though not citing the specific posts.) I figured it was better to get the warning up there than mess around and try to figure out the "right" way to do it first. I will return to this page later to see if it has been changed to see how for future reference. EvanED 07:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Does Warriors for Innocence refer to themselves as "vigilantes" or is this an OR representation of the group? Kyaa the Catlord 11:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyaa - http://liz-marcs.livejournal.com here is the person that contacted them through the e-mail and asked this question, published the response and later discussion on their LJ. Though there were posts on http://community.livejournal.com/innocence_jihad that said they are connected to religious fundamentalists groups (I cannot get on LJ now, so I cannot find the exact post) and that there are links to some more blogs on WfI site.

And these are reliable, verifiable sources how? They certainly do not meet the criteria that we use here on Wikipedia. Kyaa the Catlord 19:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK WfI has been blamed for ^a's decision-to-suspend by a whole slew of people; 6A have not confirmed it, and WfI's web-site simply makes a claim to have been the cause -- rather like any other anonymous caller to the newspaper claiming responsibility for the latest terrorist/anti-abortion/political outrage. -- Simon Cursitor 13:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, this isn't verifiable and shouldn't be given as much weight as it had been. I editted it to reflect that WFI's only been given passing credit as the instigator of this, maybe we should note somehow that they have been demonized by the LJ fandom "community". Kyaa the Catlord 08:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would the "LJ fandom 'community'" include C|Net's news.com? "In posts to her personal blog, Sues describes herself as an ardent conservative who views homosexuality as 'sick' and a 'twisted agenda' and lumps gays and lesbians into the same category as pedophiles and rapists." -- http://news.com.com/LiveJournal+apologizes+for+mass+deletion/2100-1025_3-6187960.html?tag=nefd.top --Chibiabos 04:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with this conversation, but it's an interesting link. -- Kesh 05:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sues is a representative for Warriors for Innocence. --Chibiabos 07:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strikethrough

The section on the recent suspensions is titled "Strikethrough '07". Yet, there's no mention as to where this name comes from--it's not mentioned once in the section. It'd be helpful to have it explained a bit in the article, ie. who came up with the name, what it means, etc. – Zawersh 00:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Account suspension controversy -it was "Account deletion controversy" because from what I gather the accounts were only suspended. Strikethrough '07 is what a few members of the community have coined what happened because suspended accounts have a ~~strike~~ but probably doesn't meet WP:NPOV. Jerm (^Talk/ _Contrib) 03:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nothing to do with NPOV, the problem is WP:V. What some random person writes in an a self-published journal isn't authoritative or reliable about anything besides themselves, which unless they're notable is not interesting to wikipedia.--Crossmr 04:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, then what is the WP:V name? SchmuckyTheCat

WP:V verifiability. the words of self-published random individual X are not reliable or usable as a citation on wikipedia. --Crossmr 12:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it doesn't have a name because, by Monday morning, no-one will care abot it any more, and this entire section can be deleted, as no more than a playground scuffle -- Simon Cursitor

Nonsense. This is a significant event -- the first time LiveJournal has censored its users based on their legal writings. 24.80.111.234 07:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Zygal[reply]

Yep, gotta love recentivism. :P Kyaa the Catlord 14:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)This isn't just recentism. It's just another in a long list of freakouts by LJ Abuse. SchmuckyTheCat

Please leave your POV at the door, Schmucky. Kyaa the Catlord 03:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Credit for "Strikethrough"

The only source given for WFI's "causing" this issue is on their own, self-serving website. Please improve this. I've added the dubious tag. Kyaa the Catlord 06:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barak Berkowitz gave a statement about WFI and their alleged involvement here. -Tacubus 06:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which he denies it was due to WFI's reports. Next? Kyaa the Catlord 06:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have editted the statement to better reflect the reported reasoning behind the suspension of these accounts. Although WFI is the only group listed by name in the sources, it is not the sole one and giving it such weight and credit is undue. (And I'm considering only the reliable sources, there's a ton of crap in the blogosphere calling them dominionists, fascists and every other label they find trendy. Keep in mind, labelling people like that in this article would be a BLP violation.) Kyaa the Catlord 07:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In which he denies it was due to WFI's reports." No, no he doesn't. Next? WookMuff 08:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I quote: "Isn't this all just a panicked reaction to WFI? Not really. WFI or anyone else may complain but we are responsible for applying our policies to those complaints." Sure reads like WFI wasn't the cause of these edits. Yes, its weak with "Not really." but it is a denial that WFI was the reason they suspended these accounts. Next? Kyaa the Catlord 08:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and I quote. "WFI or anyone else may complain but we are responsible for applying our policies to those complaints" What he in fact says isn't that it wasn't in response to WfI. In fact he implies it WAS in response to them. What he does in fact say is that, to paraphrase, no matter who complained about stuff that made us take notice, we made the mistake. He isn't saying it wasn't about WfI, he is saying that in response to complaints WE made a mistake. Thats not at all the same as saying he wasn't due to WfI. WookMuff 08:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His admission of a complaint from WFI does not equate to the causation of this issue by WFI. It is blatantly incorrect to infer that WFI was the reason for suspension when he states directly that LJ did not suspend the accounts in a panicked reaction to their complaint. Kyaa the Catlord 09:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it did, Kyaa. I am just saying that, conversely, Barak's stating that his company is responsible for its own mistakes isn't the same as saying that WfI's complaints didn't lead to the suspensions. You can read between the lines all you want, but all he is saying is that the responsibility for the suspensions lies with him. That isn't at all the same as saying "We live in a vacuum and noone else had anything to do with it". He didn't say "we didn't respond to WfI", just "at the end of the day, we are responsible for our own actions." Anyway, according to C|Net, he said just that.

It said the deletion was prompted by activist groups, including one called Warriors for Innocence that claims to track sites promoting pedophilia, the sexual abuse of minors, and other illegal activities.
"We did a review of our policies related to how we review those sites, those journals, and came up with the fact that we actually did have a number of journals up that we didn't think met our policies and didn't think they were appropriate to have up," Barak Berkowitz, chairman and chief executive of Six Apart, said in a telephone interview. The site boasts about 13 million journals.

So yeah, that there says "They said look, we looked, we went AIEEE" That is paraphrasing of course, he probably didn't actually go Aieee, not even in capsWookMuff 09:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

news.com reporting that it has been said that the deletion was prompted by several groups and only naming WFI does not make the statements that WFI was the reason these journals were suspended any stronger. They were simply the only one listed by name. The reason they state the journals were deleted was that after review, a number of them WERE against the policy and they reacted on that basis. The activist groups, including WFI, brought the problem to their attention, but it was the fact that they found a number of policy violations that caused the deletion. Did they go too far? Obviously. Kyaa the Catlord 09:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... by your logic, to throw out a syllogism of dubious integrity, if someone informs the police of a crime, the police investigate, find the crime, and arrest the offenders, those people should in no way be given credit for that arrest? You are pretty harsh on upright citizens man. WookMuff 10:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, by my logic we should not be giving WFI as much credit for this as we have. They were one of a number of activist groups. Not the sole group which is how this article started off portraying them. Asking to have the sourcing improved for this is not the same as denying it. Not that it matters, since I requested this be better sourced, it has become so. So, in the end, my request was fulfilled. I'm not sure why we continue arguing. But its fun, ne? (Hell, I just called innocence_jihad "full of hate" on their community. I am wearing my asbestos underwear today.) Kyaa the Catlord 10:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you deny your stance on hating good samaritans, eh? Curious. I wish I was better at finding sources than I am at arguing. Shut up, I am so too good at arguing :PWookMuff 10:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This could easily be settled by rewording to something like: "In May 2007, a number of groups, including WfI, registered complaints with SixApart regarding the content of certain communities and user journals. Upon investigating, LiveJournal suspended approximately 500 accounts and communities, causing what news.com referred to as a "revolt" from "thousands of LiveJournal customers"." Neutral, but includes the one name we've been given in verifiable sources. (Would need to be written more cleanly, but I think that would help settle this debate.) -- Kesh 22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, Kyaa was the main one complaining and he is agreeable to the current references now, so is there a need for compromise? WookMuff 22:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I misread. Looked like the subject was still being debated. -- Kesh 22:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone reported WookMuff for 3rr yet? If not, I'll do so. Kyaa the Catlord 13:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a brand new day? WookMuff 13:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a calendar day, unfortunately, its 3rr per 24 hours. Which you've exceeded.... Kyaa the Catlord 13:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I just read the rule. Alas... I don't regret it though. The name change is wrong and its not being disruptive, vandalism (bah) in any way shape or form pov to have the most common name as the chapter heading. 17,000 people don't just spontaneously make up the same name. It's hardly like its called 'Six Apart and their war on freedom' or "Lj only cares about advertising revenue' WookMuff 13:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will miss the editing for the time of my block, however. WookMuff 13:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, watch me make the most of my time while I have it eh? Freudian errors abound. WookMuff 13:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

17,000 blog posts with Strikethrough 07 as their rally call does not make it more descriptive than an accurate, neutral description of the controversy. Kyaa the Catlord 13:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HOW IS IT POV??? You and others keep saying its not NPOV, how is it not NPOV??? Its not calling it a rallying cry to freedom, it isn't saying lj sucks, it is the term that is in use, it is the term that lj users have used to describe the events, and I find it particularly laughable that you, who called us "fandumb" and seem to resent the lj community for their "drama" would call NPOV WookMuff 13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not usable as citation. Deriving a name for something based on what is posted in some blogs is original research.--Crossmr 14:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its the token "name" of those on one side of the issue. That makes it a partisan name. Accurately, neutrally labelling what the controversy revolved around is much more encyclopedic. And relax, its only the intertubes. Kyaa the Catlord 14:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strikethrough '07 links to that section. Should we get rid of it, because it's NPOV? I personally think we should make a 1-sentence remark there that it is known to many by that name, and that's it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AdmiralMemo (talk • contribs) 01:20, June 29, 2007

The trouble is, we have zero reliable sources to verify the name, just blogs on LJ. -- Kesh 01:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, LJ is the topic of the article. Shouldn't LiveJournals en masse be considered when writing it? Admiral Memo 07:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Only official statements made through verifiable channels can be used as citation (since the parent company maintains one for that purpose). The only other time a blog is usable as source is when the article is about the author of the blog and it can be verified that the blog belongs to them. --Crossmr 07:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh, dubious tag!

Rather than removing the last paragraph in the privacy section, I've placed a dubious tag. This seems contradicted by the preceeding paragraph which gives two examples of how not to have a community listed on your profile page. In any regards, this needs a complete rewrite as it is very hard to follow. Kyaa the Catlord 22:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Livejournal and advertisements

The first part of this is pov. There is no reliable source provided which identifies this as either a criticism or a controversy. I'm sure there are some users which referred to it as such in their journals, but that isn't a reliable source. Currently all that has been done is a link provided to their prior statement, and a link to their new plan. While factually true, its been made pov by its placement in the article. If no reliable source can be provided which identifies it as either of those things I'll remove it.--Crossmr 03:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox news RS scrutiny

Firefox news appears to be a user submitted news site. Does this meet wp:RS? Kyaa the Catlord 21:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it clearly does not ... especially in this case, since those trying to cause a ruckus at LiveJournal are using it as a publicity vehicle. Pitamakan 22:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also posted this over at the RS noticeboard. I wonder if I can use that wonderful little "wider attention" tool to draw some more input on this.... Kyaa the Catlord 22:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it is, there is an article at CNet that might be more appropriate in the interest of ending the edit war. (Unless people are saying CNet is not valid either? I see it referenced on multiple Wikipedia pages, so I'd guess it is.) Shadowstar 23:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I suggested over at RS that if a more substantial and less controversial source could be found to verify the claim then that might solve this dispute. I would consider CNet to be valid. :) Xdenizen 23:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is... that is still a user submitted blog post. Blogs do not meet WP:RS. Kyaa the Catlord 00:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I have difficulty with this stuff, but I've seen "blogs" credited as valid when they are actually a part of valid media organizations. My understanding from this is that not all blogs are created equal. For example, Kotaku.com is considered a "blog," but it is referenced in (for instance) the MGS4 article. The WP:ATT FAQ seems to imply that while most blogs are not reliable sources, some are. Shadowstar 01:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:SPS's footnote: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control; that is, when it isn't really a blog. Posts left on these columns by readers may never be used as sources." The blog in question does not appear to be under any sort of editorial control, rather, it seems to be out of control. Just like the vast majority of other blogs covering this same topic. (And for full disclosure, my friend guma_kuwauso was quoted in that piece and I still don't support it being used as a source in this article.) Kyaa the Catlord 01:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. After reading it a bit more thoroughly... Point taken. I wonder if the German source is any good... (Well, probably not for the English page.) Shadowstar 01:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for wider attention, you've got some. In my opinion, neither firefox.org nor that CNET blog meet the WP:RS criterion. Neither one seems to be subject to any sort of editorial control. In this case, since the article is ABOUT a social "blog-style" website (yes, I know, LJ isn't blogs, but you get my drift), I'd almost say that nothing that claims to be a blog will meet WP:RS in this case. You'd have to have an article from the main webspace of a reliable news organization to be able to source from it. --Darkwind (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to have wound down. Removing RfC request and thanking everyone who took part. :) Kyaa the Catlord 10:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archived!

I've created /Archive 2 and moved everything up to the first of this year into it. The page took way too long to load even with my cable internet. --Darkwind (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Deletion Controversy

As far as I know, the information about LJ's deletion spree regarding fanart has not been added. I'm not horribly proficient regarding the editing of articles, but all the information can be found at ljstaff's livejournal, as well as posts by specific users.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.47.154.87 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 8 August 2007.

Calling the deletion of two accounts a "spree" is stretching it. The deletion of two accounts for TOS violations does not meet the standards for inclusion in an encyclopedic work, it would be a blatant case of undue weight. Kyaa the Catlord 10:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the reaction, involving thousands of Livejournal users, makes it notable. However, finding reliable citations for it may be a problem.67.158.78.159 12:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's only a reaction within LJ, it's probably not notable. Are news sites covering it? If not, it's a storm in a teacup. Totnesmartin 16:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been 0 non-"blog" news reports on this two user deletion controversy. Kyaa the Catlord 16:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now on Der Spiegel. I don't read German, but I think that one's a real article, not an associated blog. —David Eppstein 19:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reliable sources

With the hundreds independent reliable sources available for this article, why is this article cited to so many sources that are not independent of LiveJournal? Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The LiveJournal website is not a third-party published source for this article. I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Independent sources and replace the footnotes taht are not independent of LiveJournal with footnotes that are independent of LiveJournal. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 08:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

many of those are sourcing statements made by staff. Those kinds of citations shouldn't need to come from independent 3rd parties. When it comes to how Frank feels about his company why not take it directly from Frank's mouth if it can be done so through reliable means?--Crossmr 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Registered users please edit

WELL, which is linked to in the first paragraph, is a disambiguation page. Can an editor please change it to WELL (virtual community)? 83.70.235.149 15:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Is it really protected since August 8? Is it time to unprotect it? 83.70.235.149 15:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources/Noticeboard

As I posted there:

I noticed many months ago an ongoing campaign to misuse WP:RS to keep any information critical of LiveJournal management out of the article, eventually becoming so angry that I gave up and stayed out of the article for quite some time.

I went back to it last night and found some of the same editors still misusing RS to keep the article POV, including the blatant deletion even of the POV and other tags. The article and talk page histories show many, many incidents of this misuse. Unfortunately, this ongoing campaign again got me hot under the collar, so I respectfully request that other editors without axes to grind with regard to LiveJournal in either direction please review the histories.

Thank you.

-- Davidkevin (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Journal logo

This image doesn't seem to be required or rationalized on its page for (fair) use on this article. Is there any pressing reason why this is being used here? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC---Need for Tags

As a happy user of LJ, I decided to check out this page last night and was shocked by the article that I encountered. The article is very well written---professional quality even, which opens up the question as to who is editing the article? This concern is especially true when you read the article. Virtually every reference is from the LJ site directly---often a statement from management or FAQ or press release. The article reads like something that the LJ PR staff might release. For example, the entire section on the Abuse Prevention Team reads like something straight from a PR release. The features section is also decidedly PRish in nature. Re-reading the entire article is so POV and advertish that it isn't even funny. 95% of the entire article reads like something from LJ!Balloonman (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article as it exists now seems like a one-sided pro Live Journal article showing off it's features, how LJ has been successful, how some were uncomfortable with LJ policy of banning some accounts, what LJ did in response, and how other journal engines attempt to emulate LJ style. All seemingly pro LJ and answering objections from critics rather than being critical or neutral in point of view of wether LJ is better / worse than blogster, Dead Journal, greatist journal, etc. I would suggest a rewrite of the article as it is worthy of wikipedia in notability and as a point of reference of what a LJ, a blog, and history of LJ, as well as what may happen secondary to the sale to SUP Fabrik. Thanks, rkmlai (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC) aka http://rkmlai.livejournal.com[reply]

"I agree that the article as it exists now seems like a one-sided pro Live Journal article showing off it's features, how LJ has been successful, how some were uncomfortable with LJ policy of banning some accounts, what LJ did in response, and how other journal engines attempt to emulate LJ style." - apart from the "pro-LiveJournal" claim, isn't that pretty much what this article should contain? This is an article about what LiveJournal is, and controversy is just a small part of that. Neitherday (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"All seemingly pro LJ and answering objections from critics rather than being critical or neutral in point of view of wether LJ is better / worse than blogster, Dead Journal, greatist journal, etc. I would suggest a rewrite of the article as it is worthy of wikipedia in notability and as a point of reference of what a LJ, a blog, and history of LJ, as well as what may happen secondary to the sale to SUP Fabrik." - I don't see where this article claims or infers that LiveJournal is better than other blogging services and speculation on what might happen due to the sale to SUP would run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. Neitherday (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what I was trying to convey is that LJ "success" is by citing emulation by similar online journals. If they wernt successful, there would not be similar online journals, so there for ... the presence of other journals online, as cited in the wikipedia LJ article, bespeaks to LJ's successful reading of the market and what bloggers want. For the second part of your paragraph above is that I personally am using the LJ article to keep abreast of the opinion of what others who are editting the article see or feel about the SUP Fabrik sale. I think others are also using it as a way of hearing what is current. Not that wikipedia is a crystal ball, but that I dont read blog news and see the LJ wikipedia article as a source of news, a reflection of other sources. Thanks for reading rkmlai (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't state that others emulating LiveJournal is a sign of LiveJournal's success. It just states the notable and verifiable fact that others have emulated Livejournal. Facts should not avoided just because they may influence someone's ideas in a certain way - to do so would be to introduce a POV by omission. For example, we wouldn't think of leaving out information on Bill Gate's philanthropy just because it might cause some people think more positively of him. Neitherday (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask participants in this RFC to remember, especially, our policies on reliable sources and undue weight. Although, clearly, livejournal has made some of its users unhappy with its recent steps, we can't write an encyclopedic article based solely around those controversies, for one thing because it would be unbalanced and for another because reliable sources on them are difficult to find. Criticism that is not backed by sources cannot stand. Wikipedia is not the place for personal essays that state your feelings about livejournal (or any other topic), no matter how strongly you may feel and no matter how many other thousand unreliable blogs you can find stating similar feelings. Although several people have stated the need for sharper criticism, I have yet to see any of those people provide the sources that can be used to support such criticism, nor to consider the effect of expanding the current criticism section on the balance of the overall article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just the sources, it is how the sources are presented and the descriptions made. This article is so POV that it isn't even funny.Balloonman (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that but aren't providing any explanation.--Crossmr (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Please be specific and constructive. "So POV that it isn't even funny" is not useful as a guide to how we should revise the article. What, precisely, would you say differently, how can you justify that change from sources, and why is it an improvement? Give examples. Otherwise, it is difficult to take this sort of vague complaining seriously. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently only 24/43 sources are from Livejournal according to the references section. Anyone is welcome to add notable and verifiable information to the article. I see a lot of accusation about people's intentions and about the supposed content in the article, but what I don't see is anyone providing appropriate sources to add the material to the article. A company which makes a hobby about using official blogs or forums to make announcements have a history of being permitted as primary sources on Wikipedia. Random user/community/etc blogs/forum postings/self-publish websites do not. Otherwise we could all go whip up whatever source we want to say whatever we want about the subject and include it in the article. If there is a criticism about a subject and the only reliable source on the issue is a statement made from the subject you have two choices, either not include the controversy/criticism at all if you're afraid its going to be too one-sided or only include that material which comes from reliable sources. Perhaps we need a new guideline that says only if a third party (e.g. news paper, or other reliable publication) picks up a controversy should it be included in the article. Also what I haven't seen is any explanation of exactly how this reads like an advert, and exactly what changes would be recommended. The various policies of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR are very clear on how to handle various sources and what information can be taken from them. Feel free to edit in accordance with them.--Crossmr (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, my criticism is with this article, not with LJ as a whole. I like LJ, but this article reads like an advert/POV. My concern is not based upon the facts, but the presentation of the facts in such a manner that it is selling LJ on Wikipedia:

"The most distinguishing feature of LiveJournal is the "friends list," which gives the site a strong social aspect in addition to the blog services."
"Users may upload graphical avatars, or "userpics," which appear next to the username in prominent areas as it would on an Internet forum. Paid account holders are given full access to S2 management and more userpics, as well as other features." Sales and marketing.
"The popular "friends only" security option, which has since been adopted by Xanga and MySpace, hides a post from the general public so that only those on the user's friends list can read it."
"LiveJournal additionally has a "private" security option which allows users to make a post that only the poster can read, thus making their LiveJournal a private diary rather than a blog."
"All users, including non-paying users, can set various options for comments:" This is a sign that LJ employees had an input in writing this---who else would emphasize non-paying users? This type of statement reaks of something that was culled from company propaganda.

This is just a sampling of the cases that shows bias.Balloonman (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) The "most distinguishing feature" is how it most identifiably differs from other blog sites. The usage here is along the lines of "the most distinguishing feature of the manx is a lack of a tail."
2) This seems very matter of fact. I don't see how this is overly marketing. The differences between account types are important to describing the various aspects of LiveJournal functionality.
3) It is popular, in that it is widely used. I don't see how popular is POV is this regard. I guess "popular" could be replaced with "widely used", but I don't think it needs to be.
4) Perhaps a bit on the overexplaining side, but I don't see how it is POV.
5) Again, the differences between account levels is important, and with so many features that vary with account level it is useful to note which functions are available to all users. Neitherday (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the above. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"All users, including non-paying users, can set various options for comments:" This is a sign that LJ employees had an input in writing this The edit was [6]. If you can show that that editor was an LJ employee, or influenced by an LJ employee, please do so, but otherwise I think it's better to focus on the article content. Mdwh (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interest-Search Censorship

This article makes no mention of the controversy over Interest-search censorship.

—71.154.211.68 (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to include material such as this that presents a factual basis for some of the recent controversies. But the first link is not usable as a reliable source (it's just a post by one of the disgruntled users) and the second doesn't provide much usable detail, only that there exist blocked terms. We could add a sentence somewhere about the existence of blocked terms, but that wouldn't really help anyone understand why the terms are there, what they are, whether they should be there, what their effects are on searches for unrelated but textually similar terms, or who is upset about them. — David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-staffer who independently researches and proves fact of management fuckuppery as can be tested by anybody is "just...disgruntled" and cannot be cited as reference.

Management won't talk about the cited fuckuppery.

Voila! Valid, truthful, verifiable-by-anyone-who-tries information will never be allowed to appear in article. Consistency of article's brown-nosery maintained. Another win for POV bias and censorship! -- Davidkevin (talk) 07:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of good places to go for free exchange of unverifiable information (or, gossip, rumor, fear, uncertainty, and doubt, some might say). Wikipedia isn't one of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since she explicitly describes the process of how she tested and proved the theory, a test repeatable by anyone, it's verifiable, although you will never in your life admit it since it would invalidate your clique's justification of your ongoing violations of WP:POV, WP:OWN, and WP:LAWYER. -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, you really need to learn the meaning of “just”. This first link is indeed a post by one of the disgruntled users, but it certainly isn't just that. Whether it us a “reliable source” in the Newspeak of Wikipedia is another matter. Yes, the article should have “reliable sources” (and not merely reliable sources). I hope that they'll become available. —12.72.70.143 (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above comment with regard to reliability and verifiability. And the "Newspeak" I mentioned further above is not Wikipedia's, but has to do with certain individuals' twisting of Wikipedia's rules for the purpose of violating those same rules. -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you weren't using “reliable source” as re-defined by Wikipedia, then your comment above is quite wrong. The first link isn't rumor, gossip, or innuendo; its author was demonstrably careful, and his claims have been testable and accurate. But Wikipedia isn't (whatever it imagines itself) a scientific or scholarly enterprise; it faces the challenge of producing an acceptable product while being unable to bar the participation of those who are disinclined to think in scholarly or scientific manners; hence, it must require sources that are not only reliable, but meet other criteria. Unfortunately, Wikipedia identifies this subgroup with the name “reliable sources”; the very choice of name is a reflection of how Wikipedia is not merely or even principally a work of real scholars or scientists. I'm sorry that you cannot see these points for yourself, and probably cannot be shown these points without more work than I'm willing to invest. —12.72.68.55 (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the first link can't be taken as a reliable source, although I don't think a long list of what terms are blocked is relevant for Wikipedia anyway. I agree that we could have a brief mention - that since June 2007, some interest search terms have been blocked by LiveJournal. Mdwh (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mistype in my edit summary

That should have read, "independent of the subject"--Crossmr (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it fascinating that you and the rest of your clique simply won't allow mention of the only remaining LJ clone not otherwise mentioned in the rest of the article, the only LJ clone created specifically in reaction to and because of the official LJ policy controversies which occurred this year, controversies which your clique also don't want mentioned in the article.

The hypocrisy of your stating that official CommieJournal pages are not reliable sources about CJ when official LiveJournal pages are being held as the only reliable sources about various LJ controversies is simply astounding. Evidently there is no Wikirule which which will not be abused, WP:POV, WP:LAWYER, WP:OWN, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:3RR, and likely more I haven't seen, no blatant hypocrisy which will not be committed, in this shameless effort to keep the content and point-of-view of this article under tight control. -- Davidkevin (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should read some, like WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I said the Commie journal pages are not valid for establishing notability, like any other site out there. Notability is only established through secondary sources, not primary sources.--Crossmr (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of sites running the LiveJournal engine

As you may have noticed, List of sites running the LiveJournal engine was recently split off from this page. It could use participation by more editors, particularly regarding a discussion on its talk page I have been having with Davidkevin regarding what standards we should use for including sites in the list. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now it's listed for deletion. Although merging back here rather than deleting the information altogether is one of the possible outcomes, it is not currently one with much support at the deletion debate. Again, if you have an opinion on whether and how this information should exist within Wikipedia, please participate. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Split?

As mentioned on the List of sites running the LiveJournal engine deletion page, LiveJournal is actually three separate things: a company, a service, and software. (It is also possibly a community, too.) I was thinking we should split the article into separate articles to reflect this, so we would then have LiveJournal (software), LiveJournal (company), and LiveJournal (service), along with a disambig page, of course. In my opinion, LiveJournal would then redirect to LiveJournal (service), because that's what most people would be looking for. (Of course, there would be the appropriate links at the top to help others get to where they want to be if they're not looking for the service.) Admiral Memo (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar note, now that List of sites running the LiveJournal engine has been deleted, we have the problem that there is no mention of the LiveJournal engine whatsoever, or that there exist many sites using it. I don't believe we need to reintroduce sections on DeadJournal etc (if they are notable, they can have their own article), but we ought to have some mention of the engine, and that such other sites exist. Mdwh (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add info on ljfind.com/ljseek.com

As many LJ users know, these sites have indexed posts of user's entries that have been made private and friends only (tho were apparently originally made public) alot of people are obviously really pissed off about this since yr whole life on LJ can be googled easily. it would be helpful to include this info here since there is seemingly nowhere to go now to rally about it. ljfind have a post on their journal that addresses this issue (http://ljfind.livejournal.com/9924.html) but it's slowly looking defunct, plus they removed comments so it's harder to find a common place to discuss this. this is a serious issue with livejournal, i think it should be in the controversies section. 24.60.66.216 (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Crossmr (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deadjournal is not Livejournal

Why does Deadjournal redirect to Livejournal? They're two completely different websites. It's like redirecting Pepsi to link to the article on Coca-Cola. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daecon (talk • contribs) 11:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be an article for DeadJournal, but it was redirected because there weren't sources to establish notability (see Talk:DeadJournal). I presume redirection was considered preferable to deletion, and it redirects to the section which talks about other sites running the LiveJournal engine (your analogy would only be true if Pepsi wasn't notable enough for its own article, and they were, e.g., using the same recipe as Coca-Cola). Mdwh (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to point to comparison of sites using the LiveJournal codebase instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

first

Was LJ the first mainstream blog in the internet? Bennylin (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's not clear that it even is "mainstream" or a "blog" at all, and it certainly wasn't the first under any reasonable definition of those words.216.59.230.119 (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centricism

Why does there need to be a US State top 5 breakdown of user count on the LJ page? I never understand why things that are global, even if based in the US, always seem to have such statistics. The approximate country count to actual country population for both the US and Canada is 10%, so why is it important how many users are in specific states, as opposed to how interested Canadians may be to look oat their provincial statistics, or Swiss cantons? All this does is show that the 5 most populous states are also the 5 largest users by state on LJ. Coincidence? Yes. There's nothing spectacular about that statistic. If it was Rhode Island, I'd be impressed and find it interesting. I'm not advocating sensationalism, but why waste space on that level of detail when LJ is obviously a globally enjoyed service?--WPaulB (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The LiveJournal stat page only reports statistics for U.S. states. The problem stems for LiveJournal's record keeping, not Wikipedia editor bias. Neitherday (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Then out it goes. Just because LJ reports it doesn't mean it's necessarily encyclopaedic for Wikipedia.--WPaulB (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your removal of the U.S. state statistics on notability grounds. They didn't add much (if anything) to the article. Good move. Neitherday (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs 2008 update?

The very first part of this article seems to stop at 2007, but things continue. SUP is adding features, fixing bugs and being much more pro-active in user relations, although sometimes (e.g. advertising on basic accounts), still annoying a n unknown (but loud) proportion of their users. I don't feel confident in adding this information, especially as it requires authoritative (non-LJ) sources. But I hope someone can update it. -- Avirr (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LiveJournal history

How come there isn't a background information or history section for this article? I cannot add one because I don't have reliable sources, but I do believe the story went that Brad Fitzpatrick wanted to host his thoughts online. So he created a little journal for himself on the web in 1997, but in '98 or '99 he got an epiphany and decided to make it into a journaling site for everybody. Then it grew so much that it became the community with eight digits of users as it is today. This article seriously needs that... and some cleanup on the lead. ★Dasani★ 20:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does "Blurty" redirect here?

Although very similar to LJ, it's not the same site. Blurty is not mentioned once in this article (except in passing in a footnote) so the redirect is not very helpful 86.132.138.159 (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to redirect instead to comparison of sites using the LiveJournal codebase, which does mention Blurty. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weasely? What Number?

"It was announced that LiveJournal had laid off a significant number of employees." I must say that the use of the word significant when neither source mentioned the exact number makes this tidbit of information rather irrelevant. Unless there's an actual number, fraction, or percentage why is this important? The sentence needs to either be reworded, clarified with a number, or removed. In essence, the sentence has about as much charm as a news anchor saying with all seriousness, "And in the news today, somewhere people died." It's accurate, however without additional information, it is not of importance when people die all the time. And in this case and in this time, people get laid off all the time. 99.174.161.242 (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the line about layoffs. If it was not important enough to warrant a numerical total, then it is not important enough to include. 75.42.220.187 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. I don't understand how specificity is or isn't a sign of importance, but I changed it to be a little more specific. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to do a write up as to why the layoffs occurred because people losing their jobs is hardly a noteworthy event unless it has a numerical value. Also, according to Marta (http://community.livejournal.com/suggestions/690848.html?thread=14417568#t14417568), a LJ staffer, only 50% were laid off, which is not a majority mathematically speaking. It seems that there are no sources that can agree on a figure. Unless there are concrete numbers and a writeup as to the layoff, the information is currently extraneous and weasley. 99.174.170.116 (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was noted by a reliable source. Therefore it is ipso facto notable. I could just as easily make up similar criteria such as "people losing their jobs is hardly a noteworthy event unless we know the colors of their eyes" and it would make just as much sense as your requirement that we know the exact number of layoffs: it would be something I made up, not something that follows from our guidelines and policies. As for whether it's a majority or not, the rule here is always that we go with what the sources say, and in this case they explicitly say a majority. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't even state an estimated figure. And putting things into perspective about job loss, Circuit City's failure is a job loss of about 30,000 to 40,000 (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/lake/orl-loclakecircuit18011809jan18,0,1402843.story) (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/36F96CED967709C5862575410083C498?OpenDocument) and not a word mentioned in Wikipedia about those figures. Where is the standard here? It is fairly important for there to at least be an estimated figure, and to have more than one source confirming that figure. Otherwise that research is rather half-assed. 99.174.170.116 (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are giving me the impression that you didn't read the source, since the numbers you are so desparate for are given there, albeit in multiple contradictory forms. The Washington Post article used as a source quoted the numbers in four different ways: "most of its remaining San Francisco staff", "20 out of 28", "about a dozen", and "a fifth of LiveJournal's whole workforce". Given that ambiguity I preferred to be vaguer. As for Circuit City, WP:WAX. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. Several times actually. But that is only one source that gives numbers conflicting with other sources. For example the following give figures too, but there is no official release by Livejournal reflecting the number or scope. (http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/605367/livejournal-announces-mass-layoffs.html) (http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/01/06/livejournal-makes-deep-personnel-cuts) (http://mashable.com/2009/01/06/livejournal-layoffs/) Because all information is conflicting, then unless you use an official release from the source, and in this case, LiveJournal, you cannot say "majority" or "half." That's conflicting information with the reports out that that say 20%-70%. And without a number, it's like a news anchor saying, "And in the news today, people died somewhere." This is why I disagree with the blurb. The information is unsettled and unconfirmed. Additionally Reference 5 has no bearing upon the blurb. There is no reference to layoffs at all. It's a release mentioning a restructure and with no mentions of job loss. In any case, if this article is how people apparently report things, then I guess this is a rather good example of bias and poor reporting. 99.174.170.116 (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Realizing that I've only said how I disagree with the blurb, let me at least offer a correction use it as you will:

On January 6, 2009, it was announced that LiveJournal had laid off a number of their San Francisco-based employees and moved product development and design functions to Russia. As to the actual number of layoffs sources differ. Figures place the number of workers laid off up to 70% of Livejournal's San Fransisco workforce, or a total of close to 20% of Livejournal's total workforce. (cited sources). Livejournal has yet to release an official figure, but unofficially a staffer has said that 'we lost about 50% of the staff in the office, and about 20% of our overall dedicated LiveJournal employees.'(cited source)

I believe that would be a good compromise saying that people were laid off, but figures vary from source to source. 99.174.170.116 (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any support for the number being as low as 20% of the San Francisco workforce. The 20% number from the Washington Post story refers to all of livejournal's employees everywhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at any other sources? Webpronews Has a correction saying "LJ laid off about a dozen employees, which is less than 20% of the entire LJ workforce." I also indicated the post from Marta suggesting "it's true that we lost about 50% of the staff in the office, and about 20% of our overall dedicated LiveJournal employees". But from all the mentioned sources I have submitted, totals vary form 20-70 percent (actually 20-71). Perhaps I am mistaken as I do think that 20% is a reflection of the total workforce, but only up to 50% to 70% of jobs were eliminated out of San Fransisco. So let me reword that in my suggestion above. 99.174.170.116 (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Percentages

Well, if the total of users is about 16.000.000, ~3.000.000 of USA users can't be the 67% ... Just correct your data, men!

Facebook integration

I've been involved in some disputes here today about how we should discuss Livejournal's new feature allowing users to link their accounts to Facebook, and the largely negative user reaction to their new linking ability. My own position is that, although this seems to be a significant development for LJ, we can't discuss it here until we have reliably published third-party sources describing the change and/or the reaction to it. To do otherwise risks violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV. But regardless, it seems appropriate to discuss it here rather than continuing to edit-war. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting to discuss this. I don't see it as WP:OR, because there are some refs already. The problem is that they're primary sources, not 3rd party, but it's still objective to record the existence of this evident protest. These are not the "extraordinary claims" that require "extraordinary sources", per policy. Tag for better citation by all means, but 3RRing yourself against multiple editors isn't the way to proceed.

The change is significant for at least three reasons:

It's significant for LJ commerically as an attempt to survive in a market dominated by Facebook, and a large migration of LJ users to FB / Dreamwidth.
It's technically significant, as a federated open system in an increasingly commercialised, proprietary and closed web with the re-growth of walled garden sites.
It's significant for the privacy aspects: once again LJ seems to have shot itself in the foot by failing to take privacy, and user perception of privacy, into account.#

There are some good sources we could use for this. Charlie Stross has already commented adversely, as have Simon Bisson (UK tech journalist) and Simon Bradshaw (UK tech & privacy specialist IP lawyer). However as they've done this via their LJs, that will no doubt fall foul of WP's bias-by-hostname against self-publication (the bane of WP coverage on tech issues). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a definition of "good sources" that's different from what's acceptable as a source at Wikipedia; see WP:RS and WP:V. The first sentence of WP:V seems very relevant: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." In particular, you should not be giving your own reasons why it's a significant change; that's original research. As for primary vs secondary sources; I think the primary source (the news post) is acceptable for the basic facts of what LiveJournal actually changed, but that the comments on the news post are completely unacceptable as a source for whether the change is controversial (or also, whether it is any more controversial than any other change LJ has made — see the comments on any previous LJ news post for similar fuss). And as for inferring anything from a lack of response by LJ, that's right out, per WP:SYN. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on verifiability is particularly relevant: LJ's own press release is accessible on-line and describes the change they've made. I'm glad you agree that that is one good ref for inclusion here.

By "good sources" in my comment here I'm selecting people by the "Radio 4 test": Could you imagine PM choosing to phone them up if they need comment by a recognised authority on the subject? All three of those named here meet that (I think two already have done, on related matters). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They don't meet our criteria for when self-published sources like blogs are acceptable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, WP's regular old bigotry by hostname. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRUTH. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that if the person is notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, it's reasonable to include as commentary on the situation - I'd support doing so.

I agree that the bias-by-hostname situation is a bit awkward, and it doesn't really make sense when followed strictly - I mean, technically the New York Times is a self-published source (they're the ones publishing it). There is no reason why a company publishing its own material is more reliable than an individual doing so (after all, you could have a small startup publishing its own material, and that still wouldn't necessarily make it acceptable).

Given some of the trash that comes out of the media, the idea that something is reliable simply because it's been subject to a newspaper's "editorial control" seems rather absurd (and again, inconsistent - group blogs are disallowed, but what about a group that exerts editorial control?) The only sensible way to distinguish between major newspapers and random group blogs is by whether they are notable, not the name they're called by.

But getting back on topic - I'd say this is acceptable under "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." - these people are experts in this field, and they've presumably previously had material published. Mdwh (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have links to the coverage by the people mentioned above? I'd support reinstating the Facebook mention, if we can add those sources. Mdwh (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

subtle bias?

As a student of literature, it's possible that sometimes I pay too much attention to what things AREN'T said... but this is where POV writing too often hides, in the omission of details.

This is quite a long article, comparing LJ's features with multiple other social networking and blogging platforms, yet the word "facebook" does not currently appear on the page.

Examples will illustrate why this seems to be biased: the controversy over the term "friend" is almost laughable in the context of 2011, when fb has so thoroughly flooded people's consciousness with the concept of "friend requests" to people you may never have met. The privacy setting of "friends only" is likewise hardly alien to fb, even if frequent updates tend to reset it. Even the "friends page" is less unique than the article implies, as fb offers a rough functional equivalent in its news feed (although that is far more frustrating than lj's ever was). There are more examples which I will not list here.

All I'm saying here is, let's bring this article into 2011 and not pretend that lj exists in some utopian internet where zuckerberg never entered the scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.37.127.6 (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some source that discusses the similarities and differences between these concepts in LJ and FB? Otherwise this appears to run afoul of WP:SYN. Also, it would not be valid to assume that all readers know what Facebook is like. (I, for instance, have not used it.) So, comparison to facebook does not allow us to simplify our description. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some source that discusses the similarities and differences between LJ's privacy settings and those of Xanga or MySpace? No source is cited in the article, yet the comparison is made. Stating that "Website A, like Website B (another website offering the same type of service), has Feature X" is not synthesis. Go re-read WP:SYN. No conclusions are drawn. My reading of WP:RS even suggests that for citations, we could merely link the relevant FAQ pages from each website, like so: "Web A, like Web B, has Feature X (Web A cite, Web B cite)."

I did not assume that everyone is familiar with FB. I also trust that the editor who compared LJ to Xanga and MySpace did not assume that everyone was familiar with those sites. If I had to guess, however, I'd guess that when that comparison was written, Xanga and MySpace were at or near the peak of their popularity, which would help at least some readers unfamiliar with LJ make a connection with prior knowledge. Since FB now has near-universal name recognition, and since an enormous number of people are currently familiar with it, I think it's a valid comparison to make in the article (for the same reason those other two comparisons are valid). I also think it would simplify the description in that some demographics are less familiar with LJ than with FB.

The one point I will concede to WP:SYN on this is the news feed compared to the friends page. That is a big enough leap that it would need a reliable source drawing the comparison for us. Still, the concept of "friending" a person and the "friends-only" privacy settings warrant a clear, non-synthesizing mention of similar (nearly identical) features on FB. 74.176.114.227 (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LiveJournal and this article existed before Facebook. It does not surprise me that the primary material here doesn't reflect recent history. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

It also means that, if we do want to explain LiveJournal's concepts as being analogous to Facebook's, we should do it carefully in a way that cannot be easily misread as claiming (falsely) that LiveJournal is copying Facebook. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other sites were added in 2005 [7], when Facebook was barely known about. There's no need to update the article every time a new social networking site becomes trendy. Also Facebook's functionality doesn't match so well. Firstly although people can post short updates, it doesn't do blogging like Livejournal. Secondly, as well as restricting things to your friends, even "public" posts are still only visible to people with a Facebook account. I also don't see the point of the mentions is to explain the feature - we do that directly. The point is simply to say that those other sites adopted it (which is a bit dubious in itself, as it implies they may have copied, when we don't know how true that is). Mdwh (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And who is it biased against? Biased against Facebook, because they don't get a mention (as if they don't get enough coverage)? There's no need to list every social networking site with a "friends only" type option here; and there's also no need to list Facebook on every article about another social networking site. Mdwh (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More bias here:

The Russian translation of LiveJournal – ЖЖ (ZheZhe, which stands for Живой Журнал) – has become a genericized trademark for blogging in general.

Subsequently I edited it to read has become a genericized trademark instead for blogging in Russia, as Live Journal is NOT synonymous with blogging internationally.Twobells (talk)

"Needs additional citations"

The article has been tagged at the top "This article needs additional citations for verification" since 2009. It already has many citations. It does not need a larger number of citations; what it does need is additional citations *for specific paragraphs and sentences that do not have them*. The tag at the top is obviously ineffective at accomplishing this goal; individually tagging the statements in need of citation would be a much better strategy. For this reason I am removing the tag, but Niteshift36 (talk · contribs) (whose only contributions that I can see to this article have been to slap tags on it) clearly disagrees and has instead slapped more tags on the top. Additional opinions would be helpful here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]