Jump to content

Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Riffraff913 (talk | contribs) at 23:00, 9 October 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


There's heavy citation and wikilink overkill in the August 2007 section of the article. I'm not sure how to fix it without screwing it up, so I'm just posting it here.

Washing Machine (alt) (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is Neelix?

Neelix is a former Wikipedian user. It was created on 2006, then retired on 2018, then created in 2020 called Wiki2008time and have blocked indefinitely in 2020 for abusing multiple accounts. Following Wiki2008time and Micericky have blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts in 2020, Neelix have been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts in 2021. 125.160.38.64 (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the 'recession' dispute meets the definition of a controversy.

@EEng Even if many of the reports are, so to say, misguided, off-base or exaggerated, the fact that the 'Recession' edit dispute did get a lot of critical comments about it makes it meet the definition of controversy, which did get mentioned by several reliable sources as well. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 13:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, what sources say is that editing got heated so the article was protected for a while. That's extremely common and not a "controversy". EEng 14:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC) P.S. Your opening text (After U.S. President Joe Biden rejected claims that the current situation in the United States was a recession, which contradicted the generally accepted definition) seems a bit loaded.[reply]
But they also mention a fair amount of debate surrounding the incident, though, even if it is trivial in terms of Wikipedia. As for the opening sentence, I probably could've phrased that better. I don't live in America, and I have never heard anything about the recession thing until now, and I was just parroting off the Washington Post article (which was stupid). — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 14:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's really a controversy, there should be some sustained coverage. Time will tell. EEng 15:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng Someone else added it to the page. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 08:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce McMahan

I propose this is added to the page. The article's creation, alleged PR-scrubbing, and deletion were notable at the time, and still are. Note that WP:BLP no longer applies, as he died in 2017. Riffraff913 (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant external links:

▪https://www.villagevoice.com/2006/09/26/daddys-girl/

▪https://www.villagevoice.com/2007/06/12/daddys-dog/

▪https://www.villagevoice.com/2010/10/07/memo-to-bruce-mcmahan-daughter-seducer-updated/

Relevant internal links:

▪https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_84

▪https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive644

It's worth noting that (from what I can tell) the original Wiki article was created around the time of the first VV article's publication, and soon gained an AfD nom (which resulted in the nomination being withdrawn), followed by another AfD nom again just one month later (resulting in "keep"). From what I can gather, the article was allegedly scrubbed by a PR firm (speculated to be with at least indirect assistance from Jimbo, at threat of legal action), and made into a puff piece, removing all mentions of his incestuous relationship with his daughter. A third AfD nom in 2009 ended up finally deleting it, because at that point it resembled nothing but self-promotion.

It really wasn't until 2010 (when Ortega's article came out) that the wider internet became aware. Riffraff913 (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is a copy of the WP page shortly before it was deleted:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090320125845/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_McMahan Riffraff913 (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only if we have an article List of Wikipedia controversies no one's ever heard of or cares about. DeCausa (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hardy har har. Did you ever consider that there are things occurring in this world that you may not be aware of? Riffraff913 (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So the Village Voice seems to have been the one that broke the initial story and did all the follow up reporting including the back-and-forth about the subjec'ts Wikipedia page. Their involvement in this is pretty central to any potential listing here, so are there any other publications that went into any details about a Wikipedia controversy surrounding this individuals Wikipedia page? A single source making a couple of mentions of a Wikipedia page being deleted under circumstances that ended up being fortuitous for the subject doesn't suggest much of a controversy surrounding anything involving Wikipedia itself, especially when the source entangled itself into the story so much that it's not really independent of any resulting controversy. Can you provide any independent sources that covered this, or that shows that "the wider internet became aware" of any such Wikipedia controversy? To be clear, I'm asking about sources showing that this is specifically a "Wikipedia controversy" and not just sources that discuss the controversy about the article's subject, which is potentially related but not sufficient to list here as that's not a Wikipedia controversy. - Aoidh (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if I have anything that might satisfy your conditions. From my research, it seems when the story was first reported in the Village Voice, it sort of made the rounds in some small newspapers and internet blogs. It wasn't until 2010, when Tony Ortega mentioned the Wikipedia aspect in his piece, that it seems others began to cover that angle (and by others, I again mean a few small papers and blogs).

Without deep digging, the best evidence outside Wikipedia that it caused a stir is a bevy of highly-upvoted Reddit posts, of which all take the position that Wikipedia deliberately covered it up.

The funny thing is that (while I'm not sure this fits the definition for the page, as the internal debates did not seem to make a wide splash in the press) the place where the issue seemed to make the biggest splash is Wikipedia itself. Being a deleted article, the talk page for it is unavailable for viewing, but from what I've gathered, it was flaming (in the sense of a flame war). Actually, one of the links I posted goes to an Admin Noticeboard post from 2010 in which Jimbo himself felt the need to step in and address issues to do with libel. Riffraff913 (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If independent reliable sources don't say that this is a Wikipedia controversy, it's not suitable for inclusion in the article. That is the metric that is used because Wikipedia cannot and should not be determining what is and is not controversial on Wikipedia; we must rely on reliable sources, anything short of that is WP:UNDUE. - Aoidh (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hence my "sarcastic" response which you didn't seem to get. I quick google tells you all you need to know for the purposes of Wikipedia. Nobody knows or cares about this alleged "controversy and that's reflected in nobody writing about it. We only cover what appears in WP:RS. DeCausa (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh: How big does it have to be? What about this?

https://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/daddys-little-obfuscator-6309456

At the time, the paper was owned by the same group as the Village Voice (so IDK if it fits your criteria), but it does talk about what was happening on Wikipedia in regards to edit warring on the article, as well as arguments on the talk page. It also claims Wikipedia general counsel Brad Patrick actually reached out to them to discuss any potential legal liability from having certain court records on the site.

@DeCausa: I understood your response; I just chose not to engage with you any further than acknowledgement. Being an ass isn't conducive to the conversation. Notice how I'm having a conversation with Aoidh, because even if things don't go my way, he took the time to engage with me in a helpful, non-dismissive manner. Try it sometime. Riffraff913 (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your lack of understanding and knowledge of Wikipedia, calling another editor an "ass" is something you could get blocked for. See WP:NPA. I suggest you spend more time reading Wikipedia policy before launching whatever personal crusade you're on (with forum-shopping thrown in). DeCausa (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Wikipedia also has policies aimed toward passive aggression, incivility, and assuming good faith. I don't know where you are getting "personal crusade" and "forum-shopping", but I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from such claims. I'm only here because I wanted to help the page. That's why I used the talk page, instead of single-handedly adding a section about it. I wanted a conversation. Riffraff913 (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies&oldid=1115124348"