|WikiProject Internet culture||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 2006 July 28. The result of the discussion was Keep.|
There's a reference to OSDN in the text, which I would like to explain, but the reference in Wikipedia goes to something called SourceForge, Inc. So, having investigated, I understand that OSDN means Open Source Development Network. So, why is OSDN mentioned at all? Will somebody kindly fix this sentence so it means something to the average reader? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Has there been a coup?
I got the [censored] with Everything2 years ago with their 'all new nodes must be deleted' policy. However, I logged in a moment ago and apparently Dem Bones hasn't been running e2 for over a year now. Does anyone know what's happened? --Surturz (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dem bones retired and was replaced by dann (now katherine) in 2005. See related blog post for discussion about the handover and The Power Structure of E2 for current info on who's in charge. --Muchness (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
broader in interest, although smaller in number
I added the "smaller in number" clause. Everything2 is now getting less than 100 logins a day according to the statistics block when you log in. I can't seem to link to that stats block for a reference unfortunately, but it is not OR. --Surturz (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, that number would be the number of new users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, my bad. I forgot about the time zone differences, and thought that the stats were for the end of the day, when they were actually about half-way through. I reckon e2 is still smaller than when it started, but it would require verification to put that in the article. --Surturz (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed this as well. E2 was my Wiki before there was a Wiki. It had a couple things I think worked well...the pool of related links at the bottom of each node (wow, I remembered the slang!) was cleverly generated. Man, though -- is it truly being used more now than it was during what I think of as its heyday? This talk about a site that (yeah, despite the open-source "no money!" kinda vibe of the arrangement) used to rival Wiki in *my* mindshare ( ;) ) was basically bumming for spare server space....well, sorry, not-a-messageboard, but its striking. Of course, Wikipedia begs too -- but instead of begging for a little chunk of server in a college somewhere, it begs for $30 million ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the site, which I frequented heavily between 2000-2006, and I still visit it, though I'm not a "god" or other in group person there. Opening this section for resolution of the two outstanding tags. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. There are some fact discrepancies as well as language tone issues. Well someone else will need to address those; cleaned-up some stuff I knew to be flat false in the InfoBox. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This site is a more spontaneous (from the beginning the users sort of took over with a relatively minimal direction from the site) and a less transparent one than wikipedia so I don't see how there could be primary sources for anything other than the founding of the site or the opinion of this or that group that has come and gone in the near decade it's been in operation. Footnotes for footnotes sake becomes idiotic at some point, so specific fact checks may be more appropriate here. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually see that this is stale so removing the tag. Also trying to fix some bolixed refs. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Some things can't be sourced, such as the two "citation needed" tags in the Code of Behavior section.
Regarding the first tag: I'm an admin on E2 and I can say with certainty that site policy doesn't allow for disclosing how, why or whom was banned from chatting, noding or accessing the site at all. We don't even keep an admins-only list of such info.
Regarding the second tag: the best citation I can come up with for this is this, which explains how an IRC channel originally founded by E2 users as an extension of the site has become its complete antithesis where even mention of the site is verboten.
Unfortunately there are no neutral, third-party sources for this kind of thing, which leads me to question why those cite tags are there in the first place if they request sources for that which cannot be satisfactorily cited. I know that makes it seem POV'd, but there's really nothing for it. I agree that an explanation for these statements would be appropriate, but since it cannot be given and doesn't really exist would lead only to what would amount to nothing more than original research and/or speculation. Even if sources were available, it'd probably be a conflict of interest for me or anyone else that uses E2 to provide them (and who else could provide them?). Avalyn (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The site seems to be down. The last snapshot at the wayback machine is from Jan 2011: http://web.archive.org/web/20110108152202/http://everything2.net/--126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)