This article is part of Blogging WikiProject, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pirate Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pirate Politics articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I've recreated the article. It is now no longer self-referencing. It contains references, which I believe proof it's significance. Richiemcintosh 22:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to note that the idea of merging this article with BitTorrent is fairly ridiculous. The reason for the Consumerist blog's existence is consumerism, do you propose we merge those two also? The reason for Wikipedia's existence is Nupedia, maybe we ought to merge their articles as well... Richiemcintosh (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is the controversy a controversy if it turned out to be true? Wavetwista (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Owens is also troubled by the fact that the single largest source of submissions came from a site operated by the Canadian Coalition of Electronic Rights, a group that represents modchip makers, as well as the involvement of the Torrent Freak site, which featured several posts on the consultation (including one of mine). The concern with Torrent Freak is certainly misplaced as it is widely used as a source of original reporting on digital issues. Indeed, Barry Sookman regularly references their articles in his Twitter postings (recent examples here and here).
Which suggests a) he might be biased and b) someone mentioning them on his Twitter isn't a lot of proof.
However, I don't know the site and wanted to know if it was sufficiently authoritative to be an exception to WP:SPS, which would otherwise suggest blogs and the like should be avoided. (Emperor (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC))
TorrentFreak is basically a 2-person blog. Its content seems to be at least 50% summarizing content from other, more newsy sources, and the rest original reporting based on their own personal contacts. Commentary and editorial selection tends to be oriented toward embarrassing those in the entertainment industry who vilify copyright-infringing file-sharers and the operators of Internet services which in some way help to facilitate that kind of activity. No editorial policy is stated, but TF does publish in-article corrections & updates, and I have yet to see them get called out on any kind of falsehood.
I would look at it like this. Would a major newspaper use TF as a source? Probably not. Well, maybe in their blogs! Chances are, anything worth quoting from TF was probably based on content posted somewhere else. Does this mean there won't ever be exceptions? No. But any exception is going to demand scrutiny & may need to be pre-emptively defended against "rules are rules" types. —mjb (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
So, does the BBC count, such as with this article? Or perhaps this Associated Press piece? how about the Canadian broadcasting Corporation, yep, there too? Their data was included on the Digital Britain consultation document (page 12). That was about 2 minutes with GoogleNews, does that count then? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
My latest addition: An example is the quality Belgium newspaper De Standaard. Here you can find the actual newsarticles I refer to: . The OCR-ed text if you want to translate it:  One of the two isn't behind a paywall and can be viewed on their site. --Ondertitel (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Can you kindly explain the purpose of adding these references to main space? Wikispan (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I assume with main space you mean the article itself? It's because otherwise you wouldn't be able to verify the correctness of the example. Ondertitel (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
See e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 63#TorrentFreak and the links there (for example, a Google Scholar search shows that numerous reliable sources have cited TorrentFreak). If it is good enough for the New York Times, it should be good enough for Wikipedia, at least as a source for factual statements in the areas of filesharing and copyright infringement. Only in a case where information on TorrentFreak is conflicting with that of other reliable sources, or when citing it for opinion, should extra caution apply.
I think user Emperor is asking if MICHAELGEIST.CA is a reliable source for the ensuing statement "it is widely used as a source of original reporting on digital issues." Turning to TorrentFreak itself (a 3 man operation) I think it is okay for specific numbers, which is what most publications credit it for, including NYT, but not as a source for factual statements in all areas of filesharing. Wikispan (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
"According to authorities the site had been subjected to a months-long operation. This is something TorrentFreak can confirm. Following a tipoff from a very reliable source, we informed NinjaVideo months ago that they were being watched..."
NinjaVideo failed to take heed and, as with illegal file-sharing site Filespump.com, their domain name was seized. This is not the sort of behaviour one would expect from the New York Times. Wikispan (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
All but 3 are guest contributors. — ThePowerofX 22:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
That is not a claim I can find on the about page. It all depends on how you define guest. "Rick Falkvinge is a regular columnist on TorrentFreak, writing every other Friday." I understand what you mean though but why did you rollback everything? The red link is removed because it won't become blue any time soon and the references had a template applied. The main content is still valid: "Smaran was the first writer to join the blog, and although he stopped contributing in 2006, he played his part in the evolution of TorrentFreak."  There are other ways to reflect his departure in the article. He clearly wasn't just a guest.
The infobox author field seems to be wrongly used: "author The person or entity that originally created the website." --Ondertitel (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
If we can include Smaran by pointing out he was a one-time staff member, that's fine with me. It's just that your edit strongly implied (through the Internet archive) he remains a member of the team. As for everyone else, the formatting above says 'author' but upon examination we find introductions like "The following is a guest post by...." (e.g. WinstonTPB). That is why I described them as guest contributors. Rick Falkvinge has many articles to his name whereas most others only have between one and three. — ThePowerofX 00:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Ernesto and Enigmax are the two main Writers. Rick does a regular column. Ben covers some pieces (mainly the political side) as well as proofing, and some editing. And I do some proofing, some editing, research work, and handle the FB & G+ pages and the IRC channel. Also, most of the comments are handled by me and Ben. Hope that clears stuff up :-) Ktetch (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)