Talk:Internet activism during the 2009 Iranian election protests

Lack of sources

All but one the sources cited in the article are BLOGS, the other is an opinion column. None of them meet criteria for reliable sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Reportorial blogs on newspaper websites are in fact considered reliable sources. An individual's blog posts are reliable sources for what he has claimed or alleged. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)--Orange Mike | Talk 13:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Closed AfD and re-purposed page

I've just move the page and closed the ongoing AfD. The 2009 Iranian election protests page is becoming unmanageably long, necessitating splitting some of the more tangential information to sub-pages. Since the purpose behind the page has now been widened to involve more then just NedaNet, I've also non-admin closure'd the AfD nomination. An AfD of NetaNet seems rather moot since there's more on the page now, and the consensus to date appeared to be solidly in the keep category anyway so I think that I'm on fairly safe ground here. If not, feel free to relist (I don't think that simply reopening the AfD would be wide, regardless).
— V = I * R (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's better organization - wish I'd thought of it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Good call. kencf0618 (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

*whew* I kind of felt as though I were going out on a limb there. It's nice to hear support, even if it wasn't necessary, so thanks. (This is also the first time I've ever done a closure...). I do wish that people would use {{Prod}} instead of jumping straight to AfD, which would have made the process easier for me. {{Prod}}ing first should be a requirement anyway in my opinion, but I've created something of a reputation for myself with a couple of people in the AfD area so I'm somewhat hesitant to bring it up.
— V = I * R (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't it be Role of ''the'' Internet...? We drop the at article start, not later on, no? - BalthCat (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

...sure. I basically just copied the section titling on the 2009 Iranian election protests page, is all. The only thing is, the title is already a bit long, adding "the" to is certainly isn't going to help (and it doesn't particularly add anything to the title). If moved, it would probably be a good idea to change the current links to point directly to the new page and then to delete the old redirect.
— V = I * R (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What it adds is it not being poorly phrased. One doesn't say "I was on internet" for example. Unless one is old, perhaps :P - BalthCat (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, sure. Go for it. be sure to clean up after moving it.
— V = I * R (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nedanet

The article says that the nedanet project "...began with the establishment of networks of proxy servers and anonymizers...". I understand that their website claims that (and some other achievements) but, is there any independent reliable source to which we could attribute this information? We can't just repeat everything they say about themselves as truth in the article, and I'm disputing this information. --Damiens.rf 23:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Have it arbitrated, then —kick it upstairs. Insofar as the consensus of your own AfD has (as matter of record) approved of the validity of the citations, you are beating a dead horse. Upper echelons may differ. kencf0618 (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually asked Damiens.rf to bring his concerns to the talk page rather then continuing to attempt to settle these issues through edit summaries. After asking, he agreed that doing so would be a good idea and he posted the above. So, let's assume good faith here, bury the hatchet, and try to work out whatever this is here. I'm sure that we creach some sort of consensus as to whatever the issue may be.

Directly in regards to what started this thread, I have to say that I agree. I don't feel particularly strongly about it, but Reliable sources and Verifiability would seem to rule, here. Is there any second party, reliable coverage of Neda Net, anywhere?
— V = I * R (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. And not that I know of, as of this writing; NedaNet is covert and provisional. That said, I happen to think that the article is suffiently sourced as it stands to be a weak keep, that it need not be strangled at birth, and that third-party sources shall eventually accrue. Give it time —NedaNet shall generate some news. (User: Orangemike stated my minimal position in the AfD discussion quite neatly. To coin a phrase, there are levels of validity we are prepared to accept.) kencf0618 (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see your point... but,I can also see Damiens.rf's side of the issue as well. Like it or not, Wikipedia:Verifiability tends to trump most other policies or guidelines (which is generally for the better). WP:CRYSTAL would also seem to cover the "give it time" argument which you advanced above. Regardless, The last sentence does seem to be a bit self-aggrandizing; it reads somewhat like press copy. Also, per Self-published sources, the site/product being written about can't serve as it's own reference, so I've removed the NedaNet reference and moved the citation needd tag to cover the entire last sentence.
— V = I * R (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sound reasoning. And here the issue rests as far as I'm concerned —in fact I think it's been settled on a firm foundation now. It'll be interesting to see if those third party citations ever show up! kencf0618 (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A lesson from Haystack hype

In the article Haystack and Media Irresponsibility (mentioned by BBC here) gives us a enlightening timeline about how the media overhyped Haystack. The Economist also covers the story[1].

I believe it's fair to say that Wikipedia was part of this hype and, just like the news sources could have avoided the embarrassment by following basic journalism lessons, Wikipedia could had also avoided that by following its basic policies.

The article should be expanded not only to cover the whole Haystack hype/hoax, but also to review (now with a cool head), all the "information" about "Sedazad" (originally NedaNet, I guess), and the overall tone of writting. --Damiens.rf 15:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

File:IranSocialMedia.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:IranSocialMedia.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Internet activism during the 2009 Iranian election protests. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090703193202/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/827036/internet-underground-takes-on-iran to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/827036/internet-underground-takes-on-iran
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221211746/http://iran.whyweprotest.net/ to http://iran.whyweprotest.net/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221211746/http://iran.whyweprotest.net/ to http://iran.whyweprotest.net/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221211746/http://iran.whyweprotest.net/ to http://iran.whyweprotest.net/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spreadpersepolis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Persepolis_2.0.pdf

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) 03:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internet activism during the 2009 Iranian election protests. 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:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5ic0PcGvi?url=http://www.scmagazineus.com/Iranian-election-protestors-use-Twitter-to-recruit-hackers/article/138545/ to http://www.scmagazineus.com/Iranian-election-protestors-use-Twitter-to-recruit-hackers/article/138545/

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) 13:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)