Talk:Infoshop.org/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ummmm, who's Alexa?

I just modified a quote that said "According to Alexa, Infoshop is the most popular anarchist website and one of the more popular independent news site". Who exactly is Alexa, and why does her opinion matter to the rest of the world. I'm sorry Alexa, but you don't seem to get the idea behind wikipedia--it's not a place to give your own personal opinion. While I agree with what you said, that is not the way to say it. I changed it to say it is one of the most popular anarchist sites and indy news sites. I wouldn't be surprised if someone deleted that though, because it is hard to truly verify as a fact, but I definitley believe it's one of the most popular anarchist sites, and probably one of the most popular indy news sites too. And I'm not trying to insult you, you're probably new and just don't know much about wiki yet, but next time, never mention yourself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.205.12.214 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 14 August 2005.

• Alexa Internet is just one of the most well-known services collecting and reporting information on web traffic. Is Who's Google going to be the next question? :) --Mysidia (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Google? Never heard of her. ;) I can't find a way of determining the ranks of "independent news sites" on Alexa. It doesn't seem to be a category that they currently have. Can anyone find a screen which ranks them? Thanks, -Willmcw 18:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

lol, I feel like an idiot. Oh well, everyone got a good laugh at my expense. I'm an anarchist, why should I give a damn about internet rankings though? Damn hierarchy of popularity. We must undermine the authority of the rankings and make all websites equal! No Gods, No Masters, No Rankings! Anyway, the new revision makes it clear. And I wasn't serious about that rant (not very serious anyway).

Munson

Isn't Chuck Munson the principal of Infoshop.org? The description of his role may have been POV, but it is logical to say who's in charge. Does it have an owner? If not Munson then who? -Willmcw 06:40, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty certin that Chuck Munson is the cheif person maitaining the site; I'm not sure who the "owner" would be; the site is hosted off of the "P.J. Proudhon Memorial Server" in Chico, California; and a dude named Dave, but going by Pom[ingante], is the person who actually has access to the hardware that the site is hosted off of..... or that's what I've inferred/heard from Pom and ChuckO. 17:38, June 10th 2006 (GMT)

In other words, you have no idea. Infoshop.org is run by the Alternative Media Project which has several pages linked from the home page clearly stating who runs the website. Chuck0 17:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

yes, and it's plain according to what you link that you have much more involvement in the site then anyone else there; seeing as your name is only on there about twice as frequently as anyone else's and you're the webmaster and you've stated that you do "day-day" stuff, which includes deciding which articles to host or drop. As for who has access to the hardware, Pom has stated that he has access to the hardware upon which flag.blackened.net is hosted and seeing as both your site and Pom's site have the same IP it's reasonable to guess that Pom also has access to the hardware that your site is hosted off of. And seeing as Pom is in Cali and you're not; it's resonable to assume that you don't have access to the hardware. Ofcoarse, Pom could be offering you annon-proxying via his computer for your website; but that might dampen the credibility of your frequent annon bashing. 19:49, June 10th 2006 (GMT)

Downtime

• As of June 20, Infoshop.org is down and has been for about two weeks with only one day of operation.

If this goes on for long then we should change the article to the past tense. Until then, it really isn't encyclopedic to keep a running count of a website's downtime. Let's track it here, on the talk page, and if it doesn't come back in a month then we can call it a "former website". -Willmcw 08:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

The server that hosted it and about two dozen other anarchist websites is down. Infoshop.org will be up as soon as possible, perhaps within the next week or so. --Tothebarricades 14:32, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

As of today at least, the site is up again. -Willmcw June 29, 2005 06:19 (UTC)

I am the one who first wrote about the downtime, but luckily it's been up for about a week now.

It seems to be down again, and has been for days. -Willmcw 04:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Deletions

If Chuck Munson does not want his info posted then we can nominate for deletion this article and all articles that mention him. But if the articles are here then they should have relevant info, like the people who started a website and own it. It's one way or the other, but this isn't a blog where a subject can pick and choose the info written about him. -Willmcw 04:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

ouch, yeah, the editorial policies on infoshop seem a bit authoritarian at times, but some of them make sense, like removing nazi BS. I don't think this article should be deleted though. And infoshop is still one of the most invaluable sites on the web as far as I'm concerned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.205.12.214 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 14 August 2005.

Criticism Page

Who took down the Criticism page? Please explain why you did this

I removed the vandalism of the entry on Infoshop for the obvious reasons. I have yet to see any Wikipedia page that included sections that were basically unsubtantiated attacks on the subject.

Infoshop.org is a website with many dead links. This situation is the result of the site being over 11 YEARS OLD and consisting of hundreds of static pages. Needless to say, you haven't volunteered to help us update those pages, but we are working on updating pages across the website. Another factor contributing to link rot is the FACT that we are also in the middle of a site redesign and overhaul, which will give us pages that have fresh links generated by a database. Obviously, you didn't make an attempt to ask us about the link rot situation. Chuck0 06:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

--FionMacCumhail

Chuck just took it down again, and I think he did it the first time too. This time he labelled his edit as reverting vandalism. Although the criticism section as it stands seems a bit pov and needs to be wikified, I do believe a criticism section should be in the article, since there is a bit of criticism for infoshop.org. The Ungovernable Force 05:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see why a short article on Infoshop needs a "criticism" section, when most organization pages on Wikipedia don't have "criticism" sections. Wikipedia should not be used by individuals who seek to use Wikipedia to attack projects and individuals. The person who posted this "criticism" posted from an IP address that matches an IP address in the Infoshop News permanent ban list. This individual is a anonymous troll who is using Wikipedia as a platform to engage in petty attacks against Infoshop and myself. Chuck0 06:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not the person who accused you of the link stuff, in fact my (hopefully) less pov criticism makes no mention of that because I do understand that that seems like a stupid reason to attack the project. The only thing that really matters is the news section anyways, which is updated quite frequently. Also, I'm not trying to be overly critical because I do understand it is a lot easier to criticize when you don't have anything to do with the inner workings of a site, but there should be a small section on criticism because many anarchists do criticize the project. I do think having it in a separate section with a title is pretty pov though, hence my version did not do that. The Ungovernable Force 06:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Chuck removing criticism

OK, so I will assume good faith here, but if you keep taking out criticism without some type of consensus on this page here, I can not help but think it is for personal reasons. I understand the project means a lot to you, and it probably sucks to have it criticized, but people do and I think the criticism is pretty common (especially the posting policy). First, let me say I have no mission against infoshop, and consider it an incredibly valuable resource--I probably wouldn't be an anarchist if it weren't for the site. I do think that common criticisms should be mentioned though. If you want to offer a one or two sentence response to the criticism, go ahead. I'm trying to make this as neutral as possible. The Ungovernable Force 06:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

How can unsubstantiated attacks be turned into neutral information? There are people who have criticisms about Infoshop.org. No project can please everybody, but most of this criticism is not worthy of being added to an ENCYCLOPEDIA entry. I have opinions about the Zmag.org website, which are shared by other people, but these opinions are not important enough to be mentioned on the page about ZMag.org. Perhaps if a paper had been written, that might be worth mentioning.

What I know is that the person who started the "criticism" section on the Infoshop.org entry posted from an IP address which matches an IP address banned by Infoshop News for trolling. This person is probably just a person with anger control problems, but Infoshop also gets attacked by people with political agendas. While there are anarchists out there who have made legitimate criticisms of Infoshop.org, much of this so-called criticism is being produced by people who are hostile to our project. This includes neo-fascists, leftists and other people. It's really an abuse of Wikipedia to treat these specious and petty attacks as some form of legitimate criticism of Infoshop. Even criticisms from anarchists aren't relevant to this entry. Chuck0 06:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies which require that all information be verifiable from reliable sources. In this matter, there is this assertion:

• Infoshop.org has been accused by some anarchists as authoritarian in its deletion of certain posts.

which is totally unsourced. There is a source for the actual forum rules, but those don't seem especially notable. If they are we can summarize noteworthy parts of them, but we mustn't make editorial judgements about them. The last assertion,

• Some anarchists have also voiced concern over their fundraising techniques.

is comes from a forum, and forums are not reliable sources. -Will Beback 06:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I was just going to say the same thing in response to UngovernableForce's changes to the original criticism. Anonymous people can say anything they want on an open message board. Sometimes people post the same criticism from different accounts, or even IPs. Infoshop.org is one of the most popular anarchist websites, so people criticize it all the time. People have opinions. Chuck0 06:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I think criticism from anarchists is relevant if it is common. I suggest again that you personally do not remove this information and let a more neutral party do it. I'm not going to put it back up myself until more people comment here, but if someone else does, I hope you don't remove it again without a consensus here. As I said, I don't really support those criticisms, and I agree that the original posting was quite pov (which is why I made it much shorter and worded more neutrally), but I do think that a bit of criticism should be mentioned, since it does seem to me to be common, and not just from nazis and leftists. The Ungovernable Force 06:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the forum also mentioned the criticism of deleting posts, but it's been a while since I viewed that page. Whatever. Like I said, I don't really support the criticisms that much, but I do think we should include them. If others disagree, fine, I don't care enough about it. As for the policy, I thought forums could be enough for showing the opinion of some people, but maybe not. The Ungovernable Force 06:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The person who posted the original criticism posted from an IP address that matches an IP address banned by Infoshop News for consistent violation of our moderation policies. In other words, the POV was a trollish POV. And none of this criticism is common. Some people complain about the Infoshop News moderation policy, but most of these people want a news board with NO RULES. They are free to start their own boards. Chuck0 07:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but this is not infoshop. The thing is, I've heard a good bit of criticism (and btw, I have stood up for infoshop at these times). I am not going to push the issue unless more people begin to comment supporting inclusion, especially in light of the fact that forums can't even be used to show people's opinions. I think you are misunderstanding my intentions. The Ungovernable Force 07:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own set of rules and procedures. In general we want to include criticisms because our WP:NPOV policy encourages the inclusion of all points of view, but they have to be reliably verifiable. If you can find criticisms of Infoshop in magazines or newspapers, for instance, then we can use those. I understand that this is frustrating. It is especially hard to find reliable criticisms of forums, because they are either on the forum itself or on another forum. It's a dilemna with no easy solution. -Will Beback 07:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

the the subforum that that thread was posted and disgussed in was one that does not allow annon posting; and some of the people posting criticism, such as |Y|/Why (name change resulting from software errors that made many accounts inaccessable) are long established members of that message board. And furthermore, you can see ChuckO's attempts to defend his policy's along with the criticism. 17:31, 10 June 2006 (GMT)

If you feel my Criticism page is POV you can certainly edit it. I was banned by infoshop because I was criticizing your website for banning another person who was criticizing your website. Please stop trying to become the master of the internet.The reason I put this criticism is because I want to show anarchists that people recognize this problem. You are extremely deluded if you think what your doing is compatable with anarchism. In addition, it is impossibile for you to say that my claims of censorship are unfounded when you yourself admitted to it in the forum discussion. There were a lot of interesting things going on in the forum discussion, thats why I sourced it. If anyone wants to see for themselves, take a look. --FionMacCumhail

The paragraph you added has no place on Wikipedia and Will Beback has articulated some basic reasons why you can't add that material. I have no interest in becoming the "master of the Internet," but any rational person would understand why I have a right to do what I do on the Infoshop website. I'm trying to run a website, one that is under constant attack by people hostile to the existence of the website (racists, neo-fascists, angry leftists, sectarians, hackers, the FBI and other police). Infoshop News has a set of moderation guidelines--like any other discussion board has--which controls the parameters of that discussion board. These guidelines help maintain a certain tone and flavor to the website. The guidelines set the boundaries of what is allowed on the discussion board. These guidelines allow me, or any other member of the Infoshop project, to ban certain individuals or mischievious IPs for violation of our guidelines. Most websites wouldn't even bother to discuss these decisions with their users, but I've given certain abusive violators numerous second, third, and fourth chances, such as the user who uses the alias "Makhno." If you were defending Makhno, then you are defending the indefensible, a person who consistantly violates our guidelines and disrespects the website's workers. ANY ANARCHIST PROJECT would get rid of this person if he engaged in similar behaviors. Chuck0 17:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to even bother to argue about this with you because you are beyond reason. However, I stand by what I wrote here and you are, of course, free to edit it so it is less POV but I believe it has a place here. Every point Will brought up could be found in that thread as well as in a general talk with anarchists. Anarchism is an underground movement and therefore many things are recorded by ear. The fact that someone writes a paper or not about it doesn't make it disappear. Anarchists I believe have a right to know that there is an opposistion out there to your website. I'll tell you what. I can compromise with you. Why don't you let me remove the subsection and then I can add a very short thing about it in the regular infoshop page? I think that is very fair. You will be very hardpressed to ignore the regular criiticsm of infoshop. We both know it exists, even if you do try to deny it. --FionMacCumhail 18:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

FionMacCumhail, I told you that this would go absolutely no where, but no one ever listens to me. ;) Chuck0 blasts me for "being anonymous" whereas I post as "Why" on various forums and websites, and have been (in some form or another Y/|Y|/Why/anonYmous) for over 5 years now. I never change my name and have no need to. The only time I have posted in the past years without this name is either by mistake, or because I cannot change the nickname (such as on Infoshop News). I frankly don't give a damn if my and others criticisms, on a forum, cannot be sourced. I even said on the forum before the edit-war began that it would go no where, as anyone can look at Chuck0's Wikipedia history and his vile distaste for truth. Anyway, this is the first and last that I (Why) post to this discussion. Infoshop.org does have those who criticize it, though. But so does everyone. (In fact, I have been criticized the most out of anyone here, simply for making a public forum thread that would have assuredly been deleted on the infoshop.org forums; you may see that I don't really want anything to do with this as testified by my post at the end of that thread, before the edit-war began). whynotanarchy 19:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Chuck, you keep deleting it but then refuse to talk with me here when I offer, what I believe, is a fair compromise. Please stop this childish game. --FionMacCumhail 02:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one removing it, not chuck. What you have is unreferenced and POV. And please don't editorialize within an article, it is never ok. As I have said, it does not deserve it's own title since the article is fairly short. Giving it a title adds weight to it and is POV. You have no source at all, which means it should be deleted. I would remove the entire section as it stands now, but I would violate WP:3RR (and I think you already have, so this is your warning for the future, since I don't think you were ever warned about it before). If you really want to put it in, find a legitimate source, which you probably won't, just by nature of the anarchist community. It's a catch-22 but not much to do other than try to change the guidelines. The Ungovernable Force 04:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you say it has no source but whatever. I leave it to your mercy. I'm new to wikipedia but I thought it was okay to write it if it had a source. Whatever. I think that thread is a legitimate source.--FionMacCumhail 15:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

See WP:RS. I agree that that guideline makes it very difficult to write articles on underground movements and cultures (such as ours), but the only way to change it is to try and discuss it on the talk page of WP:RS. In case you didn't see the above discussion, I myself was using it, until I was directed to that page. It really can't be used. Anyway, unless you can find a source that can be used, I will delete the unsourced comments in about 2 days. The Ungovernable Force 22:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops

I acidentally made my last edit to the page before I had finished the edit summary. What I was going to say is that the criticism shouldn't have it's own title and should be way shorter. The Ungovernable Force 18:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

category - anarchist websites

Hi -- Propose moving cat to "Category:Anarchist websites" instead of "Category:Anarchism". I'm trying to clean up the "anarchism" category which is a bit unwieldy at present. There's an empty category anarchist websites, into which infoshop.org would fit nicely. I'm proposing instead of doing since there's quite a bit of history on this page & I don't want to step in the middle of some thing that has been hashed over before. If no objections in a reasonable period of time I'll switch the cats. --LQ 05:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be okay. Infoshop.org is also known as an organization, so perhaps two categories should be added? Chuck0 00:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds right--both cats. I'll wait a bit & see if anyone else has an opinion. --LQ 01:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Infoshop.org's domain registration is to an individual, or an organization?

I'm not sure that matters--probably lots of organizational domains are registered to individual.--LQ 21:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Infoshop.org is a project of the Alternative Media Project, a nonprofit organization run by a collective. Chuck0 19:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I added both cats (@ websites and @ orgs) and eliminated the larger redundant "anarchism" cat. --LQ 19:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1