Wikipedia

Talk:Gawker/Archive 1

< Talk:Gawker
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

shameless promo piece

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Pathetic attempt to gain credibility, is every person whose worked on the Deaspin/Gawker online rages getting an article? -Peakdetector —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peakdetector (talk • contribs) 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC).


I believe with the Tom Cruise Scientology Video that Gawker now does have the credibility to have this piece listed on Wikipedia. Cs302b (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

article split?

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This article should be split into Gawker.com and Gawker Media articles. It's very confusing as it is, particularly because article pages for other sites in the gawker network (i.e. Gizmodo) redirect here. --DDG 15:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there already is a separate Gawker Media article. It seems the Gizmodo redirect should go there, not the Gawker.com article. Ytny 19:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Ahh ok. Then also the things like the profit for all of Gawker Media should be moved there. --DDG 19:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that the New York Magazine article strictly deals with Gawker.com, not GM as a whole.

What really got Hauslaib’s attention, though, was Gawker’s advertising-rate sheet. According to Denton, the site received about 200,000 “page views” a day from readers. The site ran roughly two big ads on each page, and Gawker said that it charged advertisers $6 to $10 for every 1,000 page views—almost the same as a midsize newspaper.

Though I do think the revenue stuff is just as appropriate in GM article, as it speaks more about the GM's business model rather than Gawker.com's editorial content. Maybe the GM article needs a section on the business model? Ytny 20:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

similar blogs

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The entry lists that Gawker spawned three other similar blogs, but Gawker Media now consists of well more than 4 total blogs. Are the three listed in this article (Defamer, Wonkette and Valleywag) distinguished because they are more or less regionally focused versus other blogs (idolator, jalopnik, for instance) which are not tied to a particular location? Cuffeparade 05:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Data Breach is not a "Hack"

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The 12/11/10 Incident was not a 'hack', but more correctly an intrusion into Gawker's Linux servers as well as unauthorized access to other sites (Campfire, Twitter, etc.). Update the title and the section to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.46.37 (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Does Gawker frequently violate copyright?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image in this article is, IMO, clearly a copy of http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/0/0c/20100214170724!Vaughn_Walker.jpg, which is cc-by licensed. But the image appears unattributed. I understand fair use, but you'd think a blog with

"Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution."

at the bottom of each page would respect other cc-licensed content.--Elvey (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Racist Site

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Gawker seems to be racist against European descended peoples, it doesn't seem to be a well visited site this wiki seems to be shameful self promotion. A pointless blog having a wikipage, theres a million others out there, no encyclopedic value, this article should be up for deletion. Thanatos7474 (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If you could provide proof for those claims, we can make the article reflect those points. That's how a wiki works. You give us sources, and we can implement them to shape the view of the site as objectively as possible. If you have any sources that prove a bias towards "European descended peoples" or anything derogatory about the site, we'll implement that. Until then, no dice. Mavriksfan11 (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering how pro-looting and anti-white their site just became the day after the Nov 2014 Ferguson riots you might get your proof.

Gawker Stalker

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can someone update this section? As far as I can tell, it (any aspect of Gawker Stalker) is no longer being updated, making the first and last paragraphs inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.172.192 (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A neutrality tag was placed on this page in October 2012, but no allegations of bias were made on the Talk Page. The tag can be put back up, if someone can offer and argument for it.MayerG (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Guys, this page needs some major love in the formatting dept, and also some oversight in terms of overlong sub-articles that simply reek of inter-industry sniping (an overlong section detailing the controversy surrounding the most recent editor in chief)

May I suggest separating the content section (that details the history of the websites sections) and adding a "controversy" or "notable events" section to highlight controversial content?Mistamystery (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Coca-Cola

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can we add how Gawker immaturely sabotaged Coca-Cola's Twitter campaign by trolling it? 67.164.113.251 (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Conde Nast piece retraction was a vote

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Vote was 4:2 to retract: "Andrew Gorenstein, who serves as the president of advertising and partnerships; chief operating officer Scott Kidder; chief strategy officer Erin Pettigrew; and chief executive officer Nick Denton, who founded Gawker Media in 2002. Along with Tommy Craggs and Heather Dietrick" voting to keep it. source Article simply says Denton removed it.--Elvey(t•c) 06:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Who was Editor in Chief of Gawker in 2008?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was trying to go back and create a timeline but I can't find any info about this time period. Does anyone remember?--The lorax (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan Sex Tape Trial

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The court battle that's taking place between Gawker and Hogan seems pretty relevant. It's gotten a lot of mainstream coverage and could potentially close down Gawker. There's also the recent outing of Conde Nast's CFO, which has caused quite a stir on the internet. That seems relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by November49 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It's been added.--Elvey(t•c) 06:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Though the Hogan trial is decided in favor of Hogan, it's probably worth mentioning that Gawker intend to appeal the case. Furthermore, it might be worth mentioning one of the major hurdles facing them for the appeal. Florida law requires, in civil judgement appeals, for the appellate (person filing the appeal) to bond one half of the judgement against them, with a maximum of 50 million dollars, with the court. Currently, that's far more than Gawker makes yearly. Without that bond, under Florida Law, no appeal can be filed. Kitsunedawn (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Gawker website deleted

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Gawker website will go offline September 1. A discussion how to deal with the 2000 or so URLs used as citations on en Wikipedia. -- GreenC 23:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

They'll likely link to pages in the Internet Archive. That's how dead pages are traditionally cited in Wikipedia. Changing upwards of 2,000 URLs to do that is an enormous task, though. Blurp92 (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Gawker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gawker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Kickstarter project by ex-employees to buy back Gawker as a membership-funded site

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A potentially noteworthy development, depending on how it pans out: https:// www.kickstarter.com/projects/2136064924/save-gawkercom -Stelio (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gawker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gawker/Archive_1&oldid=1084068907"