Talk:NameBase/Archive 1

Daniel Brandt redirects here

So, Daniel Brandt redirects here? Why? Why not Googlewatch, Wikipediawatch or anything else he's done that warrants a Wikipedia article? Where is the mention of any of that at all? If we're going to pretend to represent this neutrally, at least Public Information Research isnt' about a specific event in his life. FrozenPurpleCube 04:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're surprised to end up here from Daniel Brandt, you might want to see the closure of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination), and the deletion review of that AFD closure (which is ongoing): Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Daniel_Brandt_2. -R. S. Shaw 04:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Having recently been redirected here and seeing the red link for "Daniel Brandt," I had to run all over the Internet to find reliable information about him. The article should be added. This is not enough information. Saebvn (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

See also

I disagree with this. If Daniel Brandt redirects here, then this page should link to the material that was at Daniel Brandt. WAS 4.250 16:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Part of the point of splitting the article was decentralizing it. This is an article about NameBase, not Daniel Brandt's article mk. 2. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We should not force the reader to use a search engine. Any of several approaches can work seperately or together. The see also approach, Slim's combining of articles, listing the articles at Daniel Brandt (the disambig approach), or having the links in the article text as a clarification of who Daniel Brandt is, since they can't click on his name for that. We must balance being an encyclopedia, not stop being one. WAS 4.250 16:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Part of the point is not forcing upon the reader connections that don't exist in the sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. But where reliable published sources do connect the dots, then so should we. We should not unbalance our coverage though either addition or omission of "dot connection"; though overall minimizasion of coverage to what has been widely (or significantly) covered seems appropriate. Brandt himself connects the dots with his claims of being an accountability activist and these various activities being examples of that activism. Connections run even deeper in terms of interpersonal connections. Seigenthaler is now on the lecture circuit discussing his experience with Wikipedia and Brandt is part of that. PIR is connected to Berlet who edits on wikipedia. Connections are numerous. I think listing them in a see also section minimises the weight we give them while insisting on documenting the connections just adds unneeded emphasis. WAS 4.250 17:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not mention connections when they're relevant, and leave the ones that don't merit mention in context unmentioned? This is how I feel about See also sections in general, but in this case it's especially relevant. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Becuase sources do connect. We have sources which list him as responsible for all these things. To do otherwise is to deliberately obfuscate. Decentralizing is one thing which has problems. Deliberate obfuscation is a different thing completely. JoshuaZ 23:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• And this is, I think a demonstration of why an article Namebase doesn't replace an article on Daniel Brandt. The two goals, while similar, are not identical. I certainly agree they aren't relevant in the context of Namebase. They may be relevant in the context of Brandt though. FrozenPurpleCube 18:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than redirecting here, Daniel Brandt should redirect to Public Information Research, which is NameBase's parent company. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Article

This article is about NameBase not Daniel Brandt and I see no need to mention him here. It reads like someone trying to evade our community decision to get rid of the bio, whether that is correct or not. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is reflecting what the source says though. Not mentioning the creator of the tool which is the subject of the article would be an editorial oversight, akin to not mentioning Von Braun in the article on the V-2 rocket. God did not come down and form NameBase out of clay one day. Additionally, I have a source flying though the mail as we speak, a self-styled encyclopedia with a whole article on Brandt and probably NameBase as well, which, from the blurbs I can access on line, suggest a second creator was also involved, so I expect to be expanding this. (It's truly ironic I need to purchase another encyclopedia to find out information which this encyclopedia works so hard to obscure.) -- Kendrick7^talk 19:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I do wonder why we don't merge this article and GW and WW into PIR and just have the one article, that would certainly solve problems such as this one, and they all seem tiny little articles (i always think one big articl;e is better than several smaller ones. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

NameBase seems notable in it's own right. Last time a merge was attempted, a sock-puppeteer (User:Arkalochori) took the opportunity to slowly vandalize away all sorts of sourced information. I'd rather keep the eggs in separate baskets; no reason for this useful research tool from decades ago should have to share the disrepute and enmity which some other of Brandt's creations endure around here. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the other Wikipedias with (shock) sourced articles on Daniel Brandt note another few websites we don't cover.[1][2] Interesting early write-up here. I guess there might be a relationship tied up in this organisation, although even the address of other early web locations (well, at least pre namebase.org and blocking the internet archive spider) indicates that for the purposes of the past ten years or so, PIR is Brandt and Brandt is PIR is Brandt... John Nevard (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Bit of information here and here that I've missed up until now. John Nevard (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes but it is a PIR web site which is why it would make sense. And as a wikipedia editor I see no difference between this and GW or even WW (whatever my personal opinions of the latter may be). I recognise such a change would be controversial and would need consensus but if the articles have been split up for the wrong reasons (ie reasons not having to do with editorial judgement) it may be worth trying to obtain a merge consensus not merely for this article but for GW and WW at the same time. With a large watchlist I unquestionably would find it easier say to stop vandalism if there were 1 and not 4 articles (and I think we need to take a vandfalsim threat very seriously because of BLP concerns). Thanks, SqueakBox 20:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be rather suspicious of such a move at this point. Due to the history of unscrupulous admin deletions in this area, and as certain members of the community have adopted an unwritten policy of deleting articles about otherwise notable people they don't like, this move could be seen as an attempt to build a super-constituency to do so yet again; i.e. a merged article would be hated on by spooks (NameBase), admins (WW), and google reps (GW). Especially lumping anything else in with Wikipedia Watch would put the larger content on death row, as recent history now suggests any admin could get away with deleting that article on a whim, and pretend thenceforth to have had consensus afterwards, much like the imaginary AfD which deleted the Daniel Brandt article: simply a fairy tale admins tell new editors. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it very difficult to respond to what you have just said. I feel sorry for admins who have to make difficult decisions and then inevitably get criticised by one side or the other and would not care for the responsibilities of being an admin. I can see where you are coming from now but disagree with pretty much every opinion you have raised here. I have seen no fairy tales, no illicit admin action and certainly nobody has deleted wikipedia watch, and I have been around this subject a long time. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any super-article happening either. Namebase seems to have always had a little seperation from Brandt/Public Information Research's more focused attacks on the CIA and more widely adopted research methods. John Nevard (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Broken link

The Nancy O'Hanlon article on "research strategies for the Internet Age", that is quoted in the article, has a broken link. Since it refers to the Deep Web it is particularly notable. Can someone, perhaps at Ohio State or her current institution, reform the link ?Rgdboer (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)