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)

I vote for deletion. This "article" is nothing but an advertisement for the Consumerist. There is no criticism of the Consumerist and it is a poor sight with no real relevance but to spread false info and bad science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.196.194 (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2012 (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)

I just added two. One for a Fox affiliate in the Florida area, and one for NPR. If I see any others in my travels I'll post them here. Hewinsj (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2008 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYDiver (talk • contribs) 15:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What violates terms of service is up to a lawyer to decide -- although by and large the law, as I understand it, comes down on the side of board administrators. If you can point to a specific legal opinion from a disinterested party on the subject, that's another thing, but one case doesn't prove a "culture" of censorship as you assert. As for the level of sources, while I agree that poritons of the article could be better-cited, the information that's given is verifiable and Consumerist is being treated as a part of journalistic media, rather than just another blog; it's a fair point that this is on its face self-referential and the notability and journalistic integrity of the site could be better sourced. here's one source I just found. --Stlemur 17:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL - consumerist is part of the journalistic media? By who's standard? And when does the NY Times start it's lolcats feature? P You can't deny my arguements by simply changing and re-shaping yours. If you're saying there's no culture of censorship (and where there's smoke...) then certainly there is no culture of contests (one link), lolcats (one link) or anything else that is self-referential. But please - STOP with the idea that consumerist is the media. My monitor can't stand any more spit coffee on it.NYDiver 18:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to help; please, keep things civil. I can only really reiterate what I've said above: you've made the assertion that there's a "culture of censorship". In any practical definition of "culture", you're talking about something which is established in a number of people in the community, which one example doesn't prove. As for the censorship aspect, censorship is very much a loaded word; moderation of posts is accepted practice, and making the leap to "censorship" is going to require a lot more than one person's interpretation of the blog's terms of service before the community will support putting out something defamatory. Nobody's ever going to say "they run contests" or "they use photos of cats" is a contentious accusation. Finally, while we can debate whether consumerist is a journalistic entity, I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that it is a consumer advocacy group with enough of a reputation that major news sources are willing to talk to it. --Stlemur 21:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well come on, you make the ridiculous assertion that somehow a blog is a respected member of the media and you don't expect me to chuckle at this? I simply don't understand what your sticking point is on this - they post story after story decrying censorship for silly things then ban and delete someone for really no reason at all. See, that's why the link to the posts was provided - so the reader can see that there was nothing remotely approaching a violation of their stated terms of service. Either they are a blog and allow to do what they wish, or they are the media and have a responsibility to allow opinions , withing reason, that they don't agree with. You can't have it both ways. Either they censor, or they don't.

By the way, I got a new account at consumerist and it was banned before I ever posted anything. Is that a culture of censorship now? NYDiver 22:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether a user gets banned is really a decision of the blog's moderators, not of the users; I repeat again that violation of the terms of service is something for lawyers to decide. Moreover, sites like BBC News moderate their comments all the time. I do note, though, the passage:

However, Gawker Media reserves the right to remove comments entirely at its discretion, including for alleged violations of terms of service or legal rights.

which, as I understand it -- I am not a lawyer -- means they can delete any comment, for any reason or no reason. Now, since you say that you're a member of Consumerist who's gotten banned, I'm inclined to agree with User:BostonRed that you might have a conflict of interest in editing this article, at least with regards to blocking users. --Stlemur 07:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

NYDiver has admitted that he is OKH so I would be concerned about him shaping the discussion for this page due to a conflict on interest. The only edits he has ever made are to the Consumerist pages.

Here's what Consumerist's FAQs have to say about being banned:

4. Can I be banned from commenting?

Yes, if your comments are excessively self-promotional, obnoxious, or even worse, boring. There will be no warning, and no appeal. We're like the wind.

Consumerist is a closed commentary system ... the right to comment has to be earned and it can (and is) taken away.

Newspapers censor all the time...it's called 'editing.'

BostonRed 18:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why was this section removed? They are huge on censorship. Not allowing anyone to comment with logic or who disagree with the bloggers. Each individual blogger has the right to "moderate" (also known as not allowing anyone to disagree with them) instead of having a site wide policy on posting. And despite what the above poster wrote this is not editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.196.194 (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Consumerist bought by Consumer Union

The Consumerist was bought by the consumer union.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/31/business/31consumer.html?ref=business —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenio (talk • contribs) 01:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Facebook Terms of Service

Should there be a mention of the recent Facebook Terms of Service blowup? Their recent involvement with Facebook is notable. Consumerist broke the news first that Facebook's new TOS stated that anything posted on Facebook is permanently the property of Facebook, even if the user deletes it. The media got ahold of it, and Facebook retracted the new TOS.

I'm pretty sure it's notable enough to mention; there are a ton of Google News results for a search combining the terms Consumerist and Facebook. Propaniac (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Cash4Gold

Consumerist did a feature piece on Cash4Gold after they were named a defendant to a lawsuit. They did an extensive amount of investigative journalism and feel that this lawsuit will be important regarding the rights to free speech online. [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.125.197.35 (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha...is this a cheap way to get a Cash4Gold ad in? B/c there is no way that someone at the Consumerist did "an extensive amount of investigative journalism". Which company do you work for?