From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Hi, I tried rewriting the "Controversy" section of the page to be more neutral, although I think that it may still be too much in favour of the Chagossians. Perhaps someone could look over this and decide whether the NPOV tag can be removed? Orthogonal1 (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks a lot better than before. I think it describes the situation nicely, showing the perspective of the affected sides without portraying anyone in a particularly positive or negative light. I'm comfortable with the NPOV tag going away now, and considering the lack of anyone else discussing it, will remove it now. If anyone still disputes this they can speak up and add the tag again. Lamda.tango (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what exactly was removed/added/changed (there isn't any "Controversy" section anymore), so if anybody wants to see what was there, I poked around on WikiBlame: [1]. Jimw338 (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

False information and non-neutral content citation[edit]

WRT: the "Controversy" section- The edits described in this discussion have been disrupted On May 1, 2015 (see <> an anonymous user from, who added a 'controversy' section that contained had been addressed In the interest of ensuring Wikipedia contains factual information and not opinions or inaccurate information. There is a non-neutral article from GigaOm with factual errors cited.
Rather than this Wikimedia informational reference about .io being a domain name containing facts, there appears to be an attempt of it being inappropriately used in support of a politically motivated campaign in an attempt to connect things that are not connected or to cast consumer doubt or otherwise disrupt .io operation - by parties seeking reparation funds for displaced Chagossians.
Facts about there being no financial relationship between Internet Computer Bureau and the British Government are found in August 2014 Parliamentary record of the British Government's House of Lords.
The Parliamentary records correct the false information reported in the GigaOm article that is cited as the basis for the "Controversy" section. The entire Controversy section cited negative leaning quotations from a negative leaning opinion article both with major factual errors.
To address the factual inaccuracies, the inaccurate data was removed, citing the public record of the House of Lords

"The British Government has no financial arrangement with the Internet Computer Bureau, which is the Domain Name Registrar or Network Information Centre for a number of domains including for some of the Overseas Territories."

— Lord Popat (Con), The UK Parliament House of Lords Summer Recess 2014 Written Answers and Statements (August 11, 2014)[1]


With the facts clarified regarding Internet Computer Bureau not having any financial arrangement with the British Government, the controversy section was removed. This revision was reversed, and the citation of accurate record from the House of Lords was removed by Orthogonal1. I have since restored the quotation from the Parliamentary record containing the facts of the matter, and would like to once again remove the inaccurate information and Controversy section.
There is no controversy. There are factual inaccuracies, as well as quotations cited which are negative in opinion of an unrelated topic that are being used in a method designed to tarnish the reputation of a technical service provider or institutional / consumer confidence in the .io TLD.
The "Controversy" section should be removed or revised to contain facts related specifically to the .io TLD. The objective is to not have this page abused in a manner to draw .io into outside controversy in a way that violates the spirit of Wikimedia.
A rewrite of the Controversy section is being submitted that
→Renames the section to "Alleged Contoversy"
→keeps the links to the articles in question 
→presents facts only or labels opinion as such

untanglr (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! I wasn't aware of this comment. Gigaom later wrote an article about the British Government's explanation. I just tried editing the section to include both points of view, so tell me what you think. Orthogonal1 (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
We are probably close to having the article more neutral to respect the Wikimedia spirit - the controversy is as much the articles as their subject matter. Leaving them in but giving some context as I've done should even it out a bit. User:untanglr (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2015
It's definitely getting better, but I'm a bit concerned about the use of terms such as "activist", "sensational" and "inflammatory". Also, the second GigaOM article didn't retract the claims about .io. Orthogonal1 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Since I haven't received a response, I've re-added my version of the controversy section. Orthogonal1 (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Tables of domains and other content added by User:AxelThomson[edit]

I've noticed that about 7 months ago, User:AxelThomson made substantial edits to the article. It is my opinion that these edits were primarily of a promotional nature. I had been trying to clean these up, firstly by removing the tables of domains and the sections surrounding them. You can see my edit here.

The content which I removed did not substantially contribute to the article, but instead functioned more as an advertisement for .io domains. This has been disputed by User:Racked1, so I am opening a discussion about User:AxelThomson's edits here. Orthogonal1 (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Orthogonal1 I'm not sure who decides what information goes into a Wiki and who doesn't. You clearly stated that you already decided that the information posted was for "advertisement". The information in the Wiki to which you removed was both the Alexa ranking of .io URLs in reference to all TLDs, which simply showed that the .io domains were being actively used and were a trusted TLD to use. A Wiki page in my eyes should have numerous bits of information which can be verified as fact, to which that was done. There are no URLs pointing to any auction for .io domains or fixed priced listings on the internet. Simply to show that .io domains have value, does not mean that the information is of an advertisement nature.

As far as the tables which shows the selling price of the .io domains. I think they are valid for numerous reasons. First, someone might be viewing the Wiki page to find information about the .io domains as far as investments. Are they to be denied that knowledge? The other important information which coincides with the Alexa ranking and the sales price is to show that the .io domains are becoming more prevalent and a staple in the domain space. Google has officially listed .io domains as a TLD not a GeoTLD, which is of major importance. This hold the same weight as a .com .net .org etc, and not a .se, .de, .ru etc.

I'm confused as to how something can stand the test of time for 7 months and you removed the information without any information or reasoning. The only individual to remove the information was you in the prior 7 months. That should tell you something right there. This was not something which was modified back and forth between multiple users. Considering the most expense domains sold day in and day out are .com, .net and other TLDs. The most expensive domains sold are .coms. Are we not to speak of that either?

The .com Wiki shows the oldest domains in existence and those are .coms. It also lists that there are over 100 million .coms registered. Is that not considered promotion?

According to Wiki's own policy, the information is not an advertisement: Wiki no soapbox "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable." None of that was done and links were provided to the Alexa rankings and sale prices. I'm sure there are better things to spend time on then this and I don't know how or why you decided to take this issue on.

Thanks, Racked1 (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Racked1, please be WP:CIVIL and avoid ad hominem arguments. As for your question about who decides which information goes into the wiki, see WP:Dispute resolution.

That a domain is in the Alexa list means nothing in terms of trustworthiness. .tk domains are popular, generic, and they also have many entries in the Alexa list, but they are often used for spam and phishing links.

If you wish to show that .io domains have value, then it is better to find an external source stating this and put it as a reference. A table of domains wastes space when there is a much more compact way of expressing an idea.

I will not comment on your .com arguments, as that is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Orthogonal1 (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

.tk domains are not ccTLDs, which are known to be at times sketchy. We are not speaking about ccTLDs, and as such I never stated any of the .io] domains were "trustworthy". That was your words. I simply stated that .io] domains were becoming more prevalent, which is not equal to trustworthiness. I did not know there was a limit on the size of a Wiki page. I am being WP:CIVIL when I state that you were the only person in the past 7 months to remove the tables. That is a fact, and not an ad hominem argument or attack. Let's address that issue, which I did not see you speak of.

The tables which were removed state specifically the reason behind them being there. The tables clearly state and show the Alex rankings and prices of sold domains. According to the link you provided WP:Dispute resolution it states that you should add information to balance out any that you find to be biased or inaccurate. It states that you shouldn't do the following: "don't delete salvageable text", which is what you did. Let's try and follow the WP:Dispute resolution policy, before we open a discussion, as you have yet to provide any information to the contrary, which is not what the WP:Dispute resolution states.

I quoted the Wiki no soapbox/advertisement, which you did not address. This is what's in question right here, and it's not in violation that I see by any margin. If it is, there needs to be specifics about what advertising you believe is being done, as I see zero, and I myself do not agree with the 3rd party promotion of any advertisement, to include any direct links to any auctions of .io] domains or websites selling .io] domains, and that is not being done.

Is there a limit on Wiki pages? I'm asking you because you seem to know your way around Wiki. I don't think the tables are "cluttering", as you put it, but I'm open to a resolution, even though I think all the information is 100% valid, useful, factual and unbiased. My resolution is that you can simply link to another .io page from within the original .io] page with the Alexa table rankings and sale price tables. That should appease everyone involved, although I don't see that anyone else has every objected. As far as why I included the .com information was provided in my last reply? It was there because it was similar data that was relevant to our discussion. It was promotion or advertisement of the .com domain, to which you have stated that's what was being done with the information which had gone unaltered for 7 straight months on the .io page Racked1 (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You stated that .io domains were a trusted TLD to use. But, seeing as you do not support that claim now, let's move onto your other points.

It is completely irrelevant that these edits have not been challenged for 7 straight months. Wikipedia is a living document, and can undergo change, even radical change, over time.

Both .tk domains and .io domains are ccTLDs, of Tokelau and BIOT respectively.

There is no limit on the size of a wiki page, but this is not an excuse to put any information you want onto it. Take a look at Wikipedia:Too much detail.

I understand your point that one should not delete salvageable text, but I am of the opinion that this text is not salvageable. Anyway, there are lots of exceptions to this rule, such as for biographies of living persons.

I wasn't recommending that we start a dispute resolution process; I was just trying to answer your question about who decides which information goes onto Wikipedia.

I still maintain that the content is advertising, because it detracts from the "objective and unbiased style" of the article. Even if it isn't advertising, there are still issues with neutrality and too much detail. Orthogonal1 (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've removed the sections being discussed since I haven't received a response yet. Orthogonal1 (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Crickey! Too much detail in this pedantic discussion. Yawn 1812ahill (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


I made some updates to the grammar of the article. Someone else should check if the template should be removed. Also, I left organization spelled as organisation because of the British nature of .io domains.

--Edward Versaii (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ <> see 1060