Talk:Digg: Difference between revisions
m rethread, newest at bottom |
→The new Digg app (iTunes): new section |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
== Please == |
== Please == |
||
Change the digg image back please. Some {{rpa}} vandalized it. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Paul1991|Paul1991]] ([[User talk:Paul1991|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Paul1991|contribs]]) 21:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Change the digg image back please. Some {{rpa}} vandalized it. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Paul1991|Paul1991]] ([[User talk:Paul1991|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Paul1991|contribs]]) 21:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== The new Digg app (iTunes) == |
|||
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BySUXfs-3E&feature=player_embedded |
|||
[[User:Macshill|Macshill]] ([[User talk:Macshill|talk]]) 04:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:22, 26 March 2010
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Digg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Political Bias?
Surely this would only be of encyclopedic interest if it were a professional news outlet, whose articles were written by their own staff? The stories are submitted and upvoted by its userbase, and I don't see any other social bookmarking site articles have a criticism section regarding the prefered politics of its userbase. 62.56.124.189 (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- read the cited article. It is of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.98.2 (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Its incredible how long we've managed to keep this off the article when we have no problem talking about the politics of other sites. The usual excuse to not mention it was that there was no reliable sources. Now that that's no longer valid the excuse has changed to the supposed fact that 'website' itself is not biased. If the users and articles do not represent digg what does? If nothing else, its a notable phenomenon happening to the site which should be mentioned. People don't want the word liberal applied to digg because they fear it will damage their pet website's credibility.Jarwulf (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I edited the "Liberal bias" section to (a) remove weasel words (WP:WEASEL) and (b) specify what kind of bias and who is biased. To be honest I don't think the section is worthwhile. It is less an observation about Digg, and more an observation about the online mobilisation of liberal political supporters. Pat Conheady (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with these sentiments and think the section should be scrapped all together. Digg is not a formal media outlet or even a blog and doesn't report or purport to be unbiased nor does it have a responsibility to be so. It just posts links. And if the majority of Digg users happen to chose articles critical of those on the right or from sources on the left, then the same could happen on the other side. To use the word "bias" implies far too much about the purpose and format of Digg itself. Another noticeable thing about the section is that perhaps, maybe, if there was some kind of study done by an unbiased source that could prove a liberal "bias," it might be deserving of a section. --Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems unfair for a site to drive more traffic to liberal opinion the conservative. Diggs policy states
With the intention of artificially inflating or altering the 'digg count', comments, or any other Digg service, including by way of creating separate user accounts for the purpose of artificially altering Digg's services; giving or receiving money or other remuneration in exchange for votes; or participating in any other organized effort that in any way artificially alters the results of Digg's services;
The source was PBS it's government. Policeforcer (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Can anybody translate this into intelligible? man with one red shoe 02:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Please
Change the digg image back please. Some (Personal attack removed) vandalized it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul1991 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The new Digg app (iTunes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BySUXfs-3E&feature=player_embedded