Talk:Wikipediocracy/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipediocracy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Contention deletion without rationale is disruptive

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It would be best for those who are endlessly removing content without justification to make their case here first. Tarc (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The source is unnecessary. We have other sources that plainly identify WO as a site for criticism of Wikipedia and are not personal blogs making incendiary attacks on a named editor. As it stands, Dan's blog on the Christian Science Monitor is the only source mentioning this information. Since Dan is a member of WO and Wikipedia and none too shy about his strong personal views regarding the editor in question, we should not be including the source unless there are other sources discussing the subject or some relevant claim is made here that can only be supported by Dan's blog article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the rare occasions when I happen to be in agreement with TDA. "Wikipediocracy is a wikipedia criticism site" is not a contentious statement, as Mangoe pointed out in their edit summary. It is mentioned in the lede and spelt out in the quotation of the site's own stated purpose. The Salon.com reference is completely clear and, apart from a spelling error, it is also mentioned in the derivative New Zealand Listener reference. Any content about WMF staff transferred from the blog piece to wikipedia would almost certainly be deleted per BLP concerns. It has been suggested as a source for the BLP on Sue Gardner, but the publication of the IRC logs remains a problem. Diannaa also pointed out on User talk:Charmlet that, as Bali ultimate, Dan Murphy had previously explained on WP:RSN that CSM blogs should not be used as reliable sources: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_115#Christian_Science_Monitor. User:Charmlet has insisted that this is not a blog piece: however, backchannels is listed as a blog on the CSM website here. Charmlet has cast doubts on CSM's classification, but I was unable to follow his rationale. Perhaps if others read what he's written they'll have more luck. Mathsci (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as the link is still included and discussion has not gone anywhere, I have initiated another discussion at BLPN.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Ownership, admins?

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Who owns this website and/or administers it? Is it a person, group, company ...? There's literally no historical background or context included in the article -- do sources exist to provide those details? Laval (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

[1] "Wikipediocracy is run democratically by a collective of about fifteen unpaid volunteers." (I'm one of them.) Andreas JN 466 18:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact should be included in the article and could incorporate some of the lead, with additional details for increased context, in a section entitled "Background". There should also be a concise explanation of the site name being a portmanteau, especially if it is mentioned on the site itself -- this may seem trivial, but for the general reader it is useful. Laval (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a bit of background information in this press release, for example: [2]. Laval (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowden traitor edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There are multiple press mentions of Wikipediocracy related to the Snowden "traitor" edit:

Mashable: "The Daily Dot first reported the edit after the website Wikipediocracy identified the change."
The Daily Dot: "The attempted change was pointed out to us by Wikipedia criticism site Wikipediocracy, who traced the IP address of the anonymous editor back to the U.S. Senate."
Pressetext news agency: "Das pikante Detail daran ist, dass die Änderung des Eintrags seinen Ursprung im US-Senat hatte. Wie die Website "The Daily Dot" berichtet, ist die Plattform "Wikipediocracy" http://wikipediocracy.com auf diesen Eingriff aufmerksam geworden und hat die IP-Adresse des vermeintlichen Korrekturschreibers weitestgehend verfolgt."
Epoch Times: "The change was discovered by people on Wikipediocracy, a website critical of the crowd-sourced online dictionary, and reported on by the Daily Dot, which says that the change was made from a computer with a Senate IP address."

I propose adding a short note to that effect to the relations with governments section. Andreas JN 466 18:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Support that. Seems reasonable. Begoon ^talk 19:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Support Anything related to the Snowden affair is notable. Certainly, anything concerning Snowden in relation to Wikipedia is of particular interest. Laval (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Done [3] --Andreas JN 466 04:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent press mentions

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Perry Chiaramonte, Fox News: Wikipedia abandons efforts to purge porn from online encyclopedia (17 September 2013)
Audra Schroeder, The Daily Dot: Are plastic surgeons nip/tucking ads into high-profile Wikipedia articles? (20 September 2013)
Tim Sampson, The Daily Dot: Wikipedia faces revolt over VisualEditor (24 September 2012)

Proposals:

Brief mention of the plastic surgery story
Mention of Gregory Kohs as a co-founder of the site in the Scope section (mentioned in the articles by Chiaramonte and Sampson)
Based on [4], mention that the site is run by a team of volunteers

Views? Andreas JN 466 22:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Outing and well, etc.

Latest comment: 10 years ago35 comments7 people in discussion

I added in the issue of outting, as evidenced by the Salon piece which is cited in the article and even shown in the infobox screenshot regarding the same outting issue. It seems to have been an overlooked aspect of the website that should be mentioned, for the sake of inclusion.--MONGO 04:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The section Revenge editing makes it clear that the website was used as a collusion point for the doxing of an editor of Wikipedia...by identifying him in real life. So I have no idea how anyone can not want this detail in the lede. The website is used as a place to gather real life identities of Wikipedia editors.--MONGO 04:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Re [5]. This edit does not represent the source accurately (truth is another matter, but hey, WP:V, WP:VNT). The source is about the contribution of Wikipediocracy to the Qworty investigation. Hence text based on the source should reflect that. Twisting that into "exposing real life identities" is at best OR-ish and at worst misrepresents the source. Volunteer Marek 04:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Again..reverted...what is the difference between what I wrote and the whole issue of doxing...the website has engaged in doxing, and as I wrote, a few members of the website must have participated in the effort...whats the difference? Even the section of Revenge editing says that members of the website contacted Salon to report their doxing effort...why mish mash the facts?--MONGO 04:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to write something like "Wikipediocracy contributed to exposing the revenge editor Qworty by helping investigative journalists pin down his real life identity" that'd be supported by the source. What you're adding, is not. Volunteer Marek 04:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That seems very myopic view of what the source actually says about Wikipediocracy, accountability and BLPs. It pretty much states that the reason Wikipediocracy helped out with Qworty was rooted in a belief of unaccountability. Doxing for that reason is still doxing. It's way too narrow to only mention Qworty. We say broadly that it is a criticism and discussion site without narrowing it down to each discussion or each criticism. I think it's very clear from the site and from the source that doxing is a method Wikipediocracy employs to meet their own objective. It's not limited to Qworty in the source in any way that is meaningful. --DHeyward (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

By "Wikipediocracy employs" you mean "some Wikipediocracy posters employ", of course. — Scott • talk 10:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The word "myopic" doesn't mean what you think it means (we're not discussing events in the future). You mean something like "circumscribed". Circumscribed of course to what's actually in the source, not extra stuff. Whatever the methods at Wikipediocracy - you would need a source here - this particular source *is* limited to the role of Wikipediocracy in the Qworty deal. Pretty much every sentence which mentions WO refers to Qworty. Volunteer Marek 11:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You're not being very charitable here. The source does state that in one case (and though it may be OR right now, we all know others) that the website outed the real life identity of one of our editors...the article even details this event yet you say this should not be mentioned in the lede even though it is in the article?--MONGO 12:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Quote the passage that you think supports your text. Volunteer Marek 13:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry your dictionary is so limited in scope that it failed to inform you that "myopic" means a narrow view. It is not necessarily a future view so please stop with torturing it. With the help of Wikipediocracy, I discovered a real-world story here that went at least as far back as 2001, when Robert Clark Young participated in a well-known writer’s workshop at the Sewanee Writers’ Conference in Tennessee. A workshop that was led by none other than Barry Hannah. and Wikipedia’s commitment to respecting anonymity means anyone can create their own sock puppet and make whatever edits they like. This is supposed to be against Wikipedia’s rules, but the available evidence suggests that enforcement is lax.And this is what bothers the Wikipediocracy critics the most. This is why they came to me. There’s no accountability. are both broad statements made about Wikipediocracy. The Salon writer use quotes to support those statements but the statements themselves are broad. If we say something like "Classical Newtonian physics states F=mA. Physicist John Smith explains that Force equal mass time acceleration", we don't take the narrow view and only quote it as if John Smith is the only physicist that holds those ideals. Likewise, I find it difficult to identify any notability except doxing that is done by Wikipediocracy. Every notable event listed seems to be identifying someone that Wikipediocracy believes should disclose themselves or not edit at all. They go about doing that by identifying the real-life identity or affiliation of editors. Which part of section 2 is not a form of doxing? --DHeyward (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Take it up with Merriam-Webster. Perhaps "astigmatic"? Anyway - the quote obviously is in reference to the particular case of Qworty. "Wikipediocracy is bothered by the lack of accountability on Wikipedia" is not the same thing as "Wikipediocracy is about doxing". Classic case of WP:OR (and pov-pushing). "Notability" refers to coverage in reliable sources not to some perceived metaphysical "reason". Volunteer Marek 20:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Right there on line 2: Myopic -> a narrow view of something. No wonder there is no progress. If you really don't know the meaning of a word, you should probably not correct others. And the wording would be "Wikipediocracy is notable for doxing." That's about all they are notable for. It's not a crime to dox nor is particularly bad outside of Wikipedia. Pretending they are notable for more than investigating editors and outing them for "revenge editing" or "paid advocacy" or COI is not supported. All the sourced material in the article refer to an editor that was identified by Wikipediocracy in some fashion. Why wouldn't that be in the lede? --DHeyward (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, the interesting part of the quote is With the help of Wikipediocracy, I discovered.... That's broad reference to who helped and the rest of the sentence is about doxing. --DHeyward (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

" It's not a crime to dox " So you think it's OK for Wikipedia editors and admins to dox someone, provided that they only talk about it on a different site?

How are you on another Wikipediocracy tactic, that of phoning their employer and accusing a WP editor of "facilitating pedophiles"? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not defending or advocating anything. It's about notability. "What makes Wikipediocracy notable?" Editors are trying to keep the most visible and notable practice out of the lede for reasons that seem to be defensive about what should go there. Why do we need to tiptoe around it? It is what is. Calling them pedophiles would cross the line without reliable sources and that doesn't seem to be supported and is, of course, a crime. There should be literally no resistance to pointing out their main avenue of notability -> which is investigating and exposing editors they believe are doing harm. That's what they do. That's what they are known for. I'm not morally weighing whether they are right or wrong, just stating what is the elephant in the room. --DHeyward (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE applies here in spades. Wikipediocracy is not Wikipedia: its participants are not required to forego original research. They did some, revealing an abuse that required protection and a massive (and still incomplete) repair effort in Wikipedia necessitated by long-standing abuse. The question of Qworty's identity is minor; both Leonard and the Wikipediocrats were chiefly and properly concerned with Qworty's abusive editing and myriad policy violations. The question of "outing" might perhaps be discussed in the section on Qworty (though even here is might be WP:UNDUE) but does not belong in the lede. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Without doxing, there is nothing notable about the website. --DHeyward (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That is a settled question. The page has survived two recent AfDs. Notability is not at issue.MarkBernstein (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not really very notable and doxing is sponsored by the website...more than one example. It appears odd that this issue isn't mentioned in the lede.--MONGO 19:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. Section 2 is entirely dedicated to doxing and identifying editors. It is a major component (only?) of its notability. If we remove controversies that involve doxing or identifying editors, there is nothing left. Therefore, doxing is not WP:UNDUE, it's the entire underpinning of its notability. About the only thing written as not specifically about identifying editors is "Bicholim Conflict" but that's misleading in the article as the source only gives credit to Wikipediocracy for finding the editor of the article, not the hoax itself, after it was identified so even that is just another outing even if it's not a real-life identity. --DHeyward (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Does seem odd...the article is only very marginally notable and what limited notability it has is due to outing people...yet this is not mentioned in the lede.--MONGO 19:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Your idiosyncratic opinion(s) is/are trumped by the WP:CONSENSUS of editors both at the AfD and the ones who've worked on this article. Find a source or quit it with the editorializing. Volunteer Marek 20:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The consensus, as you put it seems to based on the COI of editors from that site guarding this article from being accurate. All the sources mention this article in passing or discuss the doxing done at that site. There aren't anymore references because the site is hardly notable. You demand sources and they are there and they detail the doxing and little else. I don't see what the big deal is if the lede actually summarizes the content in the article itself! Might as well come clean about what the site is best known using the references provided in the article already!--MONGO 01:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd say "have fun with another AfD" but I really really really wish people would get over some things and quit wasting other people's time. Volunteer Marek 02:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The notability of the site rests on investigations, most significantly the Qworty affair, that revealed unethical editing of Wikipedia. As a side-effect of those investigations, the identity of an editor was uncovered and that editor confirmed his responsibility. Outside Wikipedia, the unethical editing was the story, and the details of anonymous editing a marginally notable detail. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Notable to whom? It seems they are only cited when they out an editor. I have yet to see a source that highlighted an investigation without have an end-result of identifying an editor. Being notable for investigations would mean there would be significant coverage of investigations that yield no editors. Police departments are notable for investigations and there are plenty of unsolved and/or cold cases that make them notable for investigations, not the just IDing the bad guy. Any coverage of Wikipediocracy unable to find identify someone? Maybe notable for "successful investigations that lead to identifying editors." That would be an accurate lede sentence. --DHeyward (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Notable by Wikipedia standards obviously. Volunteer Marek 02:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I see you have an indent problem similar to reading comprehension. Wikipedia's standards for notability are reliable sources. Reliable sources only highlight doxing and outing. That's it. Not "investigations," unless the outcome is outing. Your argument is like having an article on The New York Times but ignoring they are journalists and only focus on the type and models printing press. --DHeyward (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Look. You got three options. 1) Waste a whole bunch of people's time with yet another stupid and pointless AfD. 2) Provide a source which supports your claims. 3) Quit it with the OR and POV pushing. Your claim that "Reliable sources only highlight doxing and outing" is you interpreting sources in a novel, peculiar, idiosyncratic, personal, biased, prejudiced, tendentious and "original" manner. If my reading is "myopic" (it's not) then yours is casuistic. Volunteer Marek 03:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I do? I made three edits that exactly reflected Wikipediocracy's role in uncovering 1) the plastic surgery edits, 2) WMF IP vandalism edits and 3) Bicholim conflict paragraph. The sources don't support anything more. Please cite where Wikipediocracy had more than the roles that were identified in the sources. I have no conflict with Wikipediocracy. It's not anything but NPOV reflection of what Wikipediocracy did. They identified the Plastic surgeons. But the cleanup was done in WP and the vulnerability was neither uncovered or originally discovered by wikipediocracy. Kudos to Wikipediocracy for finding the offending articles and editors. Please don't pretend they were involved in more than what the source says. The source absolutely does not give them credit for finding or highlighting a "vulnerability." Post it/quote it if it exists. --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Here we're talking about the initial changes by MONGO, not about your attempts to rewrite the Bicholim and plastic surgeon stuff, which is below. That is what my comment above addresses. Volunteer Marek 04:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to bold my statement as follows so its more obvious where I stand on this matter...I'm not in favor of anymore Afd's on this article as the website is marginally notable...if anyone brings it to Afd, I would vote to keep it. My point is that the sources do discuss the issue of doxing, and there is a section already in the article about that, so the lede should, as the ledes are supposed to do, summarize the contents of the article. I'll even be willing to say that more good may come from Wikipediocracy than bad and there is nothing wrong with a site that provides external review of this site. But to not mention the doxing efforts as they are provided in the references within the lede is very odd.--MONGO 15:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If something is in the body of the article, it's fair game for the lead—with appropriate weight. However, trying to spin whole cloth out of thread is inappropriate. "Most of those that comment at the website are banned from editing Wikipedia. Some of the participants at Wikipediocracy have contributed to posting the real life identities of Wikipedia editors." was unsupported by any sources in the article, MONGO, and you know it.

The source reports a single case of doxing. Stick to what the source says, and what the body of the Wikipedia article says. There shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't elsewhere in the article. Obligatory link to WP:LEAD. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

One section in the article discusses the doxing issue so that also belongs in the lede perhaps worded differently than I wrote of course. It unfortunate the website isn't more notable as most of these refs mention the website only in passing, making it just barely notable enough to keep it.--MONGO 03:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Edits not vandalism

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I trimmed pieces to the actual contibution of Wikipediocracy in certain mentioned affairs. The fluffering and puffering is not supported by the sources cited. I trimmed it to yhe notable acts of Wikipediocracy. Details unrelated to Wikipediocracy were implying a larger role than actually is listed in the citation. For example, the hoax article doesn't really need any background information. --DHeyward (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss why this version is not a more neutral description of events. What are the objections? diff --DHeyward (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

They don't want to discuss anything that might make their cherished website less appealing.--MONGO 15:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Proposed edit

Wikimedia Foundation

A Wikipediocracy blog post identified IP addresses assigned to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) appeared to be vandalizing Wikipedia articles.^[1]^[2] WMF spokesman Jay Walsh stated that the IP addresses belonged to WMF servers but were not used by the WMF offices. The addresses were assigned to some edits by IPs due to a misconfiguration, which was corrected.^[1]

Google Knowledge Graph

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Several press stories based on Wikipediocracy's blog post about the Google Knowledge Graph and the downturn in Wikipedia page views have appeared, among them:

I propose adding the following under Other stories.

In January 2014, a Wikipediocracy blog post by Gregory Kohs pointed out that according to official Wikimedia statistics, page views for all major language versions of Wikipedia had experienced significant and unprecedented drops over the course of 2013. The blog post linked these falls to the introduction of the Google Knowledge Graph, sparking international coverage.

--Andreas JN 466 14:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC) (I am a Wikipediocracy staff member.)

Yep. I think it's worthy of mention. Do any of those sources credit Tim with making the connection? (I think Google refers to its "infobox" as the "knowledge panel".) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I communicated with Greg Kohs before he wrote his piece; he asked me to write it for WPO's front page blog and I declined. I told him there was no real need to credit me personally with the observation, but if he did decide to credit the idea to use my real name instead of a pseudonym. He felt the story would have traction with the tech press and that it needed to be out there and that's great that he wrote it. He alluded to the original WPO thread without mentioning me by name, and that's totally fine. He subsequently discovered that somebody had written something with the same thesis in December 2012, so I wasn't an originator of any big idea in any event. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I've added the paragraph. Andreas JN 466 19:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Another crisis averted!!1! Before it even happened!!one!

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I was just looking at the code for the connected contributor multi, and I see that the limitation to ten editors is easily overcome. When we start getting close I or someone can make a new version of the template which will hold hundreds if not thousands of names. Unless there's consensus to restrict ourselves to ten names per template, if only to be allowed the pleasure of discussing the above-mentioned formatting issues with one another.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Huzzah!! Templates for everyone!!! — Scott • talk 21:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"Everybody has won and all must have prizes! -- The Dodo Bird"— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

We're all beautiful and unique snowflakes. — Scott • talk 21:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"Connected contributor" templates

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The presumptive purpose of the "connected contributor" template is to make readers aware of circumstances creating a danger that an article would diverge from neutrality. Therefore, common sense suggests that the "connected contributor" template should be used only where the "connected contributors" have made substantive and material edits to the subject article.

I have seen no showing that that is the case with regard to any of the "connected contributors" currently listed on this page. If the template is going to be expanded to include everyone who has fixed a typo in the article and who also contributes to Wikipediocracy, then the template and its discussion are likely to degenerate even further into self-parody on this page and a source of amusement on Wikipediocracy itself. Unless the template is addressing an actual issue with the article, we should consider avoiding this situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sniff... Not substantive and material? You sure know how to hurt a guy's feelings with your fancy-pants big town lawyer words. We do our best according to time and ability. I only added myself because I saw the other names added, and I thought it might be unlawful not to declare my connection. Sorry. Begoon ^talk 02:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Unlawfully teasing a pompous person. 15-yard penalty; repeat second down. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

... Begoon ^talk 03:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This type of question should be an easy task for Wikipedia's configuration control board. Could someone point me to it? Cla68 (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

People are often a good judge of whether they are connected to the subject (for example one of the listed in also voting "keep", identified themselves as a "founder" and "moderator.") Of course, they are not the only judge. It also may help explain the article editing history, like why the Alexa number is often changed (sometimes in very close succession), as apparently that is vital information for this article, according to various editors' edits. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Informal RfC on style for connected contributor template

Latest comment: 10 years ago30 comments9 people in discussion

Greetings, colleagues! I notice that there are a number of issues regarding formatting that seem to be revealing themselves through editing on the connected contributors template, so I thought I'd ask everyone's opinion. First, when Scott helpfully compacted the list using the Connected contributor multi template he alphabetized the names. This is reasonable, but then Alison added herself at the bottom. This is also reasonable, and as she added herself it's obviously important to respect her own opinion. However, now Herostratus decided to add Jayen466 on his/her own initiative to the bottom of the list. Previously, the wise and neutral NE Ent had removed Alison, stating that in his/her opinion, users ought to add themselves and not be added. Really, though, the only question I have concerns whether we want to alphabetize names in the template unless an editor expresses their wishes not to be alphabetized by placing their own username elsewhere or if we should respect the wishes of the editor placing a name in the template unless the named editor overrides that choice by moving their name somewhere else? I also note that Template:Connected contributor multi seems to max out at 10. After that we'll have to add another one, and another, and the stylistic issues will ramify exponentially. Perhaps that's a bridge best crossed at the point in time at which it is arrived. I felt bad that I didn't see a reason to ping Demiurge1000 in this section, but then I saw one!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I really don't think the alphabetical order is a big issue. If people add themselves at the end, or move themselves to the end, then leave them there. If adding someone else, add in alphabetical order. If someone adds an entry that's not for themselves and it's not in alphabetical order, then we should move it until the added party objects.

There's a possibility that some people who've added themselves (or been added by others?) have in fact not edited the article at all. In that case their entry shouldn't have the edited=yes parameter. I'm too lazy to check this myself, though, especially if there's ultimately going to be thousands of connected contributors listed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I am also too lazy. Thus I will assume good faith on the parts of those adding editors to the template. Thanks for your input!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we should order them by when they registered on the site. No, no, wait! Number of posts!!1! "Wikipediocracy - Members". Wikipediocracy. 2014. Retrieved 19 April 2014. (subscription required) — Scott • talk 21:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Some of those options could potentially lead to concerns of WP:OUTING. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

How so?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking of (hypothetical) cases where an editor has identified themself as a Wikipediocracy staff member, trustee or domain owner, but chooses not to confirm which Wikipediocracy staff member, trustee or domain owner they are. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It's okay, the new Connected Wikipediocracian template that Alf and I are working on has two display modes, one each for confessed and unconfessed, with an appropriate sort order in each case. Unconfessed users are also going to get links to a number of helpful web tools that will let you analyze their posting habits. — Scott • talk 22:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that sounds perfect. Please send links to the analysis tools to any Wikipediocracy account that anyone believes I have access to. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to choose. After all, WP:NOTPAPER and stuff. Perhaps we could have separate templates for each desired ordering of the connected contributors? Perhaps we could write a new template which would have resorting options built into it based on the various criteria?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

That's on the right track, but we should have one core Wikipediocracy connected contributor template that takes various options and a has a variety of wrapper templates - redirects are cheap, as they say. That'll make it even easier for when editors need to present this crucial information. I'll head off to Commons and set up Category:Graphs of edit counts of Wikipediocracy connected contributors on Wikipedia, so we can produce statistical output to keep readers fully updated on just how connected these contributors are. — Scott • talk 21:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be possible to implement options in user preferences to allow editors to control exactly which of your various proposed display options would appear to them. This would be much more flexible. Obviously WMF would need to be involved, but I'm sure they would be eager to help. If a substantial amount of work were involved in setting up the various categories and other related initiatives, you could perhaps apply for a microgrant? (I did spend one and a half seconds pondering why the link was blue, but didn't take my curiosity further than that.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You need two more groups of Connect Contributors: (a)those who are Wikipediocracy members who have not yet contributed to the article, but who may do so in the future and (b) those who have contributed to the article who are not Wikipediocracy members, but who know at least one member's name. Bielle (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists for the reader; it's most convenient to find an item if the list is arranged in its natural (alphabetical) order. Per the privacy policies, it should be up to the individual editor to list themselves. NE Ent 21:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Per the privacy policies, editors can disclose whatever they wish on their own user pages, with certain limitations. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm. It's a hard question. I think we should spend a lot of time and effort on this. We want to get this right. Alphabetical order seems rather too random. There's a number of ways we could rank them instead. For instance, we could rank them by intelligence. No, wait, that wouldn't work. Herostratus (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that a number of other contributors of the article have been the subject of Wikipediocracy blog posts and/or forum threads, shouldn't they be listed as well? Not that I consider this to be in any way a productive exercise, but if the point is to let the vanishingly small subset of readers who actually look at talk page templates know that there might be some COI issues, the balanced approach would be to show that both "sides" are present and (un)accountable. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess not. I mean, at Reptilians we have "[Ickes] contends that most of the world's leaders are related to these reptilians, including George W. Bush of the United States, and Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". So if any world leaders were to edit Reptilians, do we need to list them as COI contributors? Maybe they have, so better to list them all to be the safe side. As you can image in dealing with these sort of entities -- should we list every contributor who isn't crazy, remarkably gullible, or a troll? -- these lists quickly get out of hand.

It's misleading to say "a number of other contributors of the article have been the subject of Wikipediocracy blog posts". All the other contributors have been the subject of Wikipediocracy blog posts, since WO does deal in blanket statements, to the general effect that anyone who contributes to the Wikipedia in good faith is a tool or moron, at the very least. (And anyone who hasn't been attacked by name may reasonably ascribe that to simply not having been noticed yet, rather than any imagined immunity.)

So rather then listing all the contributors to the article, maybe a blanket statement would be best: "Most of the contributors not listed above are presumably Wikipedians of good faith and in good standing, and so may be assumed to have the POV that WO is a wretched hive of scum and villainy". Would this satisfy? Herostratus (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel intelligent enough to respond on your level. Why don't you just decide for me?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this about Math? Math is hard.

I personally believe, uhh..., that U.S. Americans may not be able to find Math on a map because, uhh..., some people out there in the nation don't have maps. Is it in the Eyerak, or the SuchAs, or the South Africa?

Scum and vanilla sounds like a horrid flavour to me. Not satisfying at all. Strawberry sounds nicer. So we will be able to build up our future. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 15:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Who alphabetized me?! I feel personally violated. Someone is working off their abcderian privilege. →Stani Stani 22:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

And now someone made me first. I don't want to be first. It's scary. But it might be mean of me just to make someone else first. What to do? Begoon ^talk 07:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: Scott had a good idea, so the list in the template is now in descending order of number of edits. See [6] for reference ~~(you have to put in the article name - permalinks are hard...)~~. I hope we have time to keep it up to date. Maybe one of our more technical people could work on a sort-bot? Begoon ^talk 14:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Link fix'd — Scott • talk 15:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

But wait! I think the rankings should be weighted by proportion of minor edits to non-minor edits. Perhaps a minor edit could be counted as 1/3 of a non-minor edit? It only seems reasonable, and will be much more informative from the reader's point of view. In fact, if we're writing a sort-bot, perhaps we could also have it display the proportion of the editor's contribution to the article as a whole, so that the reader will be able to tell to a high degree of accuracy exactly what level of suspicion to apply while reading. And then, of course, we need an "aggregate scepticism index" at the top of the template that somehow shows the collective impact of all the COI editing. Why, this could go on for years! Fortunately, WP:DEADLINE and stuff.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You make several valid points, there, Alf. In the long run I think there's going to be no alternative to holding a series of well-structured formal RFCs on this. Consensus must be found. Begoon ^talk 15:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe partially related, it also occurred to me that, since this template is used on a talk page, we might want to consider "future-proofing" it a little by doing some advance testing for presentation, usability and functionality with the upcoming WP:FLOW update. To this end, I started to prepare a detailed testing plan, user feedback surveys, cross-browser/OS testing, criteria for managing bugs, and such-like.

I'll be honest, though, that started to look a bit hard, and gave me a bit of a headache, and I didn't like some of the answers I thought I might get - so I'm thinking maybe we could simply go with the initial approach of "sticking it in there as it is anyway and just hoping for the best". That usually pans out pretty well, I've found.

I've done an initial list of browser peculiarities, OS quirks, installed font combinations and common user inadequacies that will be useful if we need to justify any massive failures on our part, further down the road, and, apart from that, I thought we might just "suck it and see". Does that seem reasonable? Begoon ^talk 12:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable. But may I also suggest that you also slap together some code, roll it out in about 2 years, or 2 months, or 2 weeks, or 2 days, or 2 hours, at your convenience, ready or not, and then I'll start eleventy-seven threads on every possible noticeboard complaining about it and then write some javascript to override the effects of your work entirely and then proceed to ignore the whole thing? That will complete the circle and propitiate the gods and we won't have to carry out that goddamned ritual again. I dry-clean and dry-clean but the stains still won't come out of my robe. Can we still have the RfCs, though?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That all works for me, and I'll get back to you on the timeline next week-ish (diary permitting). I commend your agility. With regard to the RFCs, I think the first step is obviously to officially formalise this discussion as the opening, exploratory RFC - "RFC Zero", if you like. After that, we're in business, and we can tentatively begin drafting the "Phase 1" RFC itself. Damned if I know how to do any of that, though. Who do we ask? Begoon ^talk 12:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Something else crossed my mind, and this is way out of left field, and I forgive you in advance if you think it's insane: we could actually remove the template from this page.

I know, it's crazy, but I did an analysis of edits concerning this, and the ones setting us such conundrums seem to have only started when someone added the template for reasons which are unclear to me.

As I say, crazy, but we're brainstorming here. Begoon ^talk 12:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, look - someone did just that: [7]. It must be fate. I genuinely had not seen that while adding my verbiage.

Per Alf, though, can we have the RFCs anyway?

Begoon ^talk 13:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 9 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

Considering the extent to which the subject of this extremely promotional article is an unabashed defender of paid editing, aren't we being "played" by the subject just a little bit, to the extent that this article comes off as showing Wikipediocracy as an opponent of COI editing? Coretheapple (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Huh? I´m not sure I follow you. I presume there are as many opinions on WO as there are members. To me your argument sounds akin to equalling Wikipedia with Jimbo Wales: they are not the same, AFAIK. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you're not very familiar with that site. It is in sum and substance a rather mammoth apologia for paid editing, except when it isn't airing conspiracy theories about the WMF. Not that I care about the WMF, which richly deserves any criticism. But given that, and the fact that the board functions to oppose efforts to curb paid editing, isn't there something strikingly odd about the breathless tone of this article and its promotional content? Oh, but if I'm wrong, perhaps you can show me some ~~diffs~~ links from the site in which voices are raised in a stirring defense of measures to curb paid editing, and in opposition to paid editing mills such as the one run by Gregory Kohs, who is cited in this article? There is a cynicism about the site that is not conveyed here. Coretheapple (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

"The fact that the board functions to oppose efforts to curb paid editing"???? This is absolute nonsense. I´m quite familiar with the site, more than you, apparently. Also, I´m totally opposed to paid editing (naturally, as I edit in the I/P area, which has been the area for several "recruitment drives"). But unlike Wikipedia, WO does not have a "God-King"; it is not blasphemy to criticise the person, who, (for practical purposes) have registered the web-site in his name. And the IIPM-scandal was first dealt with by WP´s banned editor Peter Damian, back in 2013, jumbo was notified about it back then, and did nothing. Huldra (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Well then if I err here, why don't you show me some links of all the opposition to paid editing on that site, all the pushback Greg Kohs gets. Because let me tell you, what I see is a veritable Mission Control for paid editing, and in a very cynical fashion at that. For instance, there is a "obvious paid editors are obvious" section, run by and primarily written by the head of a paid editing service. That strikes me as little more than effort to drum up business. What other purpose can it have? He's not opposed to paid editing, he makes money from it. I don't give a damn about the "God king" stuff you're talking about. Totally irrelevant. Coretheapple (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Funny that, I have seen the "obvious paid editors are obvious" section, (even contributed to it)..and no, I have never seen it as a "little more than effort to drum up business" ...quite the opposite. It is more a section to point out, shall we put it diplomatically, WP´s "uneven" enforcement of the rule against paid editing. (Those named in that section certainly do not need any paid editor, neither GK, or anyone else.....as they already have one.....or more, editors working for them). Some of us see it as hypocritical of WP to come down hard on anyone criticising WP, while totally ignoring people like Wifone. In practice, Wikipedia tells us "you can edit for pay, as long as you don´t criticise Wikipedia...or its God-King". It is that hypocrisy that some of us object against. (Without supporting GK´s goals), Huldra (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

If you can find even a single message thread in opposition to MyWikiBiz on that site I think you would go a long way toward proving your point, which is that Wikipediocracy is filled with opposition to paid editing as well as all the support and rationalizations I'm seeing. Assuming you haven't abandoned that argument (as it is a bit silly, after all). Take your time. I'm in no hurry. You can rant a bit more on this general subject but I'm only interested in that (links). Coretheapple (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Listen, if you are interested in starting a thread on WO, opposing paid editing in general (or specific), then please start one yourself. If what you say is true, then apparently you would be censored straight away. (But try to keep it on principle; bickering among members, any members, is not tolerated much). But remember, it is a "Wikipedia criticism site"; if you would state why and how paid editing "decrease the value" of Wikipedia, actually I think you would get a few to agree with you. Try it out. Come back here if you are censored. Huldra (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not interested in getting into the Guinness Book of World Records as "the first person ever to criticize paid editing on Wikipediocracy." My purpose in starting this thread is to figure out why this article is as bad as it is. I have my answer. Cheers, Coretheapple (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, some people have a high opinion about their own importance, LOL! Huldra (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Waiting on those links (but not holding my breath). While your invitation is enticing - gee, I would love to spend my off-wiki hours talking about Wikipedia! - I don't think that people active on that site should edit this article, and this article sure as hell needs a lot of work. And boy can your last comment be used to describe this article! A lot of self-important, overhyped puffery. Coretheapple (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Here you go, Coretheapple (talk · contribs). One of the original founders of Wikipedocracy has weighed in with their own personal opinion. Hope that clears matters up! :) - Alison ^❤ 19:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That's almost as amusing as this discussion from a while ago, in which it appears that the number of COI editors on this page was so immense that it maxed out the "connected contributor" template. So I see that apparently a compromise was reached in which you have no connected contributor template at all. A win-win situation eh? Coretheapple (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Importing disputes from other articles

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Having been rebuked over there, it would be very unwise to try to re-fight that dispute here, so, stop doing that. This article is beginning to take a wrong turn down the NPOV Avenue. Tarc (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Correction: this article has never been near NPOV Avenue. Coretheapple (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

COI tag

Latest comment: 9 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

I've tagged this article for COI, given the article history and recent contributions by COI editors (a self-described founder, for example). Coretheapple (talk) 10:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I have not been a member for well over a year now, so that's one less tree you need to worry about barking up. Tarc (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well Alison is a founder. I know from looking at the article history and the puffy state I found it in that this article exists in its own little world, but let's try to keep up appearances, OK? We don't want some innocent reader to drop by this article and say "huh? WTF is this?" But as far as COI is concerned, given that this article is about the history of the members of this website, focusing on their activism, it seems to me that neither past nor current members thereof should participate therein, except for the talk page. Maybe not even that, actually. This is not like an article about Google, it is about a group of activists really. Coretheapple (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Alison is also a Wikipedia administrator, OTRS volunteer, checkuser, and oversighter. Her reputation in this project is impeccable, so there's yet another tree for you cease barking at. Having a perceived conflict-of-interest does not prohibit one from contributing to articles that they may be connected to; they just have to contribute neutrally. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I know all that. I am extremely impressed. I'd be more impressed if she observed WP:COI which yes, I know is as weak as a kitten, but which discourages people with COI (actual not "perceived") from contributing to articles about, for example, websites they've founded. By the way, at the very most, what you're describing does not for even a moment justify the state this article is in, but explains it. Coretheapple (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph Alison re-inserted. There were two sources for the claim made in that paragraph. One was an "h/t" at the bottom of one article in the Daily Dot. Pure WP:SYN, or maybe just plain ridiculous. The other is a twitter post by the subject that is totally cryptic and, even if understandable, would be a self-published claim by the subject of the article. So it is your position, Tarc, that an administrator, checkuser, etc. has some kind of special privilege, and can get away with inserting such rubbish into the project - promoting the website she founded? Fancy that. Coretheapple (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, a query of the form "so it is your position...?" is rarely a legitimate question, i.e. a solicitation of information not in the questioners possession, but rather an accusation based on the questioners own presumptions. Hightlighting CU/Oversight, etc...permissions was not done to dip said person's edits in untouchable gold, but to point out that said person has earned a position of long-standing trust in the Wikimedia community, and should not be dismissed out of hand as "some COI editor". Unless the material is egregiously biased or runs afoul of core policy such as WP:BLP, however, I see no reason to delete on sight when a simple Template:Citation needed would have sufficed, while we see if there are better sources than twitter. That the Russian government pressured the Russian Wikipedia to censor its marijuana articles is fact. That the Wikipediocracy's role in documenting and reporting the matter may be poorly-sourced is not IMO a reason to delete tyhe passage wholesale. Tarc (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's a reason for removing. Poorly sourced material, especially ones that make extravagant claims about the subject, are removed all the time. I'll grant you, perhaps not here, but elsewhere on Wikipedia. As for COI editors, they are not inherently slimy creatures from the black lagoon; they may be admins, bureaucrats or worse. Coretheapple (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the sly WP:NPA transgression in the 2nd half there... What part do you object to; that the Russian government wants to censor RU Wiki, or that the Wikipediocracy had a hand in the reporting thereof? Tarc (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

None, if it's properly sourced. I appreciate the irony of your "npa" remark, by the way, given that NPA content on this talk page is blatant and crude, not "sly." Coretheapple (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

If you're wanting to engage further with this subject, Coretheapple, head on over to Wikipediocracy itself. I'll approve your registration on sight. Members can see a lot more content. →StaniStani 19:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well you see, that's exactly the point I've made a few times, and has been pointed out to me by other editors as recently as yesterday: the article is controlled by the subject, both on- and off-wiki. So if you want to edit this article, you have to somehow engage in colloquy off-site. Don't you find that a bit odd? A bit hypocritcal too, all things considered? Coretheapple (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, care if I butt in? I am a bit nosy but maybe another opinion is ok? I went to the wikipediocracy site and saw discussion of coretheapple where they are insulting him/her mindlessly. http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6279 Therefore I can't blame him/her for not wanting to discuss the issue there and have it here where wikipedia says to assume good faith and not make personal attacks. I do support some other topics being discussed on wikipediocracy, wikipedia can use helpful constructive criticism but they shoot themselves in the foot if they make mindless insults. Popish Plot (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, in any social space you will have a range of personalities. There are morons, thugs, and louts throughout the Wikipedia alongside the normal editors, and one can expect to find the same over there; it isn't a hive mind but a collection of individuals. If anyone one editor's comments are out of line, you can file a complaint with the site's moderators, who can and do censure bad behavior of their members. Tarc (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true, I don't much care about all the yammering, and that's not why I'm not interested in participating in that or any other online forum to discuss Wikipedia. Apart from the reasons I indicated earlier, there are so many hours in a day, mine are far too much involved as it is in Wikipedia, and that's pushing the hobby aspect of Wikipedia too far. Very much like the "Wikimania" conferences I've heard about. More to the point, the vociferous reaction is evidence that indeed "ordinary" members have a feeling of ownership concerning this article, which is far above and beyond what would expect in an article about a website. I think that feeling extends to the editing of this article, and is reflected in the editing, and why marginal text is defended so vigorously by editors who should know better. Coretheapple (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

(outdent) The primary editors of an article should ideally not include people who are the subjects of the article, nor people who despise the article subjects. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

While that's true in general, here you have a meta-issue since the subject is tied to the medium (the Wikipedia) being used to describe it. The case could be made that you can't be a good Wikipedian unless you despise the subject, and if you're not a good Wikipedian why are you even editing anything? (I'm not saying that the case is necessarily correct, just that it's reasonable, and since it's reasonable it has to at least be taken into consideration.) Herostratus (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Bit of a false dilemma there; why can't one be a "good Wikipedian" and also be a critic of some, or even a lot, of what goes on around here? Wikipedia criticism can take on many forms, it doesn't always have to be a bunch of banned users blogging weekly. Some of us want to effect (affect? I forget) change from within. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Replying to Coretheapple above: "So if you want to edit this article, you have to somehow engage in colloquy off-site. Don't you find that a bit odd? A bit hypocritcal too, all things considered?" Hmmm. Not what I said, and even though spelled wrong, I slightly resent the use of 'hypocritical.' I honestly thought if you saw more of the site, you'd gain a better understanding of its goals. Not all members share their goals, which was yet another realization I'd hoped you come away with.→StaniStani 20:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that if I flew over to the "Wikimaniac" conference I could get a better understanding of Wikipedia.[8]. Coretheapple (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

(outdent) Per WP:COI, “When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest.” In light of that which I emphasized, and per WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest, tagging of the article with {{COI}} seems correct. It would also seem that tagging this talk page with {{Connected contributor}} is also appropriate. As a demonstration of good faith, those contributors who are connected to the subject should use that tag to acknowledge their connection.

On a related note, I have seen editors lambast Cta suggesting that due to his point of view regarding the subject of this article he has a COI. That’s simply incorrect use of that term. Yes, he clearly has a POV (as does everyone about everything, at some level, if we are honest with ourselves). Just as his responsibility is to edit neutrally and assume good faith, so is it the responsibility of other editors to also AGF and not automatically revert his edits, and/or dismiss them out of hand here. He boldly made changes. He was reverted. Collegial discussion to reach consensus is the proper next step.

To an outside observer, some of the actions by some editors have had the appearance of ownership and bad faith. The comments and demands (including both suggestions and demands that Cta edit other articles, and highlighted, IMO, by the threat to revert further changes by Cta and lock the article by an administrator [9] at the related MyWikiBiz article) are not examples of WP at its finest. Editors shouldn't feel bullied or constrained from editing an article by the concern that they would be bullied, dox'd or outed - yet that is clearly the case here (both on-wiki, with respect to to bullying and threatening, and off-wiki, see [10] for offers of bounties for revealing the identities of @Bbb23 and Coretheapple:). I see lots of outrage about an editor trying to edit a couple of articles. Where's the outrage over the demonstrably bad behavior being evidenced in response? Why can't our existing processes be followed in good faith? JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

These remarks are appreciated of course, and rest assured that if there has been administrator misconduct on or off-wiki (has there been here? duh....) the admins will be held accountable. But that's an issue for another day. Coretheapple (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Bias

Latest comment: 9 years ago36 comments10 people in discussion

{.{hat|Bring "charges" to WP:ANI}} I charge Coretheapple with agenda-pushing and bias on this topic and ask him to desist from editing the piece. He is clearly incapable of achieving NPOV on this topic. Carrite (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

How will that achieve NPOV? Many editors of this article and this page are openly connected to the subject. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, it'd be hard to find editors who don't have an opinion on the subject. The only editors who don't have an opinion have probably pretty much never heard of the subject, and those editors probably lack interest and expertise. There are a handful of subjects which the Wikipedia is not really well equipped to handle, and controversial things that are about the Wikipedia is one of them. In all honesty, the reader should probably be advised to look elsewhere for information on this subject. We don't do that. We ought to IMO.

Absent that, I guess what I'd like to see is the article be as short and anodyne as possible, and with the NPOV template pretty much permanently affixed to the top (rather than the COI template, but that's my opinion... both might be accurate... anybody who is attached to the subject OR the Wikipedia itself has a COI IMO... it's just visual overkill tho, the NPOV template is sufficient to alert the reader). I don't even know what the POV is (it probably swings back and forth) but I don't think it's like you're ever gonna get everybody to agree "OK the article is fair now". I just hate see much energy wasted on a pretty obscure subject and a fruitless task. Herostratus (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I like your message, also with all such articles with the history of such editing, we should permanently affix

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

. . . or the like. Since Herodotus, the essential criteria for the chronicler has been independence from the subject. [Wells, Colin. A Brief History of History. (Lyons, 2008) p. xiv.] - Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Word-for-word what Carrite says is what I got when I was editing BP for the first time. That is because BP had at least one COI editor, declared, who basically wrote and controlled the article, creating something of a scandal, just as this article has scores of COI editors, declared and not, who have basically written and controlled the article for some time. Yes balancing out an article that is not neutral, that promotes the subject as brazenly as this one did, does require removing the puffery and poorly sourced material and, where warranted, inserting material from sources that is not positive but has not been included by the COI editors in their effort to manufacture a puff piece. (In this article all that was necessary was to remove the puffery, as there was no negative coverage.) COI editors like Carrite don't want neutral editing, they want biased editing - biased in their favor. They want a puff piece.

What makes COI tricky in this article is that the COI editors include people who are active in Wikipedia and, as discussed above, even administrators, at least one checkuser. As was pointed out by Tarc above, even if they have a blatant COI, contradicting them is "barking up the wrong tree." No, I am probably one of the very few editors of this article in its history who does not have a COI. What made me appalled by this article was not that I was appalled by the subject of the article but by the article itself, which sucked. Biased, poorly sourced/misrepresented the sourcing, and openly promoted the subject of the article. It's remarkable how the defenders/WP:OWNers of this article have so little to say about the actual content of this article, hence their resort to gambits like this. Coretheapple (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Up above Core I see you said "Then I suggest that you're not very familiar with that site. It is in sum and substance a rather mammoth apologia for paid editing, except when it isn't airing conspiracy theories about the WMF. " Ok maybe that is a fact or maybe it is a non neutral POV. apologia for paid editing? But how much weight do we have to give it. Is the entire site all about supporting paid editing? Popish Plot (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Well we can't give it any unless it's reflected in the sourcing. The sourcing generally focuses on what the website users do, less on what they say. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

So what do the reliable sources say. What are your thoughts on them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipediocracy#References Are some of these unreliable? Are there reliable sources which refer to the paid editing topic that are missing from the article currently? Popish Plot (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources are fine, for the most part at least, but as you can see, they relate almost entirely to activism. The website does a very good job of getting its message across in the media. Coretheapple (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Well the article has reliable sources, then it's as it should be. Good job of them getting it's message into reliable sources I guess. Popish Plot (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

We are certainly not putting a "we can't handle the content of this article" banner on here, especially one festooned with a quasi-pornographic lolicon anime character. That's just absurd. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Coretheapple

well of course you have a bias. Don't be silly. So does Carrite and Alison and bunch of other folks, me included. Why, you'd hardly be human if you didn't have an opinion on the subject. It's silly to claim that since Alison has many fine qualities that she's not biased, and I'm sure that Alison herself would not make that claim, nor would any trustworthy person make the the claim that they are above such mundane human frailties as bias and are therefore free to engage in what, for lesser mortals, would be a conflict of interest.

User:Popish Plot

, the subject is basically a website that publishes short essays and has forums. It doesn't speak with one voice, so it's complicated. It's more than just an apologia for commercial editing of the Wikipedia, but the general thrust is to support it, I guess I'd say. Some of the essays (and forum posts) are cogent critiques of the Wikipedia, but the general tenor is hatred of the Wikipedia and everything it stands for, and certainly the desire to see it shut down entirely if such a goal could somehow be accomplished is much in evidence. Within that context, there's cogent criticism, much as the Soviet Union had much cogent criticism of the West -- and with much the same motivation, if that matters. It might not, but there's more to it than that, and some unsavory behaviors and so on; it's complicated. Herostratus (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the bottom line is if this wiki article has reliable sources, what is the problem here? My opinion is they are wrong to support paid editing, 100% wrong, well I'm not going to try to put that into this article though since I have no reliable source saying it. Popish Plot (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I have a definite bias against puff pieces, which this particular article has been. When I look at an article that promotes the subject I always wonder why. What is your theory? Coretheapple (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you think the problem isn't reliable sources, but notability? Puff piece? Does that mean this is too pro wikipediocracy? How about, are there reliable sources which criticize the website? Popish Plot (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If your concern is that there isn't criticism or negative coverage to offset the mentions of positive investigations and such that they have been involved in, you'd have to bring the reliable sources that address the subject in that manner. If none exist, well, you can't just come in and strip the positive coverage because it is too "puffy", or stitch together sourced content to create criticism, as you apparently did here. Tarc (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed Tarc, bottom line, let's not lose the forest for the trees. It all comes back around to reliable sources, you either got em or you don't. I did a brief search, it seems like the wikipediocracy site is mentioned by reliable sources a lot but each time it is in terms of criticizing wikipedia. I'm not seeing reliable sources that are criticizing wikipediocracy. But I admit I have not looked and found every possible RS. Just a quick google. Popish Plot (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering the extent to which connected contributors dominate this article as much as they do, all this talk of "bias," especially when it comes in the form of whining by COI editors, has a slightly surreal aspect. Coretheapple (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure accusing people of "whining" will help establish any sort of consensus, Mr. Coretheapple, but perhaps that's not your interest here. I've served as a "moderator" on a number of WMF projects, as well as Wikipediocracy. I didn't revert you because I'm interested in debating with you, I reverted you because you clearly are in need of some moderation, and should really step back and let cooler heads have a look-see.

FWIW, I don't think Wikipediocracy is notable enough to merit an article in an encyclopedia, but my standards of what is what merits encyclopedic treatment are (apparently) not the same as those of those of the community. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It's probably over the line of notability, though not hugely so; but in any case, there may be an air of "Wikipedians bending over backwards to avoid the appearance of censoring criticism of our own site." Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Honestly Brad I don't think a lot of things that have articles should have them ("Pokemon and Pornstars", to repeat the old WR meme). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

SB Johnny, why don't you think WP:COI applies to you as a "site admin" of the subject and Alison, a founder? Take a gander at WP:COS. Here, I'll quote the relevant portion to you: "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, or friends.. . . If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly." What's up? How come that doesn't apply to you? Don't you think that as administrators you two should be modeling proper behavior even if it involves, God forbid, Wikipediocracy? Coretheapple (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, nobody on Wikipediocracy ever accuses Allie or I of "working for the enemy" when we hide or delete things that we feel are over the line or wildly inappropriate. Also interesting that only you seem to be making such accusations here. Again, please step back and let more detached eyes have a look. I think it's probably OK to ask some trusted fellow wikipedians (IAR is more important than CANVASS sometimes, after all). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to say that this is the weirdest conversation I've had since my colloquies with "Arturo at BP" and with an administrator who was also a paid editor. It it is so strange, and a little creepy, to be lectured by people with a COI. Coretheapple (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I made an assumption in the foregoing. Alternatively (since it's obvious that WP:COI does apply to you) is it that for whatever reason you just don't want to abide by it? Alison, I assume you're reading this, same questions to you. Coretheapple (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Clearly we both read the site and react to it in our own ways, Mr. Coretheapple, so I could ask the same of you. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "we both read the site." I'm talking about the COI guideline. Is it that it's a guideline, so you figure you can get away without abiding by it? Funny, but I am beginning to get the impression, from the general tenor of comments, that it is considered a "COI" by the people controlling this article to be opposed to COI. So in other words, if I had a relaxed attitude toward COI, if it was OK with me that the site founder and a site administrator are editing this site (in violation of WP:COI) it would be fine. But if I'm opposed to that, it is your position that I need to "step back" etc. etc. That's the gist I'm getting from the comments here, from you and others. Coretheapple (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not editing the article, and couldn't care less about it (well OK I probably could, but it's unlikely). I reverted you, because you seem to be less than dispassionate about the issue, so probably shouldn't be editing it at all. It's an interesting philosophical dilemma, of course (if one in not interested in a subject, why on earth would they edit a Wikipedia article on that subject), but I'm told this isn't a web forum (etc.), so we probably shouldn't get into a debate about that here.

(My attention-span for wikilaw debates is just below zero, if that's where you're trying to take this discussion.)--SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 02:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No I wouldn't call it a "wikilaw" debate to point out that since you have a COI you should abide by the guideline and not edit the article. It's not complicated. I don't get why you and Alison are doing it, because it's so blatant, and because you may put your positions in jeopardy by behaving this way. But do what you feel is best. Coretheapple (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Tarc

Semi-pornographic? Me, Wikipe-tan? You wound me, monsieur! There'll be no frothing at the mouth on my watch, monsieur! --Wikipe-tan (by Herostratus (talk))

What can you do, maybe some of these editors have a COI maybe they don't. Bold accusation needs proof. This is a page for a website not a BLP. The reliable sources are what they are, they are listed, if they're not reliable someone tell us and why! Another question is are they notable and I see SB Johnny said it's his opinion wikipediocracy is not notable enough to have a wiki page, but he isn't too worried about it. But that is another discussion. Either it's notable enough to have a wiki page or it's not but in both scenarios we all admit it has reliable sources. So I say let's drop the argument over whether or not the page is accurate enough. Let's focus on whether the topic is notable enough to have a wiki page. What are the rules on notability? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Popish Plot (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The argument basically looks to me about whether this article should mention that WO "promotes paid editing." As someone who has been an active reader of the site for some months now, honestly, I don't see that. I see that there are one or two individuals there who promote paid editing, generally their own, personal, paid editing, and that the editor(s) who seek to promote paid editing seem to do so rather regularly. But, if that hasn't been discussed at any particular length in the reliable sources, then it would be a likely violation of OR to say that in our article. Now, I suppose, it might, theoretically, be possible that the editor in question might himself at some point merit an individual biography as per NOTABILITY, and it might very easily be possible for us to mention the fact that that individual is a paid editor who promotes paid editing. That would, I think, be reasonable to be included in an article about that individual, if he's notable enough, which I actually rather doubt. But the few "paid editors" there are not representative of the site, and, so far as I can tell, that aspect of the site hasn't been particularly mentioned by anyone else either. That being the case, WP:WEIGHT considerations, and also possible WP:POV/WP:COI regarding the issue of paid editing in general, the condemnation of which seems to be one of the central points of attention and activity of one of the editors involved here. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

?? As far as I can tell no-one actually proposed, nor made edits to the article regarding that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

In the third comment of the "Question" section above, Core said, and I quote, "It is in sum and substance a rather mammoth apologia for paid editing, except when it isn't airing conspiracy theories about the WMF." As someone who is not a paid editor, or particularly interested in conspiracy theories of any sort, but has logged a few hundred edits on the site in question, which is, admittedly, a slighter higher number than that of many of the arbs, past and present, who have also edited there, I think that quote is basically wrong on two points. John Carter (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe there are some reliable sources I am missing which say the wikipediocracy site supports paid editting in a major way? I am not seeing them but as soon as core or anyone else shows them to me, I check them and if it's true, I change my mind. And then I will start making suggestions as to where "paid editting" should be mentioned here in this article. But first I need those reliable sources. I know I am sounding like a record skipping . . . reliable sources . . . reliable sources . . . Popish Plot (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Documenting my charge above with policy. — from WP:BLPCOI: "Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." Carrite (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Tim, respectfully, bring "charges" to WP:ANI. Article talk pages, as you know, are not for that sort of thing. I will note that MyWikiBiz is not a WP:BLP, so I don't see how WP:BLPCOI in principle, regardless of the facts of your assertion of personal controversy. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

|}

May 2014 coverage in Independent, Telegraph

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Telegraph: Civil servants behind 'sickening' Hillsborough slurs identified
Independent: Hillsborough Wikipedia posts: Suspected civil servant a Merseyside resident

I propose adding the following sentence at the end of the section "Relations with governments", sourced to these two articles:

In 2014, Wikipediocracy undertook a joint investigation with The Daily Telegraph to identify a UK civil servant who had added insulting comments to the Wikipedia page on the Hillsborough disaster from a government computer.

Andreas JN 466 21:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC) (as indicated on my WP user page, I am a Wikipediocracy moderator)

I'd suggest, at the very least, you use the correct term for the Torygraph, not a dab link as you have suggested. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Well aren't you just a helpful Harriet? I've fixed the link, which was obviously too hard for you to do yourself. — Scott • talk 22:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hm, silly of me: I edited the article without reading the talk-page first, I agree with Andreas: it should go under "Relations with governments", Cheers, Huldra (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent media mentions

Wikipedia bans editor for consistent bias in favour of Arindam Chaudhuri's IIPM (see also Newsweek)
Aussie’s Jar'Edo Wens prank sets new record as Wikipedia’s longest-running hoax, Sydney Morning Herald
Falsche Gottheit narrte jahrelang Wikipedia-Nutzer
Wikipedia’s longest-lived hoax has finally been outed --Andreas JN 466 12:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The story behind Jar’Edo Wens, the longest-running hoax in Wikipedia history, Washington Post --Andreas JN 466 17:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Dob in Wikipedia censors. Exposing Wikipedia gangsterism (Abby Martin on RT on Youtube) Dscotese (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Pointless tag

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Admittedly I don't see the point in the tag slopped on this article. It's like slopping a tag on the wikipedia article and saying "the person who wrote it might have a close connection with the subject". The editor doesn't seem to have any outrageous POV or extraordinary claims and looks neutral enough given the subject. I would remove it but I'd guess I'd be reverted. Comments anybody?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I dont even know what editor it is talking about so in that sense it serves no purpose. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The coverage looks fair to me. If it ranted on about how great the site was and really attacked wikipedia I'd be suspicious but given the nature of the site it looks reasonable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The COI tag refers to User:Alison, who is a cofounder of the site and a frequent contributor to this article who has aggressively added self-serving material and puffery in the past. However, her last edit was in April, so I'd have no object to removing it as long as she abides by WP:COI and continues to refrain from editing the article. Coretheapple (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Unless she actually owns it or has a financial interest in it, thats not really a conflict of interest unless she is blatantly pushing some sort of pro-wikipediocracy POV, which from the diffs doesnt appear to be the case. Certainly I could not describe her as 'aggressively adding puffery and self-serving material' without taking leave of my senses. Nor do her contributions really seem to be all that 'major' when you consider all the others in the history. But by that rationale any Administrator here would have a conflict of interest in any article related to wikipedia or a wikipedia-criticism site as they have advanced permissions and a stake in how wikipedia is depicted. I would point out WP:COI is a guideline which at the most 'strongly discourages' COI editors from editing articles, it doesnt and cannot prohibit it. Someone with a genuine COI can quite happily edit the wikipediocracy article as long as the edits do not fall afoul of any policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, the COI rules are weak. This article demonstrates that. Coretheapple (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldnt say this demonstrates COI at all. Kazakhstan would like a word with you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

10-4. Coretheapple (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's not a good idea that somebody who helps run a site edits it, but I think you have to look at the actual condition of the article. I can't see where there is this gross POV or promotion. It highlights some of the more notable cases and is sourced. Glad to see it has been removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The COI edits have been removed, so yes, the promotion is largely gone. Since the repetitive and tiresome COI editing seems to be a thing of the past, I'm not opposed to removal of the COI tag. If the COI editing resumes, it will be a different situation. Coretheapple (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Phd thesis not a preferred source

Latest comment: 8 years ago56 comments18 people in discussion

Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. " NE Ent 23:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent, I find it problematic that your reverted a source written by a woman, as you know WP has a problem with denigrating the contributions of women and this is just another example among many. Not good. Also, the dissertation in question is an expert-level opinion (because it's for a doctorate degree, which is an advanced academic standard) and thus qualifies as an academic expert source, which is what we want in these kind of articles. The University of Oxford is a world class university. Cla68 (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't you have anything better to do than to ascribe sexist labels when they don't exist except in your head? And who's the IP whose sole contribution was to restore your edit?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Looked like a Verizon Wireless user in Arizona. Enhance your suspicions based on that, and carry on. Signed, - Mister 2001:558:1400:10:F439:4EFB:4A25:30C0 (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It's simple. Doctoral thesis = NOT an acceptable, published, reliable source. That Cla68 would bring the supposed gender of the author into the discussion is silly; that they would suggest the revert was done because Ent and Bbb are sexists is despicable, besides a violation of AGF and NPA. Come on Cla68. Don't sink to this level. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious (as an observer of this discussion) how "can be used" turned into "NOT...acceptable"? Can you explain that, Drmies? - 2601:42:C100:9D83:A035:EAC4:B6DE:71BF (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that Cla68 called anyone 'sexist.' I do see where Drmies called Cla68's writing 'despicable,' however, and where Bbb23 said Cla68 'ascribed sexist labels' in their reply. Who sunk to what level is easy to see, as I am looking down at them.→StaniStani 02:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's special. Perhaps you can explain where the "reverted a source written by a woman" comes from. Such interesting literalism! Well, I didn't call their writing despicable. Cla is a respected editor of FAs and DYKs; I have complete faith in their ability to make themselves understood. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The PhD dissertation is not 'cited in the literature' and thus is probably not usable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP.→StaniStani 03:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Drmies is wrong, dissertations are in fact academic and juried by experts and published and available. Maybe not READILY available, admittedly, but that would be the one and only possible objection to using them as a published source of presumed reliability. They are actually of higher academic merit than your typical double blind journal article. So please do stop making shit up on an IDONTLIKEIT basis. Carrite (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Carrite, you also employing the straw man of IDONTLIKEIT? Tsk tsk. I actually wrote a dissertation; it's gathering dust somewhere on a shelf (it's readily available, of course, on microfilm--not sure you knew that sort of thing) even though its prose is breathtaking and its topic still relevant. It was reviewed, I suppose, but to state that it's reviewed in the way a book or a journal article is reviewed means you simply don't know how this works. I wrote a few of those articles as well, and I suppose you didn't know that "double blind" is not very common. The last article I got accepted was reviewed by five readers, and while that high a number is unusual, it's not that uncommon. No, the standards for editing and reviewing for journal articles and published books is much, much higher than for theses and dissertations (I'm directing one, and am a second reader on two others). You are welcome to state your "opinion", it's just that your opinion is surprisingly uninformed, and that you throw in IDONTLIKE it, well, that's just the hot sauce on the hot air. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
No not usable, which is a shame as there is material re paid editing that is interesting. The use of it here is not only objectionable on source grounds but also is UNDUE, as others have noted. Coretheapple (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Now you're the one making shit up on an IDONTLIKEIT basis. I call your attention to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, one clause of which reads: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Carrite (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not that "I don't like" but that COI editors are rampaging over this article, and stuffing it with puffery, rules out the window. As usual. I'm waiting for the site co-founder to step in and edit the article, as she has done in the past. But no "connected contributor" tag on this article. Why? 'Cause the COI editors no like. Funny. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A doctoral thesis may be a good source in some circumstances, but not in all. (The sex of its author is, of course, irrelevant.) What has been missed in the above discussion is that the thesis is being cited not primarily for factual information, but for the subjective opinions of the thesis-writer. Thus, the most relevant question is not whether dissertations are or are not valid sources for Wikipedia, but whether quoting a paragraph of Ms. Ford's opinions in this article would give them undue weight. Assuming it is, it still might be appropriate to (for example) cite the thesis for factual context, or offer it as an external link, or the like. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

What he said. Although I will add that at this point what usually happens is people have a discussion as to if the person is notable enough for their opinion to be included. Given Heather Ford is a nobody I would say not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

*cough* Brustopher (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah saw that. Stand by my comments. The list of puffy BLP articles of WMF/Wikipedia affiliated persons is getting longer... Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

RS policy is clear secondary sources are clear; ironically, if someone had read the thesis in greater attention, they would have realized it references a Wikipedia preferred secondary source Washington Post in describing Wikipediocracy's role [11]. (I'd support inclusion even though it's written by a gurl, as the likelihood of catching Cooties over the Internet is very low). NE Ent 00:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I've left a message on Dr Ford's talk page asking for her opinion on this whole matter. Brustopher (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I can add, but thank you, Brustopher for pinging me about this :) I agree with Newyorkbrad (but definitely not with Only in death ;)). Theses are used pretty often on Wikipedia (so too are social media sources!) What matters is whether the statement in the article is accurately being reflected by the citation and the context of its arguments (without undue weight, as Newyorkbrad notes). This may be more clearly decided as the chapters of the dissertation are published in journals in the coming months, but there's no reason to dismiss a citation merely because it is a PhD thesis, nor is this the reason to automatically accept it. I'm curious about what you decide because I can't find what statement in particular is being argued about. (Maybe someone could let me know?) Thanks :) hfordsa (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hfordsa This is the edit which inserted a few thoughts from your dissertation. This edit, twice added, has been twice reverted, and the argument here ensued: [12]. JackTheVicar (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with NYB and others in general, and in particular with Hfordsa about wanting specifics pointed out. I've seen several doctoral dissertations included in the bibliographies of articles in reference works, like encyclopedias, and I cannot see any reason to keep such items out, if they are considered reliable for information from other academic sources. This source is almost certainly at least acceptable for broadly noncontroversial information. In general, I would be very hesitant to use the opinions of any academic source for content in an article, with the exception, perhaps, of noncontroversial opinions. Regarding other material, as the material is discussed and referenced in published journals, that material would meet the same criteria as any other material published in peer reviewed journals. Having said all that, of course, if the material in question is both included in the source, is more or less describing the "purpose" of wikipediocracy, and is consistent with the opinions of the authorities at wikipediocracy, then it would to my eyes qualify as noncontroversial. Whether it might qualify on the basis of other criteria might be a separate issue. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Cla68's insertion of Ford's analysis from her Ph.D. dissertation. I think it's a benign and salient observation and I think it's a worthwhile academic opinion of Wikipediocracy's purpose and efficacy vis-à-vis a discussion of Wikipedia growth and the resulting growth of disaffection and criticism. It is just as valid as if Wired or The New York Times assessed Wikipediocracy's purpose. I compare it also to an academic's paper discussing a novel's or a medieval poem's merits and exploring it through the lens of objective analysis or critical reception (some are less than objective but still have valid points worth discussing or sharing and weighing against contrary ideas). We wouldn't dismiss an academic's opinion of Chaucer or Trollope, if a Ph.D. dissertation covered them (as many do), so why should we dismiss a Ph.D. dissertation that looks at the Wikipedia phenomenon and its critics. I discount the "undue weight" argument as there are other opinions equally represented in this article, and Ms. Ford's observation explained in a sentence or two doesn't tip the balance one way or the other when looking at the article as a whole. If FAs can use an occasional PhD dissertation, cautiously, this lesser quality article could benefit from one as well. You may disagree, but I think the inclusion of more information is always best and a net benefit. I fear some of the opposition is just a way to oppose anything that explains Wikipediocracy. That kind of opposition, to me, while ensconcing itself in the mantle of WP:UNDUE and WP:SCHOLARSHIP (which happens to support including publically accessible, completed Ph.D. dissertations as reliable sources) seems like a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the wizard saying "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". Let the readers weigh Wikipediocracy's merits or not based on the article and its sources, we should agree to err on the side of inclusion when information improves an article. This is one of those times. Besides, we're talking about a dissertation by an Oxonian which I think would be rigorously reviewed and moreso than an opinion from The New York Times. JackTheVicar (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the author of that piece (with all due respect) is sufficiently notable as to warrant inclusion in this article. Yes there is a Wikipedia article on her, tagged, justifiably I believe, for notability. The article already has a puffy aroma, is top-heavy with "hot diggedy dog what a great website" stuff. Let's tone it down. Bad enough that half the people editing the article are regulars on the website, not excluding the website founder who occasionally pops in to update the piece, and not excluding the "Wikipediocracy trustee" who added the Ford material. Coretheapple (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Most academics and journalists aren't notable in the way that a writer like David McCullough or Joseph Ellis is in that best-seller way. Most labor in relative anonymity and end up in oblivion. However, they do write reliable sources. Even a few hundred years later, most Dante scholarship relies on people who mine old not-really-notable books by not-really-notable Italians, many of them priests and monks. If you use your test, half the articles on Wikipedia need to be pruned of sources written by not-famous, barely notable, easily forgotten writers. I just added some geological information to an article about a state park. None of those geologists are "notable" by any means. There really are no geology superstars. Nevertheless, their lack of renown doesn't undermine the reliability or verifiability of their work and subject of their work. A lowly Ph.D. might drudge away teaching for 50 years and never "make it". That happens. However, a Ph.D. dissertation can be a reliable source and just as reliable as a book, magazine or newspaper article, or academic paper in a journal no one ever reads, and that is regardless of whether the academic who produced it goes on to fame and glory. Your argument is thus rather specious on its face. As for the Wikipediocracy connexion: this isn't the first time someone interested or associated with an article has added to an article. While it's alarming conduct it doesn't negate the validity of Ford's statement which adds to the information available in the article. Again, it is inconsequential...as someone not affiliated with Wikipediocracy, I would have added it and assessed it as a salient observation worth including. Would you have reverted it then had I inserted it? It is not a bad addition, but because it's Wikipediocracy, some people won't like it no matter what the circumstances. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I think it's fairer to say that because it's Wikipediocracy, the usual fan club is out in force. Coretheapple (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, the person in this thread most identified with Wikipediocracy (StaniStani) has opined that the language quoted from the dissertation should not be used, even though on balance it is favorable to Wikipediocracy. We should always be mindful of COI issues, but we shouldn't typecast people either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, right. If it wasn't for a COI edit we wouldn't be having this conversation: If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions. Given that COI editors have been all over this article like a cheap suit since it was created, let's not kid ourselves. Coretheapple (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Having reviewed the history of the article since the beginning of 2015, I'm not sure that I see that many edits from individuals who to my awareness have COI issues per se, acknowledging the IP edits might be, I dunno. Of course, that is at least partially depending on how one defines COI. And, certainly, as Brad has already pointed out, the most visible editor of that forum, Stanistani, along with at least me and Brad and a few others who have been known to post there, don't support inclusion of the material at least at this time. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Rather than COI editors making either good, bad or indifferent edits to this article, the best solution is that regular contributors and, of course, the cofounder of the site, not edit this article. The COI rule is pretty clear on that. But as I said, this article exists in a kind of air pocket all its own. It's all about how the contributors are a helluva bunch of people, real watchdogs, real fine souls, and those fine souls are editing the article. Fancy that. COI? Wassat? Coretheapple (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

But, in all honesty, wouldn't any other individual editor here, who isn't necessarily at all involved there, potentially have some form of COI problems themselves, regarding a site which is regularly critical of this site? And, perhaps, particularly if at some time they as individuals may or may not have been discussed in a less than complimentary way there? That being the case, I might agree that this article does exist in kind of an air pocket of its own, maybe with Wikipedia Review, of being an article about which at least potentially every single person who edits here at all could be at least theoretically perceived to have a conflict of interests about? John Carter (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard that position espoused before by the COI editors here. If we apply that rather self-serving standard, then anyone on Wikipediocracy could essentially veto participation of any editor here by simply starting a conversation about him or her and making uncomplimentary remarks. In that way, voila! Misconduct is jiu-jitsued into a kind of gaming of the system to let COI editors run rampant. So the answer to your question is no, this is like any other article. WP:COS applies. But yes, it is in an air pocket in that it is not enforced. Coretheapple (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I find your dismissive refusal to address the validity of the point made, and attempt to equate a reasonable concern about at least implicitly assumed prior discussion with subsequent discussion in your comment above to be at best questionable. On the basis of the above comment, and some of your other comments, in all honestly, you seem to have cast yourself at least implicitly in the position of a foe of the site, which, honestly, would mean that there is good reason to believe that WP:COS could be reasonably seen to apply to you as well. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure I've addressed the "validity of the point," by showing that it isn't valid. And yes, I know, the COI editors don't have COI and the non-COI editors have COI. Being critical of COI gives you a bad case of COI. As a matter of fact, pretty much everything except having a COI means that you have a COI, when it comes to this article. Black is white in this air pocket. Coretheapple (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any proposed changes which you believe would solve this puffery problem? To my knowledge pretty much all sources covering WO are either positive or neutral, and Wikipedia is meant to reflect reliable sources. What exactly would you propose doing to remove so-called puffery? Brustopher (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of the puffery that's been shoved into this article over the years by COI editors has been removed, a point that I did not make very clear in my remarks in this section (though I did say that in a previous section). Yes, this article does have a promotional tone, but I'm not sure what can be done about that in light of the reality of the editing atmosphere here. Yes, the article's sources are generally favorable. If I felt they were problematic, I'd have removed them some time ago. In the Ford instance I didn't have to, because other editors did so. Coretheapple (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(e-c) I agree with Coretheapple, insofar as in your eyes your black is white. Bluntly, I have seen very little but explicit assumptions of bad faith on the part of everyone other than yourself based simply on whether they have any activity at the site. Not everyone who posts there necessarily counts others as "friends" or "foes." You however, in what to my eyes may be among the most profound indicators of lack of self-awareness I have seen here, seem to believe that somehow, despite your clearly painting everyone who edits there is the broadest of brushes, that somehow you are more objective than others. I actually looked for RS's on the WO site elsewhere recently, admittedly in a cursory fashion, under the circumstances, and didn't find anything much by way of negative coverage of the WO site in reliable sources. And yet, you seem to be insisting on judging the material added by others, from RS, based on the fact that, to your eyes, there isn't sufficient negative coverage of it presented here. I have seen nothing from you to meet WP:BURDEN regarding your assertion, and, on that basis, reiterate my point that frankly, based on your comments here, you as an individual may well be personally among the least qualified to determine the content of this article. I will cease from further responses to your template repetition of "black is white," which I full well expect, until and unless you as an individual meet the accepted requirements here to demonstrate that the assumption of bad faith implicit in your negative comment about the history of editing here is substantiated by your producing material from RS which demonstrate that the negative coverage you apparently devoutly believe the site has had is in fact shown to exist. And, yes, FWIW, I'll probably check some of the subscription databanks myself regarding this topic later this week for what they might have, because, frankly, I am personally seeing a very strong almost absolute assertion of "White is black" from at least one editor here. Otherwise, I think WP:SOAPBOX or similar might apply to the comments made by at least one editor here. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It's really a simple situation that I can reduce to one sentence: the COI editors, meaning the regular WO contributors, should stay away and leave this article to people who don't have a COI. We are having this discussion because a "Wikipediocracy trustee" added promotional material to this article. When I say "black is white," I'm referring to obvious COIs like that being shrugged off, and special categories of COI being created out of thin air to silence people who are opposed to genuine COI such as that. In response to the previous comment, over great and extremely strenuous objections and personal attacks, in edits some weeks ago I removed much of the puffery in this article. (see my comment above at 17:46, 29 September 2015) If there's more I'll certainly suggest its removal and yes, I know there will be top-of-the-lungs screaming. Why? Because this is a COI air pocket where black is white. Coretheapple (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Coretheapple, what specifically is the conflicting interest that is inherent in a WO contributor editing this article? How is it different from a Reddit contributor editing the article on Reddit, or anyone here editing articles about WP? Or are those also COI violations in your mind? (I'm not a WO contributor, past or present, btw.) alanyst 20:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if there's any point in discussing how we can apply WP:COS to this article, how much participation in that site should constitute a COI, since people with undeniable, obvious COIs, such as the website co-founder, have edited the article with impunity. Reddit is the Atlantic Ocean compared to this tiny pond on the Internet, so I don't think that's an apt comparison. Coretheapple (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that your not wanting to discuss this is because you as an individual, according to the material here, available to those of you who can see it, have not been particularly highly spoken of there, and that on that basis there is no I believe very good reason to believe that you who seem to count yourself among the site's enemies as per WP:COS should avoid editing the article as well. I believe that there are other editors, held in much higher regard by the community here, such as former arb User:Newyorkbrad, admin and arb clerk User:Liz, and others who have both occasionally posted to that site and been held in very high regard here and who may not have the possibly strong emotional objection to the site that you might be seen to have. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Truthfully, I don't think any current or former editor or admin is held in high regard at WO. No person is immune from ridicule and judgment. I've been a target some times. But I also find people there having certain discussions which don't happen on WP and so I do check in there to see what's on their minds. But this opinion is irrelevant to the subject of editing the article, I was just pinged so I thought I'd weigh in. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to indicate you were in high regard here, as an admin, and my apologies for the obviously dubiously competent phrasing. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If you think I'm in high regard, you weren't at my RfA! But, seriously, regarding WO, I'm often surprised by who shows up to discuss Wikipedia there, lots of familiar names. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of "familiar," this "they talk about you there so COI editing here is OK" trope is definitely a familiar theme on this page. Coretheapple (talk)

Possibly because you as an individual maybe refuse to address it? And, if you are going to paraphrase others, at least make a reasonable attempt to get it right. I said WP:COS, because you seem to be a rather strong enemy of the site. COS and COI are not entirely the same thing. Refusing to directly address the concerns raised by others by saying "familiar theme on this page" is beginning to look to me like maybe being one of most frequent ways taken to refuse to deal with such concerns. And, like Liz indicated above, despite one individual's apparent absolute conviction that everybody who posts there is somehow supporting paid editing, which so far as I remember is one of Coretheapple's favorite topics of discussion, that isn't even remotely the only thing that is discussed there. John Carter (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Possibly because this discussion is a waste of time, another familiar theme on this page. Coretheapple (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe what some people insistently call a "waste of time" is what other people call a case of WP:IDHT regarding the possible applicability of WP:COS to you as an individual. So, rather than rather vapidly repeating "common theme" on an almost post-by-post basis, it is worth noting you seem to above say that there is no point in discussing WP:COS because, some might say, it seems to so clearly apply to you and your rather long-standing almost single-minded obsession with opposition to paid editing in any form. So, why not stop wasting your time in such boring repetition on this page and maybe acknowledge that one of the reasons things might have to be repeated to you regarding COS and other matters so often is because you don't seem to be able to recognize that your COS driven by your personal crusade against paid editing in any and all forms might be stronger than that of many, if not most, of the non-banned editors who frequent that site, most if not all of whom you seem to, rather falsely in the eyes of most others, seem to rather irrationally insist on grouping together as a WP:CABAL of some sort? John Carter (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Getting to this level of talk page contributions is hard work. You have my admiration. Coretheapple (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I notice that a few people here who revert-warred with me said that Heather Ford wasn't notable, when she happens to have a WP bio, since 2007, which explains that she is an expert on Internet and open source issues. I purposely didn't wiki-link to her BLP as an experiment to see if the responders would automatically assume that, because she is a female doctoral student, that she "wasn't notable." And, some of you now contend that WP's notorious anti-female bias didn't have a play in what just occurred here? Ha, and I have a bridge to sell you all also. Notice that none of you even checked to see if she had a BLP before reverting. Great work, WP. Cla68 (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, gotcha! Brilliant scheme. I don't see anyone saying that "source is not acceptable because woman". That you would surmise that's the reason for rejecting it says more about you than about WP and its editors. Are we going to be up on some external website soon? Name and shame them, Cla, that's how we're living. Tweet me when you have more. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  - In addition to the foregoing, the paper appears to be largely based on this article. Coretheapple (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please post diffs of "a few" people saying that Heather Ford wasn't notable. (Actually if anyone feels that way, they should be commenting at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heather_Ford, not here of course.) NE Ent 01:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

break

There's little in WP:RS to suggest the particular authorship of a source is highly relevant to its appropriateness (with exception for WP:SELFSOURCE). Given the total lack of secondary source mention of the paper [13], its inclusion here -- especially the perceived need to refer / peacock the author's "a specialist in Internet policy and law," suggests pursuing a POV rather than striving for an encyclopedic article. NE Ent 01:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Demur If the "publisher" is questioned, still the identity of the author does not appear to be in question. Opinions of persons noted in the field are citable as opinion whether it be in the Daily Mail or the New York Times - or in a Ph.D. dissertation. If she is a nobody, whose opinions are therefore not notable, then that should be what we are discussing. If she is a Jonathan Zittrain, then that is what we ought to discuss. All the rest is a bit of a sideshow here, especially with the non-utile charges about editors being made. If she is the current person at Leeds University with a number of publications per [14] then, within the sphere of Wikipedia research, she appears notable, in my opinion. Leeds University is a reasonably respected university, IIRC. That site does not list as having a doctorate, but definitely lists her as faculty (UAF in Communications in the School of Media and Communication). Collect (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Found: University Academic Fellowship which appears to be an internship for "associate Professorships" as far as I can determine. Significant salary, so not a "teaching assistant" type of job. Collect (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Investigate"

Latest comment: 8 years ago18 comments9 people in discussion

There's been some back and forth over my edit changing "investigate" to "discuss." "Investigate" is simply not supported by the given source, which is the home page of the article. The word "investigate" does not even appear on the home page, except for the sentence "...first brought to light by a piece of investigative journalism in The Daily Dot." Even if it was, it would be self-serving per WP:SELFSOURCE and not usable. So if the home page is changed to accommodate us based on this discussion, I don't think we can oblige. This seems pretty clear to me, so I'm surprised to see established users quibbling over this. We need other sources to say that. If so, then by all means, it can go back in. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually unless you want to get into an argument as to what defines an 'investigation', most of your arguments are meaningless. A brief look at any of the blog posts shows the authors investigate various issues for an OED definition of the word investigate. 'Reliable secondary sources' are not needed to justify use of a common English word in prose when describing something that is obvious. What you are arguing is a content issue over phrasing/using of language, which ultimately comes down to a consensus discussion to remove it given the status quo. As an aside - even if the homepage DID change to explicitly include the word investigate, you would still be wrong because primary sources are perfectly valid when describing what that source's stated aims/goals/motive/purpose etc is. But thats not required anyway to justify use of a common English word. The SELFSOURCE stuff is just irrelevant. Arguing that a website that has broken quite a few scandals within wikipedia would be self-serving by describing themselves as 'investigating' is ridiculous. How do you think they did their homework? Voodoo? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Support "discuss," more neutral NPOV term. NE Ent 12:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "discuss" does not include a sense of "doing research into" - which is also clearly part of what that site does. "Investigate" has an air of "police detective" about it - which is also not super clear. What it seems to do is compile information about various issues, and discuss the results of the compiled information, and also ramble on any convenient tangent proffered. Collect (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe to you it does, but not by default. Webster's 1913:

To follow up step by step by patient inquiry or observation; to trace or track mentally; to search into; to inquire and examine into with care and accuracy; to find out by careful inquisition; as, to investigate the causes of natural phenomena.

wikt:investigate has it more simply as

To inquire into or study in order to ascertain facts or information.

As Only in death comments, investigate is a common and obvious English word to use in this context. — Scott • talk 14:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Discuss" or "explore" are much more NPOV than "investigate," in the absence of independent sourcing. Coretheapple (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

As already explained, sourcing is not required for use of a common English word to describe a process that is clearly an investigation. Also in what way is the word 'investigate' non-neutral? Given that investigations can be both positive or negative in their outcomes, and positive or negative in their execution. It is inherantly a neutral description of a process. Feel free to go find some reliable sources that describe the word as not neutral. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not neutral, indeed it is extravagant puffery, because this is an article about a bulletin board, not a police precinct or detective agency. A claim like that, being somewhat unusual, requires multiple third party sourcing. Here there is none, as conceded. Coretheapple (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well when you can come up with a source that says the word investigate is extravagant puffery and not a neutral common english word in everyday use, you might have a point. Since there isnt, you dont. Also please provide sources that show using the word investigate to describe a website devoted to uncovering misdeeds is 'somewhat unusual' again, common english word in everyday use everywhere to describe common investigatory practices. Unless you want to back up with some decent sources that state the word investigate is a non-neutral descriptor, you really have no argument other than 'I dont like it'.Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The question is whether it is accurate. For that we need something called "verifiable and reliable sources." The "reliable source" that someone so generously supplied for that assertion is the home page of the website, and the only thing on the home page that can be remotely construed as a "source" is the self-glorying "mission statement," which does not indicate that it conducts investigations. See your position is essentially "it's obviously investigations - hey look at the website!" In other words, original research. Not just puffery, but sheer fancruft. Coretheapple (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Guys, it's a Friday night. How about you put on your fedoras and moleskin vests and go out and display your plumage for awhile? I'm sure the regulars and visitors at your local watering holes will immediately genuflect when you explain what a bigshot on WP you are. Cla68 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm with you up till the watering hole part. Some of us don't drink. Caloric, addictive. Just bad all around. Not being investigators, we are just pawns, tools of the Unseen Hand in the great conspiracy. (Not night either at the moment.) Coretheapple (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it's as if an occult hand was moving us like pieces in some cosmic game of Battleship. Herostratus (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well what else could motivate total strangers to collaborate on someone else's encyclopedia? The intelligent ones among us are doing so for pay. The rest of us, unmotivated by anything but politics or vague interest in various subjects, willingly engage in honest labor to benefit a third party, The Big J. We do not draw a salary. The Big J does. Clearly an ominous, invisible force is driving us. One day I will write an essay on this, and if so, will the subject of this article publish it? I fear it is off-topic, or perhaps too on-topic. Coretheapple (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to recapitulate, the sentence in question is "Wikipediocracy contributors have investigated problems, conflicts, and controversies associated with Wikipedia, some being reported by mainstream media." FON wanted to change to "discuss," which I think is OK but "explore" is better, and I've changed to that. That seems to be a more accurate summary statement of the section that follows, especially considering the way this sentence is structured. But I agree that "investigate" doesn't cut it. I guess if there's going to be adamant feelings to retain that word, we'll have to go an RfC. Coretheapple (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have undone your change. Explore has a completely different connotation to investigate. Don't claim any consensus for this change, because it doesn't exist. — Scott • talk 09:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have no strong opinion other than to agree that "investigate" is not the proper word. Gandydancer (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  - Scott, I thought it was a compromise between "discuss" and "investigate." I can't see a clear consensus for either, so I guess we'll have to go to DR or RfC or LSMFT or whatever. Coretheapple (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b Morris, Kevin (23 April 2013). "Wikipedia says its staffers are not vandalizing Wikipedia". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 24 May 2013.
^ Hogsky, Roger (2013). "Busy day at the Wikimedia Foundation office?". Blog. Wikipediocracy. Retrieved 24 May 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^ Morris, Kevin (1 January 2013). "After a half-decade, massive Wikipedia hoax finally exposed". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 18 May 2013.
^ Schroeder, Audra (20 September 2013). "Are plastic surgeons nip/tucking ads into high-profile Wikipedia articles?". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 7 October 2013.

[vandalizing-1] Morris, Kevin (23 April 2013). "Wikipedia says its staffers are not vandalizing Wikipedia". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 24 May 2013.

[2] Hogsky, Roger (2013). "Busy day at the Wikimedia Foundation office?". Blog. Wikipediocracy. Retrieved 24 May 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[3] Morris, Kevin (1 January 2013). "After a half-decade, massive Wikipedia hoax finally exposed". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 18 May 2013.

[4] Schroeder, Audra (20 September 2013). "Are plastic surgeons nip/tucking ads into high-profile Wikipedia articles?". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 7 October 2013.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]