Talk:Wikipediocracy

"Domain ownership" section

The final section called Wikipediocracy#Domain ownership seems tacked on and not really relevant, unless it is there to lend credibility to (or remove credibility from, depending on your views) the site. I've tried to change this section into a short section called "Community", explaining that administrators and current and banned editors contribute there, which is more useful than who owns the domain name, IMO. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? I do not think it is an extraordinary claim, and Kohs' ownership of the domain would fit in such a section quite nicely. Optimom (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Putting my reader's hat on for a moment, I would find this information very important. The domain owner is typically the owner of the web site, although not always. If we can find better information from secondary sources about the ownership or control of the site, then of course that would be preferable. That said, I don't think the ownership sentence needs it's own section. - MrX 22:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

What are your reliable sources for "banned editors"? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping for the section to say 'current and former' Wikipedians, or similar, without specifying banned or unbanned. Optimom (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be equally non-informative to write "dead and living Wikipedians" or "male and female and sexually ambiguous Wikipedians". Despite conditioned reflexes acting at multiple fora (ANI, talk pages of the future Qworty's etc.), Wikipedia's daily two-minutes-hate is neither a reliable source nor interesting. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well okay then. I just think the last section on "domain ownership" seems tacked on is all. I will leave it to others to decide. Optimom (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That was what the section was about originally, but someone kept trying to force it to be about Kohs and entitled the section "commercial ownership" with the change in the section heading to "domain ownership" being my attempt to appease him.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This would fit in a subsection for "Community" quite nicely. :) Optimom (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed per WP:BLP, RS, V

I removed the original research. Please add a reliable source before re-adding it. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

"Criticism of Wikipediocracy" section

There ought to be one. After all, it's not like the site hasn't had some cogent criticisms made against it. There aren't many (or any) published ones, because the site's not that notable, but there have been some made here. I could be wrong about this, but I think those can be used if published anywhere, even a blog post, if that post then ref's back to the diff here. Even though blog posts are generally unreliable, I suppose that reliably ref'd statements in them are OK, and Wikipedia diffs are reliable, so Bob's your uncle. Right?

So if anyone here who has a blog wants to publish such a post and link to it here, that might be good. Herostratus (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope.

Your stylistically and factually slovenly posting demonstrates why Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Please see WP:RS, WP:V. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I like this idea. Perhaps title the section "Wikipedian reactions", and include some of the things Wikipedians say about the site and its members and readers. Optimom (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you joking, or just don't care about core policies? Why don't you two write an article with such OR and get it published in a forum with a professional editorial process (WP:RS)? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not joking that I like the idea. Optimom (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's too OR to roll like that. However, if the thing gets moved to WP-space, I could see that being a good way to go. Problem is the Wikipediots really don't have the dispassion to handle it properly even there.TCO (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It might be too original-research-ish. Maybe not. But that's debatable I think. The reliability of the sources really isn't, I don't think. Kiefer Wolfowitz, there's no need to be shirty here. Suppose (let us say) that it was considered worthwhile -- that is, of sufficient interest and notability -- to include a passage such as (for instance) "Some commentators on Wikipedia itself have characterized Wikipediocracy as 'a nexus of ill-tempered, shirty little whiners' (etc etc etc)<ref><ref><ref>" (assuming that anyone was rude enough -- or insightful enough? A matter of opinion I suppose -- to make such a statement.) Well the purpose of WP:RS rules is to establish that the citation is accurate -- that the person (in this example, a member of the class "Some commentators on Wikipedia itself") really did make the statement, for instance. If the New York Times says so, that's pretty reliable. But Wikipedia diffs are 100% reliable. Even if it's Joe Blow's Basement Blog -- even if its a post in the comment section of Joe Blow's Basement Blog -- it's actually better than an article in the New York Times. Because any reader can trace to the diff (assuming that Joe Blow's Basement Blog provided them), and Wikipedia diffs can't be convincingly faked. So reliability is not an issue, it's off the table. That's my view, but it's a strong position I think. Again, notability and so forth is different. But we can't leave the impression that the entity in question is, or is viewed as, an entirely anodyne and upright little website, I don't think. That wouldn't be accurate, or fair, or right, or neutral, and'd be a disservice to the reader. Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work. Who here has a blog or website, show of hands. Herostratus (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that criticize the subject of the article, then that is the basis from which to begin a discussion. Absent such sources, this "there oughta be" proposal is dead on arrival. Blogs will not be used to establish a criticism of section. Tarc (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's too troll to trawl like that. ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

But Tarc, couldn't we have a section on why there's no section on Wikipedian commentators on this article, and source it to this section of the talk page? And if we can't have that, can we at least have a section on the conspiracy to suppress the section on why we can't have a section?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A "Wikipedian reactions" section would be quite entertaining but at this point, yes, OR.Volunteer Marek 21:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A "List of opinions about Wikipediocracy and its contributors by Wikipedians" would be really funny. Cla68 (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

We could start a Web site to talk about how we want to talk about deleting the page that that has (or should have) a section that talks about how Wikipediocracy keeps looking at us funny. We could call it....Wikipediocracy. Oh wait.... MarkBernstein (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to go register the domain wikipediocracyreview.com right now. And before you get any ideas, that's Wikipediocracy Review™.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Why? Herostratus (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That's an excellent question.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Entities are reliable sources for their own contents

Thanks for responding, User:Tarc, User:Cla68, User:Volunteer Marek, User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, and User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Hi guys! I hear you.

Well, it's quite an interesting issue. Let's drill down a bit. (It's troublesome to constantly type "Wikipediocracy", so I'll use the common shorthand "WO" throughout instead.)

Regarding reliability, well of course Entities are always reliable sources for their own contents. I don't suppose that this is stated anywhere, nor need it be. It is as obvious as the sun. We also probably don't state anywhere "Entities are themselves" or "Entities that exist are not non-existent" and so forth. We are encyclopiasts, not doctors of philosophy, and we needn't and don't have passages such as "Rule 37.B.4: Entities are themselves; for instance, the New York Times is the New York Times and not a freeway bypass in Fresno".

Let's look at a concrete example of this. For instance, take this passage (from Wikipediocracy): The site describes its mission as being: "to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, along with its structural flaws; and to inoculate the unsuspecting public against the torrent of misinformation, defamation, and general nonsense that issues forth from one of the world’s most frequently visited websites, the 'encyclopedia that anyone can edit'."

Of course we're not saying that this is their mission -- that their statement is true. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, or maybe it's partly true. What is true is that they assert it.

Anyway, the ref for the passage is WO itself. But is WO a reliable source? No, it's not. We wouldn't publish "The capital of New York State is Albany", or anything else, with the cited ref being WO.

So how on earth can we publish the passage? Because it's on the website. The ref points to the passage. No sane person is going to go there and be like "Well, I see these words on the website, but they may not actually be there because the website is not a reliable source". That would be, literally, insane. Another way to state this is "Entities are always reliable sources for their own contents".

Hopefully we can all agree on this, at least. Herostratus (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I got some pushback on these two recently added sections, so just to make sure that at least this first section can be put to bed, let me state it another way using examples.

1. If the New Yorker prints "Cornel West was born in 1953" then we can, in an article, write "Cornel West was born in 1953" and cite the New Yorker, because the New Yorker is a reliable source -- we know that The New Yorker runs a vigorous fact-checking operation and we can assume that they have vetted the statement.
2. If Joe Smith's Personal Blog prints "Cornel West was born in 1953" then we cannot, in an article, write "Cornel West was born in 1953" and cite Joe Smith's Personal Blog, because Joe Smith's Personal Blog is not a reliable source -- we can't assume thatJoe Smith's Personal Blog runs a vigorous fact-checking operation and have properly vetted the statement.
3. And for the same reason, if Joe Smith's Personal Blog prints "Reggie Jackson was in the Jackson 5" then we cannot, in an article, write "Reggie Jackson was in the Jackson 5" and cite Joe Smith's Personal Blog, and this applies to anything else appearing in Joe Smith's Personal Blog.
4. But we can write, in an article, write "Joe Smith's Personal Blog said that 'Reggie Jackson was in the Jackson 5'" and cite Joe Smith's Personal Blog -- if for some reason we felt this was enclopedic. Joe Smith's Personal Blog is probably not notable enough for us to cite what they say, or maybe the blog has gone west and so the statement is not verifiable, and there may be many other good reasons for not including that passage in an article. But lack of reliability would not be one of them. Herostratus (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be amazed to see a refutation of this particular point, but maybe I've missed something; but absent some refutation appearing presently and their are no objections, I'd be OK with collapsing this subsection with a note that "It's established that entities are reliable sources for their own contents" and moving on to other matters. Herostratus (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

We need to present the subject fairly and evenhandedly, per NPOV

So we've established a basic point regarding reliability. Now let's move on to neutrality, with a side trip to notability.

OK, now suppose I assert that the mission of WO is to ruin people's lives for sport; to discern the identities of the Wikipedia's editors and falsely accuse them of infamous crimes; to attack, damage, and if possible destroy the Wikipedia; to send agents to the Wikipedia to troll, whine, insult, degrade, and render the Wikipedia's editing processes as unpleasant as possible; and, in a larger sense, to degrade the concept of community, volunteerism, non-profit charity, and social good on the internet, and to the extent possible impede the dissemination of free information to the peoples of Earth. For the purposes of moving the discussion forward, I now so assert.

Of course I don't know for a fact this is true; maybe it is, maybe it isn't, or maybe it's partly true. What is true is that I assert it.

(Granted, there is a notability difference between little me and WO. I'm just one instance of the class "some Wikipedia editors" while WO is a collective. Suppose then that I get five Wikipedia editors to sign on to the above statement (which for that would have to become a lot less purple; the exact wording isn't important for our purposes here). This then becomes the assertion of "several Wikipedia editors", which I would say is class comparable in notability to the WO brain trust actually responsible for crafting their mission statement, which is small (the brain trust, I mean, not the statement).)

So then we have an almost exactly parallel statement in include in the article:

Conversely, several Wikipedia editors describe the WO's mission as being: "to ruin people's lives for sport; to discern the identities of the Wikipedia's editors and falsely accuse them of infamous crimes; to attack, damage, and if possible destroy the Wikipedia; to send agents to the Wikipedia to troll, whine, insult, degrade, and render the Wikipedia's editing processes as unpleasant as possible; and, in a larger sense, to degrade the concept of community, volunteerism, non-profit charity, and social good on the internet, and to the extent possible impede the dissemination of free information to the peoples of Earth."

(For various good reasons, we don't source directly to Wikipedia pages and shouldn't start now. But no matter, we can source to any second party pointing to a permalink displaying the requisite material, as I've pointed out earlier, as soon as one exists.)

Should we include (something like) that? Yes, of course we should. Or, at any rate, some significant material somewhere indicating that WO is controversial. Because... does the article, Wikipediocracy, as it stands, provide the useful service to the reader of helping her understand what WO is? No, it doesn't. It makes WO look like the Little Sisters of the Poor or something. A person, after reading our article, would be gobsmacked to discover the WO is controversial, that they've been credibly shown to engage in various nefarious activities, or that some people don't like WO. That is not fair to the reader.

Mind, I may be dead wrong about WO. Maybe it really is the bee's knees. That's not important. What's important is that a lot of people, wrongheaded as they may be, don't think so. And the reader needs to know this. That is why we write articles from a neutral point of view, and why WP:NPOV begins "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (Emphasis added.)

That's not a suggestion. It's something we're really supposed to do. It's time to get to work on this. I'm hoping that my esteemed colleagues of the WO persuasion will be big enough to realize that WO -- they WO that they love and cherish, I guess -- does have detractors, and isn't perfect, and we need to fair and forthright about that, and we can work together on this as we move forward on details. Herostratus (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm collapsing this WP:IDHT behemoth/proposal to violate core policies, despite its being rejected by the talk page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mr Wolfowitz, and I appreciate your contribution, but I don't agree that that's a good idea, so I undid that. It is long, but I'm trying to work through this; it's not like it's just a rant or screed. I can't agree with your characterization of the text, so let's discuss it on the merits rather than just capping it, if you please. Herostratus (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

All well and good, but again, you are glossing over the "...that have been published by reliable sources" part of your WP:NPOV quote. Until you produce a criticism backed by a reliable source, there is really nothing to discuss here. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, right. Yes, a collection of good statements about WO would have to be collected -- perhaps a statement(s) signed by several Wikipedians, as suggested above -- and a post made outside of Wikipedia pointing to it. These are both pretty easy to do, and I'll get on that presently (I don't have a blog to point to, and I'm only willing to set one up if I'm 100% sure that doing so would not make it even slightly easier to track me down, which I don't know and will have to look up. If anyone can help in this matter, post to my talk page please). Simultaneously while doing this, I also want to establish that this will be acceptable to the community. Herostratus (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It would not be withing spitting distance of "acceptable"; you or a buddy or whoever can't just throw up a page to the likes of wordpress or blogspot, collect your opinions, and then cite it in a Wikipedia article. If you think that this is in any way, shape, or form acceptable in this project, then we (and by we I mean you) may have a serious competence issue. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to read anything more on this topic. Please don't waste any more time, even your own, on an OR proposal. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it appears that we've lost Mr Wolfowitz, this is too bad as every hand is helpful as we work this out and move forward, but we'll have to carry on I guess. Let me try another way to explain this. Wikipedia is not normally used as a source, but this is because Wikipedia articles aren't reliable by our standards. You would never cite a Wikipedia article in another article, rather you would go to the sources used in that article and use them to construct the second article. In other words, if you were working on the article New York State you would not write "The capital of New York is Albany<ref>{{cite web |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany,_New_York |title=Albany, New York |author= |date= |work=Wikipedia |accessdate=June 10, 2013}}</ref>". Everybody is clear on this, right?

However, doesn't apply to non-article space. Wikipedia is a large and important website and could be cited if it's called for. Of course, there are very few instances were it would be called for. But there are some. For instance, the article Wikipedia cites Wikipedia, as here: "The open nature of Wikipedia has led to various concerns, such as the quality of writing,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About |title=Wikipedia:About – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |publisher=English Wikipedia |accessdate=2012-07-05}}</ref>", where the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:About is cited. There may be other cites of Wikipedia in that article, where Wikipedia or Meta is cited to source data such as the date of founding, number of employees, or whatever, and if so that would be in line for common practice about entities -- for instance, the IBM website might be used to ref IBM's address, and so forth. Is everyone understanding this so far?

Well, that's for the article Wikipedia, which is about Wikipedia. Are there any other articles that might use Wikipedia non-article pages as a ref? Yes, although not very many. For instance, the article History of Online Encyclopedias, if and when it is written, might. A few others maybe. The same applies to Wikipediocracy -- it wouldn't be appropriate to use it as a ref in most articles, but it could be used in the article Wikipediocracy and in fact it is. (Wikipediocracy is very much less notable than Wikipedia so it's not likely to be a good ref in many other articles or even any, as Wikipedia might, but it's possible.)

The article Wikipediocracy would certainly be on this small list, if any are. Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy are very closely related -- Wikipediocracy is about Wikipedia and little else. So it'd be OK to cite Wikipedia non-article pages if it's called for (if the material is germane and belongs in the article, and the ref supports it). After thinking about this some more, I don't think there's no need to use an indirect cite through a separate website; directly ref'ing the Wikipedia would be just as good (better, in terms of WP:V, since as Wikipedia permalinks will always be available -- unless Wikipedia no longer exists, in which case the issue is moot.)

With the above two paragraphs, we get into arguable territory. We've addressed WP:RS and WP:V, but what about WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and notability of the cited source? That's outside the scope of this post, but briefly: WP:NPOV not only allows but requires that we give readers a fair view of any entity, and inform the reader if there are criticisms that are cogent and worth noting. Advisements against using primary sources don't prima facie trump WP:NPOV, which is an extremely important rule. We can return to these points after the primary source is established, which I'll be doing in the coming days.

Seems right to me, and if not right then at least reasonable. If there's something I'm missing we can talk about that, and maybe together find a way to fix it. More arguments-from-authority and ad-hominum arguments probably won't be especially helpful, though, I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite a clever card house you're constructing here, but if an opinion is "worth noting", then it will be noted by a reliable source; if it hasn't, then it isn't. I'm reminded a bit by a recent discussion at Talk:Kurt Cobain#Authenticity of recent image additions, where there is a dearth of non-free Cobain photographs, and a user wanted to insert a new one. The image is of rather poor quality and the authenticity IMO in doubt, but the counter-argument ran along the lines of "bad photographs are better than no photographs, the important thing is that it is free-use". I disagree, as I'd rather have an article devoid of images than one containing poor-quality free ones. Here, the contention is "an article with primary/non-WP:RS criticism-of-Wikipediocracy" vs. "an article without criticism-of-Wikipediocracy at all". I don't think NPOV is achieved by relaxing sourcing requirements; in fact the opposite, IMO NPOV is further violated if fringe criticisms are added...WP:UNDUE and all that. If and when a reliable source quotes Jimbo saying "Wikipediocracy sucks", then I'll be the first one to put it in. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Nature of MyWikiBiz, LaRouche connection

Forgive me if I'm out of line here. I haven't been much involved with Wikipedia lately. I'm looking for reliable sources for the following assertions:

1. MyWikiBiz is a competing wiki encyclopedia to Wikipedia. Kohs was perpetually in conflict with the owner of Wikipedia Review because she alleged that he was using the site as a platform to promote MyWikiBiz.
2. Wikipediocracy was started as a splinter group from Wikipedia Review, soon after the owner discovered that the #2 staff member had been using the site primarily to promote Lyndon LaRouche on Wikipedia. That staff member, Hersh, then went on to co-found Wikipediocracy, and remains affiliated with the Lyndon LaRouche organization.
3. Wikipedia Review had also been infiltrated and subverted by paid employees of Patrick Byrne, the nutty conspiracy-theorist CEO of perpetual money-losing retail site Overstock.com.

Any help would be appreciated. I am only trying to improve Wikipedia, because to understand Wikipediocracy it helps to know a little history. Sole Flounder (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You're forgiven, since you are out of line here, Auggie. And specifically, your comments about Patrick Byrne are probably WP:BLP violations, given that much of Byrne "conspiracy theories" turned out to be based in fact, and that it's impossible to be a "perpetual money-losing" enterprise, if your most-recent quarterly earnings report shows net income of $7.7 million. (And the quarter before that, $8.8 million; and the quarter before that, $2.7 million; and the quarter before that, $470K; and the quarter before that, $2.7 million.) How much did Encyc.whatever earn over each of the past quarters? - Awaken lemon (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, Encyc earns $0 every quarter. Sole Flounder (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

1. MyWikiBiz is more relevant to the Kohs article than here. Greg doesn't have an ad for MWB in his sig on Wikipediocracy. It is mentioned but not linked on his profile. It does not get mentioned very often now. Greg downplays it as a significant part of his income and I see no reason to disbelieve him. In any case, there are now plenty of people who advertise services even on WP. Look for a Gibraltarpedia-related TFA real soon now.

1. Hersch is less prominent on Wikipediocracy than he was on WR. He does manage the blog but other people write far more than he does and I have not noticed any LaRouche stuff surface in the blogs. It does occasionally appear in the forums but Hersh does not do any of the moderation there and there are enough people who say it is crackpottery whenever it is mentioned.

1. I can't recall any Patrick Byrne stuff on Wikipediocracy and therefore I don't think it is relevant here.

1. If an RS ever writes a feature on Wikipediocracy, then I would hope that the split with WR would be covered in a neutral manner and that it could then be added in here. As it is, there are insiders on each side throwing the occasional mud but nothing neutrally researched to allow a mention in this article. I kept an eye on both sites in the months after the split. Wikipediocracy was much the more active. If you, Ottava and the other people who did not move over had sustained a level of activity there to match Wikipediocracy, then I would have remained active there. Greg is the third most prolific contributor to the forums and Hersch the ninth most so they are prominent but not dominant posters. There are plenty of other people posting at comparable or greater levels who are staff, global moderators or trustees such as the authors of the planned book (Eric Barbour who is most prolific contributor to the forums and Peter Damien who is sixth,) and Andreas who is second most prolific forum contributor and the person who gets quoted in the general press most often. In the absence of any press expose, I don't think the case can be made that Wikipediocracy is either a MyWikiBiz front or a LaRouche one. It attracts all sorts and, in the absence of an active alternative criticism site, I can't see it becoming one.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope you are a salted and grilled Flounder.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

:) Thank you for the responses! Sole Flounder (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hoax article sub-section removed

I've just removed the statement attributing the investigation of the author of the Bicholim conflict hoax to this website. The editor who started the AfD didn't note any link to the website at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicholim conflict or elsewhere (from memory), and the identity of the editor responsible was obviously visible throughout the AfD discussion, and remains a trivial matter for any admin to check since it was deleted, so calling the identification of the user responsible an "investigation" is rather over-blown - it would have taken a matter of seconds to jump to the first edit in the edit history. Moreover, the wording of this material "One investigation identified a Wikipedia editor likely to have written an article about a war that never happened. The since-deleted hoax article" [emphasis added] implies that the the Wikipediocracy link contributed to the AfD, which I don't think is correct - it appears to have been the other way around (I'm bemused to see that I appear to have been the initial source for the Wikipediocracy thread on this, which then contributed to the other media coverage!). Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The previous text did not imply that the Wikipediocracy link contributed to the AfD. The RS credits a Wikipediocracy thread with fingering an editor---the old word choice "investigation" was too strong. The fake-article section was the weakest in this article, which is better without it, imho. (However, it is sourced, so it may be reinserted.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, my reading was - and is - that it did imply that Wikipediocracy was responsible for stopping this hoax. Identifying the editor responsible wasn't that big a deal - they'd been inactive for five years by the time of the AfD and had only ever made a small number of edits so it didn't lead to any further issues, and any admin would have have named the account which created the article if asked. I note that SB_Johnny (talk · contribs), who confirmed the identity in the Wikipediocracy thread, is an admin. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The RS credited the Wikipediocracy thread with identifying the creator of the hoax. You are correct that the "since-deleted" modifier was inaccurate. A discussion of WP-administrators' "woulda coulda shoulda" is inappopriate here, per WP:NOT (a forum). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, the RS stated this, but it was hardly a significant achievement for Wikipediocracy - the identity of the editor was known to participants in the AfD (via the FAC link, as well as checking the history of the article) and was never a secret or an issue, and identifying the person responsible didn't lead to anything further at all given their (thankfully) short editing history; the flawed Daily Dot story rightly doesn't say that anything came of knowing the editor's name. As such, I've just re-removed this material given that it really isn't very significant. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your action need not be unreasonable. However, if another editor restores that small section, which is reliably sourced, then you should not remove it without gaining consensus. (I did copy-edit it in response to your just criticisms.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There did seem to be support here for not removing it (from me, with you not voicing any firm position either way and Devil's Advocate not joining the discussion - apologies if I misunderstood your position though). I'm sure not going to re-remove it though. I like the irony of an unimportant fact sourced to a somewhat confused news article being included in the article on Wikipediocracy given that this is the kind of thing which seems to spark threads there. I have no axe to grind against Wikipediocracy BTW - I came to this via the DYK and spotted the mistaken material. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The section was sourced and should be restored. For journalists and the general public, it would have been impossible to identify the editor responsible, as the article along with its editing history was deleted. Moreover, if it hadn't been for the Wikipediocracy thread, the general public would not have learnt of this case at all. So Wikipediocracy played a key role in this hoax coming to light, which subsequently turned into a major international news story. Andreas JN466 08:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

How about this wording:

Hoax article

One Wikipediocracy forum discussion identified the Wikipedia account responsible for a hoax article Wikipedia admins had recently deleted. The "Bicholim conflict" article described a fictitious 1640–1641 Indian civil war. It was awarded Wikipedia's "Good article" status in 2007, and retained it until 2012, when a Wikipedian checked the article's cited sources and found that none of them appeared to exist.

This gives due credit for the discovery and deletion of the hoax to Wikipedia admins. Any objections to that wording? Andreas JN466 08:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The original wording was sourced and so ordinarily could be restored. Your proposed wording clarifies the Wikipediocracy contribution, according to the sourced reference, and avoids the possible misrepresentations raised in this discussion. Please insert your suggested paragraph. I would put it at the end of the specific "controversies", since the others may be more important. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Inserted per your suggestion. Andreas JN466 10:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sentence about WR

Wikipediocracy was created in March 2012 by Wikipedia critics following disputes on another Wikipedia criticism site, Wikipedia Review - I think the problem with this claim, aside from it being unsourced, is that according to some, um, inside sources, the preparation plans to start Wikipediocracy began BEFORE these disputes broke out on WR, so the statement isn't factually correct (by the way, "less likely to be falsified" would mean that it's harder to run an experiment to disprove the statement. The proper phrasing is simply "less likely to be false") or at least it puts the cart before the horse.Volunteer Marek 01:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, my understanding is that there were "disputes" on WR preceding the ultimate blow-up, so the sentence as I wrote it was still accurate, but I understand your point. As I said on my talk earlier today, my concern in adding the introductory sentence was that readers should not see that Wikipediocracy was started early in 2012 as if from the blue. There is a clear continuity of some themes and some contributors from WR to WO and I believe that should be mentioned in some fashion, if only in fairness to those members of the critical community who don't want to be perceived as (SB) Johnny-come-latelies. There is of course no pride of authorship in the wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The sentence could undoubtedly be improved. However, I preferred it to the competing sentence ("Wikipediocracy was created in March 2012 by writers from Wikipedia Review") because it only indicates sequence in time (although "after" would be a better word for this purpose than "following"); it does not add details about a real or inferred relationship between Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia Review. When I used the word "falsified", I knew it wasn't the right word, but not every short edit summary can be a masterpiece of written expression. The point (which I figured that most readers of the edit summary would probably discern) was that the sequence in time was unlikely to be demonstrated to be false at some point in the future, whereas the statement that the creators were "writers from WR" could be less than 100 percent accurate and could be disputed. Note that the "creation" date given for the website is the date that it went live. That's really the only relevant start date for the new website, as the date that its creator(s) hatched the idea or started planning is essentially impossible to verify. --Orlady (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What is the reliable source for "Wikipedia critics" or any of these allegations? Bbb23and other administrator-enforcers can block editors who try to enforce WP:RS and WP:V (or preserve compliance with WP:MOS) on this article, but is that really what you want? Why not pull the unsourced original-research? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Misuse of administrative tools

Dougweller (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

Administrator Dougweller blocked non-administrators from editing this article immediately after Weller unilaterally removed the external link to the website. The Alexa ranking of

http:wikipediocracy.com

was left. Should we remove all links to Wikipedia, which contains BLP violations?

Weller failed to explain his use of administrative tools, after he removed content from the article. He needs to account for his actions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to hear that explanation as well, how is a link to a website in an article on said website a BLP violation? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Because the current blog post is about a long-standing problematic user who probably complained, much the way Russavia did when the story on him went out. I wonder if they scurried around deleting every link to newyorktimes.com back when they outed Qworty. Tarc (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've asked for advice. If this is an error I'll unprotect - this shouldn't take long. AGF not working? And as you mention Qworty, is the screenshot we have now really appropriate? Why that screenshot? Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You never heard of the Streisand effect? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller removed the website's information despite similar removals being removed repeatedly by the community, e.g., in the badsite debacle.... Despite his involved status as a party in a content dispute, he mis-used his administrative tool by locking the page. Weller violated policy deliberately, regardless of AGF mutterings. (Edit conflict 12:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC): It's hard to see the point of the censorship. There's a forum discussion of a months old, unaccountably long delayed block of somebody who writes about having sex with pre-pubescent girls, and there's a blog about somebody adding references to unpublished notes, despite the wise disapproval of the wise User:Sławomir Biały.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and a little time to get the advice he sought. I don't think this temporary measure will cause the universe to fly apart. - MrX 12:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please avoid distracting discussions with irrelevancies.

WP has policies for locking pages and removing external site information, and Doug violated them. The page locking was done when there was no discussion despite there being no edit-warring, and so seems especially against policy, especially for an involved administrator. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this is probably a personal thing, Kiefer doesn't exactly love me. I don't understand the bit about a content dispute - what content dispute? Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@KW: Please avoid repeating yourself and manufacturing more drama. Obviously DW believes this is a serious issue requiring decisive action and I'm not aware of any policies that explicitly proscribe this. - MrX 13:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing personal, here. Dougweller and MrX are not worth remembering for me. Weller is not a spectacularly bad administrator, usually, but I don't remember his past mistakes. The community has discussed links to Wikipediocracy enough that Doug is being disruptive in removing the link with no discussion. He is abusing his administrative tools in locking a page that has had no edit warring (apart from fantasies of administrators). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What policy is it that allows the specification of "contact me privately if anyone wants to challenge this" in a page protection rationale again? — Scott • talk 13:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

None. Even Wikipedia's do-nothing Child protection policy, which seems written to protect WMF and child predators and fails to comply with US law's prohibition on minors editing without parental approval, would specify that inquiries should go through ArbCom. However, since Arbcom makes up its own rules, why shouldn't Doug? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What I curious to see is the reason for the removal. There's no outing, as in a previous case where there were hissy fits over the linkage. Criticism of one's actions isn't BLP-violating, and just because someone blogs about you it doesn't make it automatically 100% true, either. Rebut it. Tarc (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, you're wrong. I wouldn't have done this if it were just about criticism. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate an answer to my separate question, please, Doug; and if you're unable to present a policy-based reason for the quoted rationale, could you please unprotect the page before reprotecting it specifying an appropriate rationale. Thank you. — Scott • talk 14:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I was mistaken. Thanks. Tarc (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Dougweller has indeed asked for advice and discussion is now ongoing; could I please ask everyone to table this discussion for the moment? It's not like this is a matter of life and death, after all... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, I think this is well-trodden ground. A link to the main page has been determined to be acceptable even though people have been "outed" on Wikipediocracy. I think that is consistent with other sites which may contain outings or personal attacks on WP editors, or BLP violations generally. I do not know why Dougweller chose to revisit this situation now, but it seems odd that the people who object to his actiion are asked to be patient where he has chosen to shoot first and ask questions later. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Call it "precautionary principle"... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

      WTF are you blathering about, Salvio? There is no policy basis for the page protection, so remove it. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

      Uhm, no. Sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

      You should be sorry about your behavior. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Ok, any Admin who wishes to revert, go ahead. I've managed to get some advice on this and although I don't like links like this specific one at this specific moment, we evidently do allow links that attack or out editors here no matter what they say. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller, if that is the advice you have received (presumably from ArbCom), then you should unprotect the page and restore the links. Failing to do so is only going to lead to people asking for you to lose your bits. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course if it had been formal advice I would have done so. But it wasn't, and I've followed the informal advice I was given by someone whose views I respect. And I certainly would be wrong to restore the links while a survey as to whether we should do so is taking place - I expect if I did that people would be asking for me to lose my bits! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

Doug, remove the page protection now. Clean up your mistake. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Survey: Linking to Wikipediocracy.com

I have though of reversing the protection but that might lead to a wheel war or and edit war neither of which are desirable. So we should really go through a consensus process and edit based on that consensus. If anyone want to make this a formal RFC feel free.--Salix (talk): 14:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The protection was against policy, and should have been immediately reverted. The link should be restored, pending the outcome of this discussion, to avoid rewarding Administrators thrill-editing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Should the article "Wikipediocracy" link to the Wikipediocracy site?

• No vote --Salix (talk): 14:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment There is of course an alternative. Show the link but make it unclickable. It's a problem. Tarc mentions outing above. What do we do in general if there's a link to any page anywhere that outs an editor? It's more relevant here, but it could be anywhere. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. – The article here is not committing any BLP violations and we are not responsible for what Wikipediocracy put on their site. — Richard BB 15:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, restore link per the community consensus in the episodes involving Qworty, etc. (Further, an editor adding his own preprints to various articles has already outed himself, obviously---I'll add for the disruptive editors wishing to disregard consensus.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Yes of course, but I'm willing to wait until the present issue is resolved. Besides, it's not that hard to figure how to get there, is it? (P.S. - I think you mean Wikipediocracy) - MrX 15:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: It has a link to the site. Dougweller should perhaps be more careful and less hasty in his unilateral actions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Leave it out for the time being, until this matter is decided once and for all. We need a larger discussion somewhere on this matter, otherwise its just going to come up every time this style of focus-on-the-person blog entry is published. Tarc (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Changing to restore. May as well restore status quo ante, then have a wider discussion if need be. Tarc (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• of course since it's an article on a website. Wikipedia:Attack sites is a failed proposal and has failed again every time the issue has been re-raised. I also concur with Richard BB's observation about our lack of a duty to police other sites, a point I have raised myself in the past. Mangoe (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

  A lack of a policy prescribing a duty need not negate all duties, of course. I can imagine this and other pages (at WP) removing links to Wikipedia pages with reprehensible content. ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

  I would expect sites criticizing Wikipedia to name editors from time to time, given that they have no obligation follow our rules. If you as an editor make it possible to figure out who you are, that is in the end your problem. All of this has been hashed out before WRT other sites. Mangoe (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• of course. Wikipedia looks petty and vindictive by constantly striving to delete, minimize, or hobble this subject. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Yes per most everyone else. Crazynas ^t 19:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• no, but I don't care strongly My general thought on this sort of 'badsites' thing is that links are ok, though not important, as long as the article also brings up the problem stuff, such as the culture of outing that WR used to have. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Question Does the site have an "About Us" or similar page in which one wouldn't typically find outing/attacks, that could be used as the link target instead of the main URL? (I haven't visited the site myself.) Might be an approach that most everyone could find tolerable. alanyst 20:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. This must be the most inept attempt at censorship I've ever seen. How hard do you think it is to paste "Wikipediocracy" in google? Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment per the consensus here, I restored the link. Ripberger (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I have been reverted by User:Mathsci. Given his WP:COI with Wikipediocracy, it isn't wise for him to be reverting on this article. The sooner the WP:OVERSIGHT team and the powers that be (likely WP:ARBCOM) come to a decision about this, the better. I was tempted to revert again, but, alas, two wrongs do not make a right (though three lefts do). Ripberger (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You have read the link. It contains deliberate WP:OUTING by two banned users (the cowriter is Captain Occam, a highly disruptive site-banned user who has a long history of misrepresenting himself and others, often through proxy-editors and enablers). Please do not restore the link or discuss it on wikipedia. Please read WP:OUTING more carefully than you have done so far. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I should add that almost 24 hours ago Alison wrote that anything written about me or discussed in relation to the link will be nuked by oversight. WP:COI cannot even be discussed, Ripberger. Mathsci (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

See Streisand effect. I can understand the blogpost "outing" you could be removed, but not the whole website. The more you fight this, the more it will reflect badly on you, whether or not Wikipedia policy is on your side. There have been two Arbcom cases discussing "bad sites," yet my interpretation of those cases is that it's a matter of context. If I post here, there, and everywhere the link or blogpost that troubles you, I would expect to get sanctioned. A link to the main page of Wikipediocracy, the New York Times, Salon, whatever, on the article itself would not violate in any form of Wikipedia's harassment, BLP, or "outing" policies. User:Alison may have promised to remove cases of links created with the obvious sole purpose of harassing you (and that I understand), but I doubt she would remove all links to Wikipediocracy when it is obvious that no harassment is intended. As I stated above, I wish that this will get resolved through Arbcom or some dispute resolution process. Otherwise, this is going to go forever. If anyone believes that all discussion of any given subject can be easily suppressed on Wikipedia, they are sadly mistaken. Policy or not, it's impossible to stop people on a collaborative wiki to stop talking about anything. Had I been in your position, User:Mathsci, I would have ignored the whole affair. If the blogpost is trolling, as you say, then ignoring them is the best strategy. Seeing you get riled up is what trolls would want. While I am miffed by your recent behavior, I am trying to give you some helpful advice here. You may take it or leave it. Thanks. Ripberger (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, Mathsci - if there is non-public, personal information posted on Wikipedia about you, then it will be removed per policy. Dem's the rules. Regarding the rest of this issue, I understand that that is still under active discussion - Alison ^❤ 04:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That was my understanding. Mathsci (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes - Standard form for WP articles. The red light/green light based on changing content as seen through the prism of Wikipedia's rules is disruptive. Put in the link, leave the link, and avoid the Streisand Effect that these ridiculous edit wars create. Carrite (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Yes per common sense. It's an article about a website. Refusing to post a clickable link to that website makes Wikipedia seem afraid of it, honestly. Dayewalker (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Administrative help needed: Reverting page locking by involved Dougweller

Closed by User:Salvio Guliano
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{Admin help}} Administrator dougweller abused his policies and protected the page after removing an external link that he "did not like". There is no policy basis for his page blocking, which is disruptive editing following weeks of discussions. He admits his mistake but has failed to clean up his mess. He has already okeyed another administrator cleaning up his mess. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Y'know, it isn't like dougweller kicked over a basket of puppies while flashing a choir full of nuns, so can we all just calm the fuck down with the "high crimes & misdemeanors" attitude? It's one link to one website, currently under discussion above us right now. Addendum; I'm fine with restoring it now as well, but it isn't really as dire as it's being made out to be Tarc (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC). The link can be discussed. What is clear is that Dougweller, who never has edited the article, removed the external link (ignoring consensus in weeks of discussion) and then misused his administrative tools in locking the page. Against policy. And he has admitted his error. It is a textbook example of misusing administrative status for his side in a content dispute. Only Weller didn't even bother trying to discuss it or letting his edit stand. He immediately locked the page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Also Dougweller is secretly a wolf and has just eaten Grandma. Seriously Kiefer? You think anyone cares about this sort of drama-farming? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I have it on good authority that it was he who stole the cookies from the cookie jar in 3rd grade. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator and Administrator Salvio Guiliano improperly hatted this discussion and sabotaged the template asking for administrative assistance. No wonder that Dougweller was surprised that no administrator removed the blocking template, the removal of which he had approved hours ago.

Salvio threatened to block me if I restored it, again abusing his powers as an administrator and arbitrator. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice of ArbCom case

It is my belief that the community, the administraive corps, and the oversight team are not able to resolve these issues by themselves. I have therefore just submitted a request to the Arbitration Committee to ask them to get directly involved and provide some clarity on this matter. See WP:RFAR. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this moot, given Doug's comments below and at ANI? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Protection template

Sidestepping above, Doug, can we have a protection template on here in the meantime. Thanks. Widefox; talk 20:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Does it protect the article against administrators? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Unprotected

I have no idea why no one has yet unprotected this page. I thought it best if someone uninvolved did and thought it would be unprotected at RPP if not by anyone else, but that didn't happen. I'm off to bed soon and it seems unfair to make people wait, so I've done it myself. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, looking at RPP it was closed because Kiefer said he would open a thread at ANI, that seems to be why it wasn't closed at RPP. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for removing the protection. (Somebody else opened a thread at ANI. I'd hoped that the specialists on page protection would have acted sooner.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit war

Saw an edit war. So fully protected the page as I found it. I have no idea if it's the right or wrong version. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I built a sitemap page for Wikipediocracy, you can use this link and it won't go directly to the blog article. Might be a good long-term solution, if this happens again. Use it or not as you like: http://wikipediocracy.com/sitemap

→StaniStani  03:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)