Talk:Kim Dotcom

Relevance

How is what this person says about cryptocurrency encyclopedia worthy?--84.118.56.83 (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, none of this seems like relevant or necessary information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.244.13 (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Call of duty rank number one claims

Since when has venturebeat.com been a trusted source?

Also online multiplayer games have numerous gaming servers, different servers for different parts of the world such as one for Europe, and one for North America, so if a person becomes number one, it would normally just mean they’re number one for that server/that part of the world.

Also the ‘in game’ number one rank changes regularly many times throughout the year, can even change daily so that rank isn’t the ‘official number one’. To achieve being the official number one you have to win at a special event/competition which are normally held at Las Vegas.

HardeeHar (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

These claims are widespread online, but I think they probably should be attributed that he claims to have this rank. I too have seen it in his interviews, it not only venturebeat. But we might not want to say it in wikivoice. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

You’re only officially ranked number one if you won the competition so he isn’t and was never officially ranked number one, he just made number one online on that server on that day and it possibly only lasted a few hours or even few minutes before his rank had dropped to a lower number and someone else was listed as number one. So I don’t see why it’s mentioned in this wikipage.

Every time somebody becomes number one online in COD is it going to be mentioned on the COD wikipage, no cuz that would be stupid and also because reaching number one online doesn’t make you the official world number one, so I don’t see why there’s an exception made for kim.

You mention the claims are widespread online, but the source of the info came from kim whom isn’t a wiki trusted source, and as ive mentioned he isn’t and wasn’t the official number one, he is mistaken.

The reason gaming company's have an official competition to determine the world number one, rather than going off the in game ranking system is because if you went off the in game ranking system there would thousands of people all over the world all claiming they were the worlds number one (just as kim is doing).

It’s also important to know that whilst kim, Wikipedia and numerous sources online claim kim was the world number one that year, officially somebody else was officially rank number in the world that year, a person who attended and won the COD competition.

HardeeHar (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

As a few housekeeping notes for new editors. Please use the colons prior to your response to indent your comments so it is clear this is a thread. I added three colons to my response here, as generally speaking you should have added two colons to your prior response to me (since I added one colon above to my initial response to you). This threading will assist other editors in understanding this discussion. Also please dont add blank space (as an apparently intended indent) to your signature, as then you are activating a quotation format. We dont use quotation format for a signature. Next regarding the content of your response, while your view of how a #1 rank is defined might in fact be true, it is not how we work at wikipedia. We use WP:RS to determine these things. And given that Kim is often referred to as this #1 rank (whether true or not), whether it is actually true or not is not of high importance to us editors. We use WP:DUE to make this determination. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it’s a shame that somebody attended and won the COD competition and officially achieved the rank of world number one that year, and that persons achievement is essentially being taken away from them by Wikipedia and other online sources because they’re all citing kim whom wrongly claimed he was the worlds number one because he didn’t know and understand how game ranking system really works.

If every time a celebrity makes claim and magazines and websites print it, and Wikipedia then cites it, Wikipedia will become a completely untrustworthy source of info, this is why Wikipedia insists on using a trusted sources. HardeeHar (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

VentureBeat is considered to be "generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources For better or worse. Cortador (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I've always thought that this looks like a clear WP:AUTO claim coming from Kim Dotcom in interviews, but since it appears in "reliable" sources it is hard to challenge.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I added a clarification to the claim. He was #1 in a specific category of gameplay that relied on total number of kills, and as such as long as you play enough eventually you can become #1. It doesn't even require much skill, just time. Considering the various accusations that he made his employees play for him, that would line up with how much time he would have had to sink into the game despite at the time being married with several children, multiple businesses, etc.

CountGrey (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"As he was a minor, he was given a two-year suspended sentence;[47] the judge of the case described Schmitz's actions as "youthful foolishness".[49]" - Reference 47 no longer exits, and the statement made here is wrong. Kim was not a minor in 1998, given that he was born in 1974. Angeloh (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Can we just note that the subject claims he had this rank? Just his claim is certainly WP:DUE even if it is only self promotion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

"Letsbuyit.com" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Letsbuyit.com has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 25 § Letsbuyit.com until a consensus is reached. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Description in lead

@Jeppiz: I think your edit here runs a foul of WP:BLP. Perhaps "fraudster" can be added to the lead, but it shouldn't be the sole description as he was also a tech entrepreneur, founding notable companies; it's what allowed him to carry out the various crimes he's been accused of. I'm indifferent about "political activist". Conspiracy theorist may be more accurate based on the sourced content.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• I agree, the term fraudster is not appropriate for the lead of this article, nor probably anywhere in the article body. Do not re-add it without consensus on this talk page and WP:BLPRESTORE applies. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that he's been convicted several times of computer fraud I think "fraudster" is a valid word to use. However, I do not think the change was correct in removing "Internet entrepreneur and political activist" as he has done much more than "fraudster". —Panamitsu (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ponyo:, @Jtbobwaysf:, I have a hard time understanding your arguments. WP:BLP says content must be verified and accurate, not that it needs to be positive. There are many articles about living criminals being described as such. In this case, I am not quite sure what your objection is. Is is (a.) that you dispute that Dotcom is a fraudster, despite his multiple convictions for fraud?, or (b.) that you dispute that "fraudster" is an accurate description of a person convicted of fraud? Jeppiz (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

He was convicted of 11 counts of computer fraud in 1998 and given a suspended sentence with the judge saying his actions were due to "youthful foolishness". I don't think that justifies defining him as a fraudster. We already mention his conviction for fraud elsewhere in the lead. Burrobert (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a matter of WP:DUE. To highlight only fraudster in the lead, above Dotcom's other very notable and well-sourced activities, is unbalanced. Our article on Elizabeth Holmes, for example, describes her as an "American biotechnology entrepreneur who was convicted of fraud in connection to her blood-testing company, Theranos"; the vast majority of her article is about the fraud, yet the the biotech entrepreneur aspect is still included as it's a critical part of her life and subsequent events. It's not that fraudster cannot appear, or is being whitewashed, it's just that it shouldn't be included in the lead at the expense of the other accurate descriptors.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore it is not encyclopedic to use such labels in general unless the subject is primarily known for this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Antisemitic/conspiracy theory tweet

Although Dotcom appears to have said this on his X/Twitter account, the problem is that tweets on their own are not very noteworthy. This needs some secondary news coverage to establish notability, and there doesn't seem to be much from reliable mainstream sources (not blogs etc). ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• @PaulRevered:, I have twice reverted your addition and re-addition of this content to the WP:LEAD, which is first undue as the LEAD summarizes. Second, you twice added a source that doesnt appear to be an WP:RS on a BLP. You added a second source stating that the subject had "praised" but I didnt see that in the source. Do not add re-add again without consensus here and be aware of WP:BLPRESTORE (second time I have advised you of this, first time was in previous edit summary). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Understood, my apologies. I attempted to comply by adding the NZ Herald, which is a credible source; would it be acceptable to only reference information from that source, or should I hold off on mentioning this entirely until we have more of a consensus here? PaulRevered (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You should hold off entirely for now until you discuss here and find consensus to add. Maybe this could be added to the body (if it was properly worded, I dont think the subject praised as you stated). But certainly this is WP:UNDUE in the lead. This promotion of what is essentially trivia to the lead is grossly undue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it's a step above trivia; if you check his trivia, this is basically all he talks about now. I'll wait for more mainstream coverage, but this is his primary output as of 2024, he just isn't as notable anymore. PaulRevered (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Check his twitter, sorry for typo. PaulRevered (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It remains undue in the lead, the lead summarizes. We dont WP:RGW and particularly not in the lead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)