Template:Did you know nominations/Wikipediocracy

Wikipediocracy

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Wikipediocracy, a weblog and forum, is dedicated to criticizing Wikipedia?

Created by Volunteer Marek (talk), Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk). Nominated by Reaper Eternal (talk) at 16:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC).

• Note Seems to be under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Hive of knuckle-dragging malice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Updated section name: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Nomination_of_Wikipediocracy NE Ent 11:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think this needs a slightly more catchy hook. Right now, it's rather dull. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Doing... --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, mentioning the assistance in research for the Salon article would make the hook more interesting.Volunteer Marek 17:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) I'm currently reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Elder Village. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Can you add another source for 'Wikipediocracy is a website for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation sites. or mention which part of this article verifies it! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"But two weeks after my story was published, a group of Wikipedia editors affiliated with the Wikipedia criticism site Wikipediocracy approached me." —Andrew Leonard, on Salon.com. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• You could stick "and has assisted journalists reporting on Wikipedia controversies?" on the end of that to make it more hooky. ;) --The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I was actually thinking something more along the lines of

• ... that Wikipediocracy, a weblog and forum, is dedicated to critiquing Wikipedia, including this very DYK section?

However, I couldn't find much mention of the GibraltarpediA controversy with respect to Wikipediocracy in reliable sources. For the hook, we definitely need a non-primary source. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion I made would be backed by secondary sources. :) --The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, definitely not. Way too self-referential and inside-baseballish. The vast majority of readers (including many Wikipedians) won't know what it refers to. Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Musical interlude

  noicon

• ALT 1:... that Wikipediocracy, a weblog and forum dedicated to critiquing Wikipedia, helped expose the "Qworty saga" and has received contributions from Wikpedia's co-founder Dr. Larry Sanger? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 19:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think making up terminology like the "Qworty saga" is very appropriate. Silverseren^C 20:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• try this from the second Salon piece:

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has yet to comment on the record to Salon, but on his own Talk page he quoted my story:

"For those of us who love Wikipedia, the ramifications of the Qworty saga are not comforting." That sums it up for me. More thoughts soon. I would have banned him outright years ago. So would many others. That we did not, points to serious deficiencies in our systems. — Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC) -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Definitely no to this hook. Far too self-referential, and in all honesty it's hardly a "saga". It's also certainly not a good or ethical idea to use DYKs to go after particular named individuals in this way. Qworty may have become a hate figure in certain quarters but that's no justification for going after him on the Main Page. Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• ALT2: ... that Wikipediocracy, a weblog and forum dedicated to criticizing Wikipedia, has assisted journalists reporting on controversies involving the online encyclopedia?

• Per my comment above I think that is just hooky enough. I would prefer to not go after Young with a DYK.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• This seems like a much better method to go about it. And it gets to link to a much better and more relevant article. Silverseren^C 20:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• My suggestion wasn't intended to go after "Qworty", just draw attention to the problem, and that is the reason the article is here now after all. I think that mentioning Sanger adds interest. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Silver seren. Frankly I'd prefer we didn't have an article on the Fuckwit Forum at all, but if we're going to be lumbered with one, this is the least awful hook proposed so far. Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Pandora'S Box -- Do NOT Open / Off-topic and boring, do something more useful instead
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I take it you mean this forum ? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 23:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC) No, I mean the whole hive of knuckle-dragging malice, as you know perfectly well. Quit trolling. Prioryman (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC) A true upholder of the Flaming Commandments (esp. No.4 and No.12.) ;) -- Hillbillyholiday talk 00:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Mothers doing strange things with vegetables do probably explain the disposition of Wikipediocracy's contributors... Prioryman (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC) "Den of maggots", "Fuckwit Forum", and now that outrageous sexual slur. Anything else you wish to say about Wikipediocracy's forum contributors? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 00:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Editors with any sense of decency should complain on Prioryman's talk page, rather than let his trolling disrupt another discussion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Prioryman Silver Seren. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• LOL! That makes me wish there were some way to animate the edit history. One edit a second with the Flight of the Valkyries playing and that strikethrough would be better than Harold Lloyd.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• This hook has been checked and is all right! Other hooks are being checked. New alts can be suggested too! --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I resemble that remark
ALT3 "that Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy attract outcasts, Jimmy Wales obsessives, and other losers who dream up conspiracy theories about wikipedia? :-] ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC) A slight change, adding Wikipedia and.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

We at the Den Of Maggots^TM know who controls Wikipedia, and it isn't Jimbo Wales..

If the end of the world was nigh, Kohs would insist that Jimbo was to blame!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, look. This is a very contentious nomination. What I suggest is this be put on hold for awhile, and an RfC run to get general input from the wider community. The question here is not whether the DYK is in and of itself a good or bad DYK, or that the hook is a good or bad hook, or whether the nominator is trolling or not (I see that the nominator, User:Reaper Eternal, has prominently displayed on his userpage the legend "Make articles, not drama", which is an interesting data point). The central issue is is that justified or not, many in the community would find this contentious, and it therefore must go through RfC per common sense and common courtesy, rather then being slipped in as a surprise, and for general community discussion to begin after it's already appeared on the main page. There's no hurry. Let's back off and slow down for a bit and see what the community thinks. Herostratus (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've opened an RfC, here. That supercedes this discussion which should now be hatted. Herostratus (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It does not supersede any such thing, I have re-opened this. Is there any actual objection to ALT2? It seems to very neutral all-around, and acceptable to all concerned? Tarc (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have an actual objection: I am seeing exactly zero references in the article that are independent and significantly cover the website itself. The few that even mention Wikipediocracy at all are trivial, and a Google search is not turning up anything else. As it is, this article is nothing more than a WP:COATRACK, and is not suitable for DYK until evidence of notability is shown. Resolute 15:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Er, this isn't AfD; those sorts of arguments appear to have been brought up an rejected at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipediocracy which closed as a snow keep. You don't get to re-argue a lost position at DYK, a consensus of Wikipedia editors has already established that it satisfies notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't AFD, and alas, I was out of town when people managed to get that AFD shut down. None the less, there remains no significant, reliable, independent sources in the article, it remains a coatrack, and it remains unsuitable for the main page until such time as these issues are resolved, in my opinion. I have no issue with an article dedicated to criticism of Wikipedia appearing on the main page, but lets at least be professional enough to use an article that actually meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Resolute 15:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It does meet Wikipedia's guidelines. WP:CONSENSUS and all that. Tarc (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I support ALT2. Notability is shown by the fact that the article survived an AfD discussion. This was already discussed and settled above.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything contentious about the nomination itself (two prominent opponents approved so we must have something right). What I see are a lot of people who have feuds with WO getting their licks in and not actually addressing the nom.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose nomination altogether on purely procedural grounds. There is an open community RfC (here) which supercedes this local discussion. I hatted this discussion (just for the duration of the RfC), since it is no longer the controlling discussion, but an editor didn't accept that. I leave it as an exercise to the reader why that might be so. It looks like we have two options on the table here:

1. Running the community RfC to see if the community as a whole wants this DYK to appear on the page. If the DYK is accepted, there should be no problem, so nothing is lost except a bit of time.
2. Creating a huge problem in order to push through a proposal before the community has a chance to consider it, rending the matter moot.

I kind of like #1 better. I don't have a strong opinion on the merits of the DYK. I do have a strong opinion on whether purely local discussion trump community RfCs. This sort of thing comes up all the time, with small groups of editors proposing some idiosyncratic spelling or whatnot. That's fine when it's not contentious. This proposal is. It needs to be discussed more widely. This discussion is not operative at this time. The RfC is. Herostratus (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem hers is that running to a RfC was extremely premature. Site-wide RfCs should be called on to solve protracted and difficult disagreements, and I really don't see anything remotely of that nature here after several days of discussion. This is like if your neighbor's dog has shat upon your driveway, and you file a complaint with the Supreme Court. As noted above, some critics of this external website came here to get their licks in, and now that that is spent there shouldn't be much contention, just get back to a normal DYK discussion. Tarc (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

•  On hold I am keeping this review on hold until the WT:DYK discussion finishes! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)