Talk:What.CD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 

Torrentfreak is not a reliable source, especially in this case. They have published rumors and unconfirmed "facts", and they are a self-published blog with no reviews for their "articles".


Why the fuck does this page exist?


Fastcompany is not a reliable source. Their statement that What.CD "took over from OiNK" is pure speculation, and they're not known for their reputable journalism. --74.67.7.26 (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I was not sure on Fastcompany (I was lead to understand from another location they were fairly reliable). TorrentFreak is definitely reliable for BitTorrent articles - I did specifically check on this because I was not sure. It has been on WP:RS/N a few times and the consensus was that it is reliable for most Torrent related material. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 09:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately Wikipedia isn't necessarily the most in touch with the torrent community, and I can assure you that any claims that What.CD is a 'replacement' or 'taking over' from OiNK are patently false. Best I can tell the author of your Fastcompany reference just made that stuff up. --74.67.7.26 (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Even more unfortunately is that we work on verifiability and NOT truth. So even if that were the case we can verify that What.cd did so via all manner of other sources (FC is just the most reliable one I found). That, coupled with the fact that it opened at the same time of the closure of OiNK and appears very much to take the same market sector (i.e. replace...), is very strong verified material. If you have a counter source that rejects such a statement (and it is very hard to see how What.cd could not be seen as replacing OiNK... seeing as it pretty much serves the same purpose) then please to present it - the onus is on you to do that now you have disputed the article --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 21:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I doubt there is source that exactly counters such a statement, but that's not why it's inappropriate for this article. If a questionable source made the claim that the site was a repository of Rachel Ray's secret recipes would it be immediately verifiable with a single source? It's extremely unlikely that there's be a counter source for such a thing, as people don't write 500-page articles about what sites are certifiably not. The site opening at the same time of the closure of OiNK (which I'm not sure is even correct) does not qualify it as a 'replacement' or 'taking over'. OiNK staff have never made any claim that What.CD 'took over' from them. What.CD being a replacement upon OiNK's closure would either require prior knowledge of the raid or direct participation from OiNK admins, which both seem extremely unlikely. Also, what business does the author have touting What.CD as the replacement when similar sites have have equal merit? Best I can tell the statement in the Fastcompany article is editorializing, and if it were to be included in this article it should only be posed as the author's opinion, not fact. Further, I don't view this particular author (Dan Nosowitz) as very credible, because his blatant speculation about the What.CD downtime is particularly embarrassing. Anyone who went on IRC during the downtime (an IRC channel for information was advertised in the downtime message) or did a Google search could easily determine that 'Theseus' wasn't part of a cryptic message, but a staff member at the site. The author not being able to determine this and publishing his wild speculation doesn't bode well for his credibility. --74.67.7.26 (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that pretty much all of the sources name it "an OiNK replacement". I think the problem is in seeing it as an official comment of "we are replacing OiNK" or "What.CD is replacing us" when, actually, it is more saying "OiNK closed down and this is one of the sites that sprung up in its place" --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 22:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
If that's what you intend to convey then I would recommend rephrasing it so as not to imply other things. There is enough misinformation around about this site as it is, and I would be surprised if you could find enough information from truly reliable sources to cobble together an article more extensive than 'it exists'. --74.67.7.26 (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

The rationale for CSD seems to take three forms.

  • It is a closed (down?) community; not a valid CSD reason, it is asserted that being closed the article has no value to the public. Again not valid CSD
  • due to the fact that similar utterances of this site have been removed due to advertising, - not relevant, that is an issue for those pages :)
  • almost all the sources are non-reliable and speculative - I dispute this. Torrentfreak has been noted as a reliable source for Torrent news/information (and I have tried to use it for non-contentious content). Fast company are fully reliable because I asked RS/N :) Guardian et al are definitely reliable and not speculative...

I think this is a very poor speedy nom without any firm basis in policy - a PROD or AFD is a better approach to the article. Note that CSD#A7 says The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. - I think the significance claim is credible. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 15:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of sources[edit]

On the matter of USA Today, and this particular discussion is more directly to Tmorton166; As Wikipedia, as you doubt know, relies on verifiability. Without a login for whatever USA Today's got going on their website, that particular article as a source can't be verified. Hence, it's not a legitimate source. Now, I may have missed something that says "Oh, USA Today's an exception to our rule for this, that, and the other reasons", but somehow, I sincerely doubt it.

On the matter of Torrent Freak; As per WP:IRS (Not, of course, to be confused with IRS) and WP:SPS, "self-published media... are largely not acceptable". Torrent Freak would, in the examples in WP:SPS, probably fall under both "blog" and "newsletter", perhaps depending on your opinion. Yes, by some standards it is a "news service", but it's not the New York Times. And that's before the bias, though that's somewhat beside the point if it is to be dismissed under self-published guidelines. Which, of course, I strongly contend we do. James.DenholmTalk to me... 07:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi James - see my section below. WP:SOURCEACCESS there is no restriction on paywalls. note: The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining material that is not easily accessible..
Regarding TorrentFreak - this has been specifically asked at RS/N a couple of times and it is agreed that, like TechCrunch for tech articles, TF is reliable for factual information about Torrent related articles. Feel free to take it up on RS/N - but I did bother to do the legwork before using them in the article ;) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 07:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that of the stuff TF sources are supporting one is covered in another source, and the other only has a TF source because that had the most information. Both are factual statements. But if there is strong desire to remove them we can probably do so without affecting the article content. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 07:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Found a link: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_34#Reliability_check_on_TorrentFreak --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 07:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, I wasn't aware that TF had previously been checked as reliable. Thanks. James.DenholmTalk to me... 08:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I confess I was pleasantly surprised to find it had been :) Will get you the article text pronto. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 08:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Source[edit]

James, what's the issue with the source? USA Today is a reliable source, with editorial oversight. The article names these figures as being sourced from the site itself (which means the figures aren't speculation by the USA Today writer) making the text in the article 100% accurate. A concern was raised that "source is not available"; this is incorrect, the source is archived on Lexis Nexis - if you have a nexis or athens (educational) login then it can be verified. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS there is no restriction on use of such sources - so long as they can be verified by more than just a single editor. In this case I can provide the text of the article via email if needed, or there will be numerous editors with access to check.

Any other concerns? I'd ask that all editors please make sure they read and understand sourcing policy before removing material :) I suspect we have new editors from the site itself - which is great, but make sure the relevant policies are read and understood (WP:RS, WP:V etc.) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 07:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate the article text via e-mail, Errant, that would be fantastic. I'll go ahead and undo my removal. James.DenholmTalk to me... 08:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


Banned[edit]

What.CD has banned the entire country of Pakistan from gaining entry to the tracker. A user from Pakistan tried to gain admission to the site, and joined the IRC server and went to the invites channel. After being told he was ineligible, he left. When he later returned a hour later to ask if there was some way he could be admitted, he was automatically kicked and banned from the channel being sited "You were kicked by ZeroBot (Banned: Your entire country [Pakistan] is banned from the invites channel. This is because of the very high proportion of users from this area being bad for the site - either leechers, traders, sellers and/or cheaters.)". You can check this out yourself by visiting their server through a Pakistani proxy. Or else I can provide a screenshot. How do I edit or insert this information in the original article though? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackroseblade (talkcontribs) 14:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You first have to find a reliable source which mentions it. Otherwise it cannot be added as Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Will a screenshot of the screen count? So far I've submitted requests to check into this in reliable torrent news sources, but there's been no response of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackroseblade (talkcontribs) 14:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, what bans multiple countries from participating in the interview channel, the majority of whose users tend to be cheaters or invite sellers. No, it is not notable enough to be included on the article page. 69.206.154.184 (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Self-published stats[edit]

I'm reverting the removal the site's user and torrent count. The sentence makes it clear that these are self-published numbers (it does not state that the site has 156,000 users, it only states that the site itself claims to have this many users) for which I think citing the site itself is okay for the lack of a better source; the number of registered Wikipedia users in Wikipedia is also just citing Wikimedia, for example. Of course freely accessible source would be preferable, but we also rely on citations to copyrighted books and paywalled publications all across Wikipedia. --Angbor (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Why?[edit]

Why do people post the sites stats on here? I deleted it, and I hope it never returns. Koala72 (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

DDoS[edit]

Over a week of downtime now reporting in various media - noteworthy yet? Turkeyphant 20:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

In the grand scheme of things, no - I don't believe the downtime is notable right now. DDoSes are easy enough to acquire with enough resources (infected computers under your control or money) and there has been no mention of who is behind it, only speculation. I have heard rumors that the DDoS is state-sponsored, the site had been hacked, the datacenters had been raided, etc. None have been confirmed by the staff on-site or on Twitter, so there's not much to say until something happens or it ends. 24.147.197.207 (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
What's the longest downtime the site's had before now? Turkeyphant 01:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)