Talk:Bleacher Report

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Regarding the alleged conflict of interest[edit]

On Jan. 5th, 2012, the user Dankster tagged this article for a conflict-of-interest review, on the grounds that I (Ryan521982, the article's most active editor) have been employed by Bleacher Report in an independent-contractor capacity (amidst other jobs as a writer, editor, tutor, and occasional landscape maintenance worker). I welcome the discussion that will undoubtedly unfold as part of said review...and I'll get the ball rolling here by laying out a handful of important facts:

- I have never been paid for writing about Bleacher Report on Wikipedia.

- I have never been told what to write when writing about Bleacher Report on Wikipedia.

- I have nothing to gain from Bleacher Report's continued success.

- In all instances (and per Wikipedia's own guidelines), I have only made revisions when "certain that a neutral editor would agree that (my) edits improve Wikipedia."

- In all instances (and contrary to Dankster's claims), I have responded thoughtfully and positively to suggestions for improvements to the article.

- In all instances, I have been scrupulous in corroborating additions to the article with references to credible sources.

As you might imagine, it's a bit exasperating to be accused by Dankster of deeds I haven't done and bias I haven't exhibited. Said exasperation is doubly compounded by the fact that I've contributed heavily to the expansion and updating of the "Criticism" section of the article—including references to (a) B/R's alleged "exploitation" of unpaid writers and (b) the contention of one critic that B/R's efforts to improve the quality of its content have been akin to "spritzing a little room deodorizer after leaving a steaming deposit in the toilet and failing to flush." (To put it another way: If I've been trying to advance a "pro B/R" agenda with my revisions, I'm certainly not doing a very good job of it.)

All that said—and exasperation aside—I do believe that Dankster has the best interests of the article at heart, and I hope he believes me when I say that I do too. In that spirit, I'll look forward to both (a) the impending conversation about my editing efforts and (b) further discussion about how we can all continue to improve the article going forward...and will always assume the good faith of anyone who's willing to grant me the same benefit of the doubt.

Ryan521982 (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


Would you admit that your decision that there's no conflict of interest is pretty much the same as a player who just scored a touchdown stating that he's seen the replay and there's no need for a review? It is not impossible that someone working for Bleacher Report could make a neutral decision. But yes, there is a conflict of interest, and you should understand that your perspective might distort your ability to evaluate your own neutrality.
If you believe that you have only made changes that neutral editors would agree with, then are you stating that all three wikipedia editors who made the claim that your write-up looked like you were just trying to say how great Bleacher Report is are not neutral?
The problem with your write-up is that you're consistently saying things in such a manner that a neutral observer of Bleacher Report would not say. No one would come to Bleacher Report and say, "Okay, so their focus is on covering news stories". No one would say, "oh, so these critical articles are all a result of their commitment open-source publishing model". And especially, no neutral observer would say, "oh, this criticism is focused on how they're thwarting the traditional hierarchy of established media!" Those are things you would expect to see in Bleacher Report's own defense, not from a neutral source. That's why it was transparent to me that you're weren't a neutral source from the beginning, and why I challenged you on it.
As far as your misunderstanding of COI, I'm not accusing you of getting paid by someone to edit wikipedia. If you quickly peruse the COI disputes, that's not what they're about. Instead, I'm stating that as a writer (I'm assuming at this point a paid writer, though that's not necessary) of Bleacher Report, you are not a neutral observer.
If you really believe that a neutral editor would agree with your changes, then stop removing the things that neutral editors say. Instead, why don't you argue your case on the talk page first, and let the neutral editors make the changes themselves when they agree with you? Have you even once gotten agreement on any of your arguments on these talk pages?117.228.188.13 (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


Thanks again for weighing in, Dankster. To address the key points one at a time...
- Your "player who just scored a touchdown" analogy is clever but inaccurate. The truth is that I'm not even on the field—as noted above, I have nothing to gain from Bleacher Report's continued success, so (again) there's no conflict of interest by any conventional definition of the term. (For the record, this isn't a "misunderstanding of COI" on my part; on the contrary, it's an assertion that—per Wikipedia's own definition—my motives don't conflict with the encyclopedia's neutrality policy.)
- When I say that I have only made revisions when "certain that a neutral editor would agree that (my) edits improve Wikipedia," I don't mean that I made the article perfect—only that I made the article better. When previous editors (Wallinleft and BashBrannigan) made suggestions for further improvements, I took those suggestions to heart and revised the article accordingly.
- Contrary to your claims, I do believe that any truly neutral observer would recognize (a) that B/R specializes in the coverage of trending news topics (although I agree "stories" was the wrong word) and (b) that pre-2012 criticisms of the quality of B/R writers did in fact stem from (though not "focus on"—hence the revision) the open-source publishing model. On the other hand, I do agree that the "thwarting the traditional hierarchy" didn't capture the central thrust of the third critique—hence my revision in response to your suggestion.
- Yes, I have in fact "gotten agreement on (all) of (my) arguments on these talk pages." Or, more precisely, I (a) thoroughly explained my revisions in response to the suggestions from both Wallinleft and BashBrannigan and (b) didn't receive responses from either of them...which I took to be signs of implicit approval. (To put it another way: If they thought further revisions were necessary, I asume they would have (a) made the revisions themselves or (b) suggested them on the Talk page.)
- More the point, I have never "removed" substantive additions to the article by neutral editors. True, I have (a) corrected factual inaccuracies and (b) adjusted wording and organization where appropriate, but the insinuation that I've ever tried to suppress criticism or amplify praise is totally false. I'm confident that the revision history and this Talk page bear out that assertion...so I'll leave further judgment to the discretion of independent reviewers.
In closing, let me reiterate what a shame it is that we're spending so much time arguing about neutrality instead of trying to improve the article. You've obviously spent a lot of time thinking about the subject...and we both agree that our collaboration on the latest revisions has improved the article...so I really would relish the opportunity to discuss any further changes you think are necessary. All I ask is that you not dismiss my disagreements with some of your suggestions as "proof" of my alleged "bias"—which is precisely the same respect I've accorded to you, and which would give us a much better foundation for substantive progress going forward.
Ryan521982 (talk)
Ryan521982 - it's not an "alleged" conflict of interest. You admitted that you write for Bleacher Report. You clearly are "a player on the field". The fact that you've outlasted other editors with complaints hasn't been implicit approval of your response, however humorous that interpretation is. It simply means that you care more about B/R than they do (naturally), and so you'll stay on the case longer than them. None of us has said that we've been satisfied with your response - in fact, I think I'm the only one whose said any good things about your response to criticism at all, and my praise has been quite limited.
Thanks again for the follow-up, Dankster. In order to help future reviewwes follow the conversation, I've addressed each of your points with bolded inline text here and below:
On the contrary, it is an "alleged" conflict of interest, because you're claiming that I'm motivated to skew things in B/R's favor, and I'm insisting that I don't have said motivation (i.e. I'm not a player on the field). It's also not true that I "stayed on the case" longer than the other editors (Wallinleft and BashBrannigan); on the contrary, they made suggestions, I responded, and that was the end of it. If you want to track them down, I'd love to hear whether or not they were in fact "satisfied" with my responsiveness...but in the absence of firsthand testimony, there's no basis to believe that they weren't.Ryan521982 (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Here are some continued biased point-of-view issues with the article:
You're still saying that Bleacher Report “specializes in coverage of trending news topics”. That phrase is not in the linked source, and no neutral observer of Bleacher Report would peruse their material and come up with that as a summary of what they see. Yes, they focus on including trending keywords in their titles. But slideshow lists like “Why Tom Brady is the most overrated quarterback ever' or “Top ten clutch playoff performances in NBA history” or “Fifty hot WAGs of Major League Baseball” aren't news coverage just because “Tom Brady” or “NBA playoffs” or “Major League Baseball” are trending keywords. All major sports media outlets are primarily focused on current events. Why not just say that they specialize in opinion-oriented analysis of sports and leave it at that? That's far nicer sounding than what most neutral observers would say.
In the October 2012 SF Weekly article, B/R is criticized precisely for covering tending news topics—i.e. for generating content related to the topics people are searching for. To (attempt to) allay your ongoing concerns, I've revised the offending sentence to read that B/R "specializes in *generating content* about trending news topics"...but if you're still not happy with that, please let me know so we can work on it further.'Ryan521982 (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Saying that “B/R pursues a stated goal of "revolutionizing the way sports fans learn, think, and talk about their favorite teams and topics” is unnecessary sloganeering. All companies have similarly grandiose statements filling up their PR material, but there's far more than enough propaganda in this article already.
Great point—I definitely agree, and removed the sentence from the introduction.'Ryan521982 (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The block quotes by investors praising B/R are unnecessary, especially having two of them. Investors routinely put our flowery press releases when they put up their money, and you already have more than enough about the various investments.
I agree that two is definitely too much, especially given the extent to which the analysis at the time of acquisition trumps the analysis at the time of the funding. That said, I do think that the quote from Levy (a) gives readers a firsthand account of why and how Turner made its decision and therefore (b) merits inclusion in the article...but if you disagree, please let me know so we can discuss further.Ryan521982 (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Your labeling of the criticism as “early” is without foundation. As I've already pointing out, the linked criticisms are equally spaced out over 2012, 2011, and 2010, with the most recent two occurring in the last 3 months. There is no demonstrated change in the criticism and no justification for the word “early” except to minimize their significance. The ending of the “all registered users can submit” policy wouldn't have by itself eliminated any of the criticisms cited either before or after that change was made, so it shouldn't be listed there. The adjective “sometimes” also minimizes the criticism.
It seems like we're still talking past each other. To clarify (and as a quick read of the article will bear out), we currently distinguish between "early criticism" (related to the quality of the writers) and "ongoing criticism" (related to exploitation of the writers and the production of high-volume, low-quality slideshow content geared towards popular keywords). I definitely agree that the ongoing criticism hasn't been addressed by B/R in word or deed—hence the "has not mounted a substantive response" language in the last sentence of the article. If you can think of additional ways to distinguish between the early and ongoing criticism, I'm all ears. (And for the record, the word "sometimes" does not appear anywhere in the article.)Ryan521982 (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
You've provided no source for the criticism being based on B/R's “commitment to an open-source publishing model”. That's not in any of the links, it's your own analysis. You believe your analysis is accurate, but that doesn't belong in a wikipedia article.
I think you may have missed my note on this subject in the thread below. To clarify, here's a repeat:
'Upon further review, I agree that "focus" was the wrong word. Instead, I've changed the sentence to read that "Early criticism of Bleacher Report *stemmed from* the network's initial commitment to an open-source publishing model"...which is in fact accurate, because while all three articles FOCUSED on the the general lack of qualification among B/R writers, said lack of qualification STEMMED FROM the open-source model (which allowed anyone to sign up and publish articles).'
As you'll see below, I also cite specific passages from each article that illuminate their focus on low-quality writers. If you disagree—i.e. if you think the articles focus on something other than writer quality—please let me know so we can discuss further.Ryan521982 (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Saying “degraded the quality of B/R's content” implies that there was quality before it was degraded, which isn't what the linked source actually says. Also, you slip in “insightful coverage”. Similarly, saying “diminished the credibility of the B/R brand” implies that it had credibility before, which isn't what the source is saying. And again you slip in “talented writers”. These items are your toned-down versions of even more blatantly favorable “criticisms” which editors have repeatedly called you out on. You see the things that a COI editor does which a neutral editor wouldn't make an effort to do?
'I have to admit that I think you're splitting semantic hairs here, but I'm willing to play along for the sake of progress. "Degraded" and "diminished" have both been revised to rule out the possible interpretation of decline from a previous higher state, and "insightful" has been changed to "credible" to indicate that the source described a reader who was taken in by non-credible content. But...I did keep "talented writers," because the conclusion of the jetsblog.com article explicitly says that "the biggest cause of internal conflict for me with B/R is that there are great writers on B/R." If you have further concerns on this front, please be sure to let me know.Ryan521982 (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Calling B/R's new educational resources “comprehensive” appears to be unjustifiably positive enthusiasm that again sounds like a press release. Are they sending the writers to a journalism school or something? Also, your deletion of the fact that the paid team of lead writers is only 5 people among thousands of B/R writers (has that group of five grown? To what number now?) also exaggerates the reforms.
Good point here—"comprehensive" has been deleted. And yes, to answer your question, the Lead Writer team is now more than five people—I believe somewhere in the ballpark of 30-40, with an even larger number of paid contributors who aren't designated as "Lead Writers." If you can find a source with a specific figure, I'm all for adding the precise number.Ryan521982 (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Forbes's brief mention of the reforms in the linked source is an insufficient counter to the extended criticisms in the other two sources mentioning the reforms. Forbes only briefly mentioned the reforms in the same article with some unrelated praise (which is already mentioned and cited earlier on this wiki page). They don't specifically praise the reforms or say that those reforms have fixed any issues, so you can't use that article to counter the argument by two other sources that the reforms haven't fixed the issues in question.
The inclusion of the Forbes article in the "Response" section reflects your most revision, not mine. That said, I do think it merits inclusion, because it indicates a positive third-party assessment of B/R's personnel practices after the reform. Furthermore, the "Response" section doesn't attempt to "counter" the criticisms (or claim that they're countered by the Forbes article); instead, it simply notes both the positive and negative assessments of post-reform B/R and leaves it at that. If you can think of a better way to present the information, I'm certainly open to discussion.Ryan521982 (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll note that other editors without your COI have already brought up most of these issues at various times in the past year (March 2012, August 2012, September 2012, and now January 2013), yet you continue to override their objections based on your assumption that your own discernment is superior. And no matter how often you bend under pressure and allow small changes to make a blatantly pro-B/R article into just a mostly pro-B/R article, it doesn't change the fact that you have a COI by working for the company in question.117.225.82.223 (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
And I'll note that I haven't "overridden" the objections of any of the three critical editors (you, Wallinleft, and BashBrannigan); instead, I've tried to work constructively with anyone who's suggested improvements to the article. I hope that you'll take the time to review my positive demeanor in our communication history in a truly objective light...but failing that, I'll still continue to work with you as best I can to make the article as good as it can be.Ryan521982 (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This article needs revision by independent editors[edit]

A number of contributors on the talk page have highlighted issues with the Bleacher Report page, all of which were responded to by Ryan521982. Ryan521982 admitted below after direct questioning that he works for Bleacher Report.

Ryan521982 took Wikipedia's Bleacher Report page and substantially rewrote it from a 198 word article to 660 words, then supplied or heavily revised most of the material that provided its current length of 1100 words. All other significant content revisions or additions performed since Ryan521982 began editing the site have been entirely or almost entirely reversed by Ryan521982 or other editors.

As Ryan521982 is making major edits of a page for the company he has worked for, he is in violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, it states:

"This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia."[1]

Guidelines on the page include:

  • "Be up-front about your conflict: If you are going to engage in substantial editing under a conflict of interest, you should declare your conflict of interest up-front: place a note on your user page explaining your conflict, and mention it to editors you work with in any depth."[1]
  • "Don't edit articles: Don't make potentially controversial edits to articles related to your area of conflict. Policy makes exceptions for reverting vandalism and enforcing biography of living persons policy. Similarly, don't add links, citations, or mentions to other articles that highlight a company or group you may be affiliated with. Instead, make suggestions on article talk pages and let others decide whether to implement them." [1]
  • "Don't push: The whole point of WP:COI is that editors with a conflict are not considered sufficiently impartial to make subjective editorial decisions regarding those issues. So, when involved in any kind of discussion relating to articles in your area of conflict, you should bear in mind, foremost, that you must leave the actual decisions up to others."[1]

To those points, I am restoring the most recent changes that Ryan521982 removed. I would deeply prefer not to get in a content war, but I do not believe my revisions should be removed until after they are discussed and non-conflicted editors come to agreement about them. It would be very helpful for a neutral 3rd party to look at any disputed content and make those revisions after discussion.

I am avoiding the conflict of interest tag for now unless such revisions continue to be made.Dankster (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


First, a point of factual clarification: It is not at all true (as Dankster claims) that "All other significant content revisions or additions performed since Ryan521982 began editing the site have been entirely or almost entirely reversed by Ryan521982 or other editors." On the contrary, the revision history shows that I've been open and responsive to substantive criticisms about the article...and I would invite any "independent editor" to carefully review the revision history (and this discussion thread) in making a truly independent judgment.
Beyond that, I'll also repeat here what I said in my Jan. 5th response to Dankster below:
The upshot is that, contrary to Dankster's claim, I do not believe the article to be in violation of Wikipedia's COI guidelines, and I would welcome further discussion with anyone who who believes otherwise. That said, let me also be clear that I don't want a "content war" any more than Dankster does, and I am (and have been) perfectly willing to work with anyone and everyone who wants to improve the article. Along those lines, I hope Dankster will respond constructively to my latest round of revisions (which retained the thrust of his own while clearing up a few points of confusion)...and I'll look forward to further suggestions from all inclined to offer them.
Ryan521982 (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


Ryan521982 - as the person with the Conflict of Interest, you should NOT be the one arbitrating whether or not other people's edits are legitimate. Please read the guidelines as listed and see how many of them you are in violation of. You are supposed to let other people make those decisions while considering your input, not the other way around. If you truly believe that you are being unbiased, then you should have faith that others will be able to make decisions. A look at the edit history clearly shows that no one has made a substantive content edit other than you without their changes almost immediately being heavily redacted or simply reversed.

A few issues you're still not seeing and continue to make inappropriate reversals on:

  • Bleacher Report does not specialize in news stories. The fact that you link to an article about the slideshows on that very point betrays that.
  • Bleacher Report's early criticism did not focus on their "open source publishing model". In fact, NONE of the articles you have cited in "criticism" use that phrase.
  • Bleacher Report's "response" did not answer those criticisms. In fact, of the 7 critical articles that I had cited, only TWO came before B/R's "response" in 2010. One was from later in 2010, two were from 2011, and two were from 2012. In fact, even 2 of the 3 articles you have listed there are dated after the changes "in response" took place.
  • You delete LarryBrownSports.com because you consider it to be a sports blog with no legitimacy, but you include battleofcali.com and thejetsblog.com as two of your three sources in the exact same section.

I agree that the article has improved after my input, although I've had to redo the changes twice to get you to accept even some of them. But there are still issues, and multiple Wikipedia editors shouldn't have to fight with someone working for the company in question in order to get changes made on a Wikipedia page. I will add the COI tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankster (talkcontribs) 04:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


I'm sorry we're still not seeing eye-to-eye here, Dankster—although I'm glad we both agree that the article is now better than it was. After having addressed the general COI issue at the top of the thread, I'll also take some time here to (a) point out a few factual inaccuracies in your post and (b) briefly flesh out the details of our lingering disagreements...not because I think I'll be able to change your mind, but rather simply to help future reviewers understand the competing viewpoints.
First, the factual inaccuracies:
- "A look at the edit history clearly shows that no one has made a substantive content edit other than you without their changes almost immediately being heavily redacted or simply reversed."
Not true. Upon further inspection, you'll see (a) that the only "reversed" changes have been unsourced or nonsensical, (b) that I've only done the reversing myself in two cases (with the other reversals performed by other editors), and (c) that I've responded thoughtfully and productively to all substantive revisions and/or suggestions. That last point is borne out by the various discussions on this Talk page...so I'll let future editors conduct their own reviews and draw their own conclusions.
- "I've had to redo the changes twice to get you to accept even some of them."
Not true. I fully endorsed your most substantive revisions (re: (a) fleshing out the description of the recent SF Weekly criticism and (b) moving much of the "Response" section to the new "Accolades" section) right from the get-go. True, I did make further edits where I saw room for improvement...but I never reverted any of your revisions (as you did in fact revert mine).
- "...multiple Wikipedia editors shouldn't have to fight with someone working for the company in question in order to get changes made on a Wikipedia page."
Two problems here: (a) I'm not "working" for Bleacher Report when I'm making revisions on Wikipedia (cf. my note addressing the COI issue at the beginning of the thread) and (b) no one has had to "fight" with me to make changes to the article. True, I've been (a) diligent in ensuring that all revisions are accurate and well-worded and (b) vocal in explaining my positions to other editors on this Talk page...but diligent and vocal collaboration is the lifeblood of Wikipedia, and to dismiss earnest and well-reasoned debate as "fighting" is to tramp on the spirit of the entire Wiki project.
- "You delete LarryBrownSports.com because you consider it to be a sports blog with no legitimacy, but you include battleofcali.com and thejetsblog.com as two of your three sources in the exact same section."
Not true—I didn't "delete" LBS. On the contrary, I kept it as a source for the first sentence of the second full paragraph in the "Criticism" section, which is precisely the same capacity in which the two other blog sources are used. I DID in fact remove the direct quote...but I did so because (as I noted previously) I believe that lumping the critical quote from LBS (a non-credible source) with the critical quote from Vivek Wadhwa (a credible source) undermines the legitimacy of the criticism itself. (To put it another way: My goal is to make the "Criticism" section STRONGER, not weaker.)
--
Second, re: the lingering disagreements:
- "Bleacher Report does not specialize in news stories. The fact that you link to an article about the slideshows on that very point betrays that."
For the record, the sentence in question stated that B/R "specializes in the *coverage* of trending news stories"—not in "news stories" themselves. To mitigate the confusion, I've changed "news stories" to "news topics"...which hopefully highlights the distinction between straight reporting work (which B/R doesn't do) and commentary on topics that are in the news (which B/R does do).
To further clarify, B/R's slideshows are very much a part of its coverage of trending news topics. That's precisely the point of the criticism leveled in the SF Weekly article: that B/R editors (a) track the news topics that are generating the most search visits at any particular moment and (b) craft topical slideshow assignments to capitalize on each topic's popularity. If there's any further confusion on this point, please don't hesitate to let me know.
- "Bleacher Report's early criticism did not focus on their "open source publishing model". In fact, NONE of the articles you have cited in "criticism" use that phrase."
Upon further review, I agree that "focus" was the wrong word. Instead, I've changed the sentence to read that "Early criticism of Bleacher Report *stemmed from* the network's initial commitment to an open-source publishing model"...which is in fact accurate, because while all three articles FOCUSED on the the general lack of qualification among B/R writers, said lack of qualification STEMMED FROM the open-source model (which allowed anyone to sign up and publish articles).
For everyone's edification here are the most relevant passages (among many other choices) from the three articles in question:
Battleofcali.com: "The veneer of professionalism provided by the trappings of Bleacher Report tricks countless foolish people (like my co-worker) into thinking the articles mean anything or aren't just the crazy mutterings of friendless shut-ins."
Jetsblog.com: "For those who have cut their teeth on sports blogging and made something out of it … fighting with WordPress Themes or Blogspot constrictions, having their host crash their blog, busting their ass to get readers, they see Bleacher/Report as something of a joke. Like a welfare state-sponsored version of blogging. It’s ideal is noble, and something that most bloggers would agree with in principle, but they also see through the lens of the meritocracy that their own blogging has allowed them. Their writing on their own blog has allowed them success, but why does some person who’s written three articles ever get their content fed to Google? That concept is obscene to a longtime blogger."
IU School of Journalism: "Bleacher Report calls itself "a national network driven entirely by passionate fans." Print Age dinosaurs recognize that as code meaning that BR publishes "news" "stories" "reported" by fans, some of whom can almost type."
- "Bleacher Report's "response" did not answer those criticisms. In fact, of the 7 critical articles that I had cited, only TWO came before B/R's "response" in 2010. One was from later in 2010, two were from 2011, and two were from 2012."
First, let's clarify what we mean by "those criticisms." If you're talking about the "ongoing" criticisms—i.e the criticisms re: writer exploitation, not breaking news, slideshows, search-optimization, etc.—you're absolutely correct that B/R hasn't responded to them...which is precisely what I said in the final sentence of the article:
If you're talking about the "early" criticisms, on the other hand—i.e. the criticisms about open-source publishing and low-quality writers—it's incorrect to say that B/R hasn't responded. On the contrary, the three reforms cited in the "Response" section (i.e. screening writers, educating writers, and hiring Lead Writers) were undertaken precisely to mollify critics of the open-source model. Whether that response was successful is an open question (hence my statement in the first paragraph of the "Response" section that B/R "*attempted to* address the concerns of its early critics..."), but the fact that it was indeed a "response" (successful or otherwise) is beyond dispute.
(NB: There also seems to be some chronological confusion here about the dates of the reforms. Although the first reform described in the "Response" section (the screening of new writers) started in mid-2010, the second two (writer training and Lead Writers) didn't come until 2011...and even the writer screening didn't have much teeth until 2011. Along those lines, I've revised the "Response" section to indicate that the reforms came in "2010 and 2011" instead of just "2010.")
--
Okay—I'll leave it there for now, with the understanding that I'll gladly pick up the conversation again with Dankster or anyone else who wants to take the time to delve. To reiterate a point I've made more than a few times throughout this thread, my only goal here is to make the article as accurate and informative as it can possibly be...so rest assured that I'll be happy to go back and forth on these or any other topics whenever I have a partner.
Ryan521982 (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d "Wikipedia:Conflict of interest". http://en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2013-01-05. External link in |publisher= (help)

Footnote #8 is hardly a credible source[edit]

Footnote #8 is hardly a credible source for the claim that Bleacher Report uses blog like opinions. If you've clicked it, you'd realize it links to a blogger's opinion. In addition, it links to an "article" from SB Nation, Bleacher Report's main rival. Under those circumstances, that footnote should be stricken from the Bleacher Report page as well as the sentence criticizing them.

CordellHull33 (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Added "press release" template[edit]

This article seems to be about how great Bleacher Report is. In particular, the "Public Relations" section does not appear to detail the criticisms in a neutral manner, only pointing out those that were addressed in the "response" subsection, and ends with a list of accolades that, if they appear in the article, should go elsewhere. Also, the mobile app does not need its own section, which itself reads like an advertisement. Details on the content initially offered and its evolution over time (which sounds like it would be noteworthy given the "Public Relations" section) would greatly improve the article.

Wallinleft (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I added press release template back in. The criticism above from back in March still applies. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in, Bash—but the preponderance of opinion in the revision thread (i.e. the fact that no other editors have raised "press release" concerns) seems to be against you. As such, I've removed the News Release tag pending more substantive criticism—where "substantive" would entail reference to specific sentences that lack objectivity.
On the specific subject of the "Public Relations" section, I'll say to you what I said to Wallinleft in March:
That request for help is definitely still applicable, so please don't hesitate to add any relevant criticism that isn't included in the current entry. Failing that, though, I want to reiterate that the current "Criticism" section contains only factual statements, and thus can't possibly be anything but objective...which is why the News Release tag doesn't make sense without further explanation.Ryan521982 (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Ryan521982, I noticed you have removed the “new release” template. Regardless of the changes you made in response to Wallinleft criticism, the article unfortunately still needs work to meet Wikipedia’s standards. I’m happy to give a few examples.
Phrases such as “tasked with overseeing”, “acquires calculus” and “alluded to potential synergies” is the kind of wording seen in a company press release. In the lede BR is described as a "digital sports media network". Who calls them that? Again, it sounds like something the company would call themselves and it needs an independent reference. The criticism section re-interprets and cherry-picks from the sources given. For example, the article characterized the criticism as “diluted the quality of B/R content...” which seems a distortion. The source doesn't say “diluted”, but rather simply that the content is poor. As an example of cherry-picking, in the Criticism section, of the many criticisms that could be chosen, a criticism which included the phrases “great writers” and “good writers” was chosen and even formatted as a standalone quote for emphasis. In fact, the use of standalone quotes in the article is unnecessary. The phrase "Bleacher Report addressed the concerns of its critics" is not an impartial statement. Is there an independent authority who says they've addresses concerns, because I suspect the source of this is BR.
There is also information suspiciously absent. The lede mentions BR’s “pain and unpaid” contributors, implying some equality, while my understand is that the vast bulk of contributors are unpaid. Also, I understand that blogging makes up a significant portion of BR, while the word “blog” is not even mentioned once. Is it because "blog" has negative connotations?
There is more, (including issues other than bias), but these are the ones that cry out for attention.
If you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia correct writing style you can read Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not, specifically the section on "Advertising", and also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Please understand the purpose of tagging, because it is not meant as a condemnation of the article. Rather, tagging adds to Wikipedia’s creditability so readers know clearly of any current concerns. It also serves to elicit and encourage editors to fix the concerns. I will be adding the tag back in. Please do not remove it until the issues here have been addressed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to respond here or on my talk page. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for the follow-up, Bash—and for taking the time to lay out your specific concerns.
Most of your critiques are on-point, and I've addressed them in the latest revision to the article. There are only a handful of issues on which you've failed to make a good case, which I'll reference as I run down your list of suggested changes...
- First, re: Phrases such as “tasked with overseeing”, “acquires calculus” and “alluded to potential synergies” is the kind of wording seen in a company press release.
For the record, I often see such wording in third-party news reports. But...I'm sympathetic to your concerns, and I've changed all three phrases in the new revision.
- Second, re: In the lede BR is described as a "digital sports media network". Who calls them that? Again, it sounds like something the company would call themselves and it needs an independent reference.
This is one of the issues where you're off—specifically insofar as the description of B/R as "an American digital sports media network" is consistent with Wikipedia's description of ESPN as "an American global cable television network." Like "cable television," "digital sports media" is an objective term denoting a specific kind of content (i.e. a combination of text, images, and videos delivered over the Internet)[1]...and thus would look silly if followed by a footnote to an independent reference.
- Third, re: the article characterized the criticism as “diluted the quality of B/R content...” which seems a distortion. The source doesn't say “diluted”, but rather simply that the content is poor.
You make an excellent point here, and I've changed the article text to more accurately summarize the criticism in the source.
- Fourth, re: As an example of cherry-picking, in the Criticism section, of the many criticisms that could be chosen, a criticism which included the phrases “great writers” and “good writers” was chosen and even formatted as a standalone quote for emphasis.
You're right that this part of the article (a) was poorly conceived and (b) needlessly emphasized the presence of "great writers" on B/R. Along those lines, I've rewritten the entire paragraph to more meaningfully summarize the cited criticism...and have incorporated a less obviously positive version of the quote into the body of the paragraph to obviate your concerns about cherry-picking.
- Fifth, re: the use of standalone quotes in the article is unnecessary.
I strongly disagree here. On the contrary, the two standalone quotes in the "History" section provide important first-person answers to the questions (a) "Why did VCs fund Bleacher Report?" and (b) "Why did Turner acquire Bleacher Report?"—both of which are matters of (a) historical record and (b) high interest to readers. Furthermore, I can find no guidelines about the propriety of standalone quotes in the Wikipedia standards you cite...so unless you can make a logical argument to the contrary, I see no reason to change the formatting.
- Sixth, re: The phrase "Bleacher Report addressed the concerns of its critics" is not an impartial statement.
Another reasonable point. For the record, I used "addressed" here in the sense of its strict dictionary definition (i.e. "to think about and begin to deal with [an issue or problem]")...but I recognize that "address" is now sometimes used (inaccurately) to mean "solved"...so I revised the sentence to read "attempted to address" (which is a strictly objective statement).
- Seventh, re: The lede mentions BR’s “paid and unpaid” contributors, implying some equality, while my understand is that the vast bulk of contributors are unpaid.
My apologies for the vague language here—I've revised the wording to sync with the most recently published third-party source.
- Eighth, re: I understand that blogging makes up a significant portion of BR, while the word “blog” is not even mentioned once. Is it because "blog" has negative connotations?
In this case, your understanding is simply wrong. A blog is a personal platform from which writers casually riff on topics of interest without regard to journalistic standards; B/R, by contrast, mandates that all articles comply with strict Content Standards[2] and Attribution Guidelines.[3] It could be that you've got B/R confused with SB Nation, which is a competitor that does in fact bill itself as a collection of blogs...but in any case—and for your own edification—I'd encourage you to spend some time browsing B/R to get a better sense of what exactly the site's about.
- Finally, re: There is more, (including issues other than bias), but these are the ones that cry out for attention.
When you get a chance, I'd love to hear your other feedback. As I hope goes without saying, my only goal here is to make the article as good as it can possibly be...so please don't hesitate to let me know if you spot any room for obvious improvement...and I'll look forward to hashing out the details over the long run. Ryan521982 (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/digital-media.html
  2. ^ bleacherreport.com/pages/contentstandards
  3. ^ bleacherreport.com/pages/attributionguidelines

Responding to Wallinleft[edit]

Thanks for the feedback Wallinleft—you were right that the "Newsletters" section should have contained a citation. As a first step towards objectivity, I removed both the "Newsletters" and the "Mobile App" sections, because (as you note) they read too much like ads.

(FYI, I almost removed them myself when another user posted them last month...but hesitated and decided not to. In any case, I'm glad you came along to do the job.)

All that said, I have to disagree with you on the alleged bias of the "Public Relations" section (which I wrote myself). When I first revised the section, it was only a brief/vague sentence about public criticism and the company's attempt to respond. I (a) fleshed out the details of the criticism and response and (b) searched the Web for up-to-date public assessments of the company's efforts to improve...and was only able to find the assessments from Time and AdWeek, which I believe are correctly positioned where they are in the article.

If you know of recent criticisms of B/R that should be included in the "Public Relations" section, please don't hesitate to add them and/or let me know. Again, I looked pretty hard for recent criticism and wasn't able to find any...but that doesn't mean you won't have more luck than I did.

More broadly, please also let me know if you spot any other non-objective sections in the text. I've been working hard to get the page cleaned up (you should have seen it when I found it!)...but your further feedback will be much appreciated.

Thanks much! Ryan521982 (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


Ryan - are you an employee of, or otherwise associated with, Bleacher Report? I am not asking this question to be snarky, but because the page's content reads nothing like the neutral wikipedia pages for media organizations. The language used to praise Bleacher Report, selective quoting of criticism, and careful rebuttals of all negative content look much more like what a company would put out in its own press release, or what someone might write in a fan page.Dankster (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


Thanks very much for taking the time to weigh in, Dankster.
For the record, I have in fact spent time working for Bleacher Report, but my Wikipedia interest is strictly personal—i.e. I'm not doing it for pay or on commission. More to the point, I strongly dispute the claim that I've been excessive in my praise, selective in my criticism, or careful in my rebuttals (the last claim being the most baseless, as I haven't made any rebuttals at all).
To flesh out my contention one issue at a time...
On the issue of "excessive praise," I'd welcome any and all specific critiques you'd like to make, but I have to say that the two changes you made to "opinionated language" and the "Founding" section on January 3 are off-base.
- First, you changed the following sentence in the introduction...
to...
Unfortunately, that revision glosses over the two most important facts communicated by the original: (a) that B/R specializes in coverage of TIMELY stories (as opposed to a site like Grantland, which focuses on topics of interest without much regard to the news cycle) and (b) that B/R makes use of EXTENSIVE multimedia programming (as opposed to a site like ESPN.com, which only makes occasional/supplementary use of video content). I'm all for changing the two adjectives if you can think of better alternatives...but for now, I've changed the sentence back to its original form.
- Second, you changed the following sentence in the "Founding" section...
to...
There are two problems with that revision:
- First, it makes it sound as if Finocchio et. al. founded the site while still in high school, which isn't the case
- Second, it glosses over the fact that the four founders were in fact (a) lifelong friends (as opposed to just high school classmates who fell in together) and (b) avid sports fans (as opposed to ESPN's founders [for example], who were professional businessmen.)
I'll be the first to admit that the B/R backstory sounds too good to be true—but the fact remains that (a) it is true, (b) it's of potential interest to anyone seeking information about the history of the company, and (c) telling it like it happened in no way constitutes "excessive praise." With all that in mind, I've restored the sentence to its original version...but I'd welcome any suggestions you might have for changing its tone.
--
On the issue of "selective criticism," I'll start by saying to you what I said to Wallinleft in March:
Since then, I've added a reference to the most recent substantive criticism of the site: the October 2012 article in SF Weekly. I'll admit that this revision was made in haste, and in hindsight, it's obvious that I should have reworked the "Criticism" section instead of just expanding the "Response" section. In that sense, I'm grateful for your effort to bring both sections more fully up-to-date, and I've retained the general thrust of your changes in further revising the text. But...your changes also introduced a number of new problems, which I attempted to correct in my own revision:
- You blurred the line between (a) criticism of B/R's old open-source model (which is no longer in existence) and (b) criticism of B/R's search-oriented content production strategy (which is ongoing). To fix this problem, I (a) restored the original text of the "Criticism" section and then (b) added an updated paragraph below the original text.
- You mischaracterized the Onion article as a "pop culture reference," when in fact it's a "lampoon"—i.e. a form of criticism. Personally, I'm inclined to think that The Onion is in the business of entertainment rather than commentary, and thus shouldn't be cited in Wikipedia articles...but in deference to your judgment, I (a) relocated the reference to the "Criticism" section and (b) eliminated the "Pop Culture Reference" section entirely.
- You put Larry Brown Sports (a personal blog authored by an individual of no standing in the media industry) on par with organizations like Time, Forbes, and Adweek by referencing the "window-dressing" article as a counterpoint in the "Response" section. I could go on at length about the questionable logic of such a decision...but I suspect that you'll see my point after a bit of reflection, so I'll spare you the monologue unless you specifically request it. For now, I've removed the LBS quote from the "Response" section (while making the expansion to the "Criticism" section referenced above).
--
On the issue of "careful rebuttals," I'll reiterate that I'm really not sure what you're talking about, because there aren't any personal rebuttals in the article. True, I do describe (a) the various actions B/R has taken in response to its critics and (b) the general praise those actions have earned from credible media sources like Time, Forbes, and Adweek...but those descriptions pertain merely to facts, and in any case are tempered by careful descriptions of the criticisms that preceded them.
If there's something I'm missing—i.e. if you can cite language in the article that sounds like an opinionated rebuttal instead of a factual statement—please let me know and I'll be happy to change it. But...in the absence of such citations on your end, I have to say that your critique doesn't seem to stand close scrutiny. (To wit: If I were in the business of "careful rebuttal," I'd spend ample time highlighting the various inaccuracies and falsifications in the SF Weekly article. But...I'm not, so I don't.)
--
All that said, I really do appreciate your effort to improve the article, and I think many of your changes are steps in the right direction. Along those lines, I hope that this exchange will be the beginning of the conversation rather than the end of it...and I'll look forward to a response whenever you're so inclined.
Ryan521982 (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


Ryan521982, I hope you see my above note on Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and take that into consideration in any future significant edits.

Apropos those guidelines, I am reverting the article to the previous version, and then taking into consideration your suggestions about how they should be changed.

Regarding the general tone, three different wikipedia editors have now commented that the criticism, "This article seems to be about how great Bleacher Report is", is accurate. Since you have worked for Bleacher Report, you may not be able to see this criticism objectively and thus should let other editors' attempts to make a more neutral article stand.

To that point, I removed some of the unnecessary and debatable adjectives, such as "timely" and "extensive". However, I will adjust those statements for clarity per your comments.

I removed the reference to "timely news" because B/R does not break news, and is only "timely" in the same general sense that most sports sites are, outside of their focus on trending keywords. A daily look at the content added to espn, cnnsi, or other similar sites will reveal more news specifically related to the previous day than B/R's content, especially the lists and slideshows.

Regarding criticism of B/R's old open-source model, I think a major issue of the page was that the open-source model was not usually specifically what was criticized. Blaming the criticism on the open source model allows a the convinent answer of "don't worry, we fixed that now!", when in fact, much of the criticism cited came after B/R's open source model ended and continues to refer to both poor quality of content and search engine gaming.

As far as The Onion goes, you state that it is not pop culture and say it's actually criticism, then state that it's not actually legitimate criticism because it's entertainment. As The Onion is indeed an entertainment site that comments heavily on current American fads, I think "pop culture" fits well. I'll note that a quick google search reveals over 6,000 references to The Onion on wikipedia. As the point of The Onion is to do satire that resonates with people, rather than simply confusing them, I think the mention of their satire of B/R is a good indicator of the current view of B/R among a certain segment of the American public.

Regarding the reference to Larry Brown Sports, I am simply citing it as an example of criticism that Bleacher Report has received. Larry Brown Sports has already been referenced over 30 times on wikipedia, and it is certainly fair to put it alongside some of the other sources you have already included, such as battleofcali.com, thejetsblog.com, and benkoo.com.

I also think that you're using general praise of Bleacher Report in order to deflect specific criticism. In the "responses" section on B/R's recent changes, you listed three sources that offered general praise for Bleacher Report, but did not specifically tie their praise to Bleacher Report's recent changes. Thus I put the accolades in their own category, and only cited the one that mentioned the changes in the response section.

I have included those explanations not so you can make more decisions about what other editors' content can be included, but for the benefit of neutral parties who may edit the page.Dankster (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


Thanks very much for the thoughtful response, Dankster.
At the outset, let me be absolutely clear that (a) I am and have been mindful of potential conflict-of-interest issues in writing the article and (b) I have yet to see any Wikipedia editor (either in this discussion thread or on the live article page) identify concrete instances of obvious bias. There are certainly points of legitimate criticism about word-choice and organization—and I think the article's revision history shows that I've been open and responsive to them—but to impugn the neutrality of the article is facile at best and tendentious at worst.
Yes, there's a lot not to like about Bleacher Report. And yes, the site's critics (myself among them, by the way) could go on at great length about their various beefs with the published product. The catch, of course, is that for every critic with a beef there's also a fan with a paean...and the challenge for any reporter—any truly objective reporter, at least—is to integrate the former and the latter without giving undue weight to either.
All that said (and to repeat what I said above), I really do appreciate your efforts to improve the article, and I think we're moving in a positive direction. To address the lingering issues one at a time...
- I don't agree with your objections to "timely" and "extensive," but I'm willing to concede both points in the interest of moving forward. As a compromise, I've (a) changed "timely" to "trending" (which is strictly objective, and which speaks to the search-oriented nature of B/R's content strategies) and (b) removed "extensive" entirely. If you can think of a better adjective than "trending," please don't hesitate to let me know.
- Your reversion of the "Criticism" section reintroduced the same problem I cited in my previous response: You blurred the line between (a) criticism of B/R's old open-source model (which is no longer in existence) and (b) criticism of B/R's search-oriented content production strategy (which is ongoing). To fix the problem, I (a) made a distinction between "early" and "ongoing" criticism of B/R and (b) organized the section in chronological order (with the early criticism coming first and the ongoing criticism coming second).
(In the future, I'd ask that you return my courtesy by working from my revision instead of reverting and starting from scratch...just to be sure we don't keep going around in circles.)
- The fact that Larry Brown Sports has been referenced 30 times in millions of Wikipedia articles doesn't make it a credible source on par with SF Weekly (as a corroboration of criticism) or Time and Forbes (as a counterpoint to praise). In that sense, the lumping of criticism from LBS (a non-credible source) with criticism from SF Weekly/Vikvek Wadhwa (two credible sources) actually undermines the criticism itself...so I toned down the direct quotes from LBS while still making the same points.
- I'm adamant that "The Onion" article is an instance of "Criticism" rather than a "Pop Culture Reference," and thus have moved it back to the "Criticism" section. If B/R ever gets mentioned in a movie or song (for example), it would warrant a "Pop Culture References" section...but the critical nature of what you correctly call an "indicator of the current view of B/R among a certain segment of the American public" rightly belongs in the "Criticism" section.
--
Beyond those points (and as I said above), I think we're working towards a consensus here...so please do be sure to let me know if you have any objections to the latest revision, and I'll look to hashing out the details as we muddle forward.
Ryan521982 (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Use as Reference in Wikipedia[edit]

I feel that Bleacher Report, as a blatant content farm, should not be used for Wikipedia references. It has about as much relevance as a sports forum or random blog. Electricbassguy (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Electricbassguy[edit]

Time Magazine seems to disagree, as they named B/R one of the 50 best Web sites of 2011, alongside the likes of Grantland:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,2087815,00.html

That said, don't hesitate to speak up if you think Time is wrong, biased, etc. I'm all for hearing the other side of the argument...but, until you make it, I think the benefit of the doubt has to go to the professional journalists.

Looking forward to a response, Ryan521982 (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

He's not saying the article isn't notable, he's saying that BR shouldn't be used as referenced in other Wikipedia articles, which is true. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying—but for the record, I understood his point the first time around. My point in rebuttal was that B/R is a widely respected source of news and analysis...which suggests that there's no prima facie reason B/R couldn't be used a reference in other Wikipedia articles. - Ryan521982 (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
IMO, the fact that anyone can write an article for B/R means it cannot be a reliable source. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I would agree with you...except it's no longer true that "anyone can write an article for B/R." B/R changed its policy in 2010, so that now all writers have to apply for publishing privileges; according to this Forbes article, the site "turns away 75 to 80 percent" of all applicants. That level of selectivity, along with B/R's explicit demand that its writers support all their assertions with references to credible sources , seems to meet the standards outlined in the "News organizations" section of Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. — Ryan521982 (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresenting what Forbes said[edit]

DVorkin, Lewis. "Who's Doing It Right? Bleacher Report Turns Knowing Fans Into Reporters". Forbes.

This article (and I note the question mark) is about B/R's business plan for paying contributors, and not anything else. It also does not claim that their model does work (or for that matter, that it's even being done now), but simply suggests the possibility that it could be a successful approach to that part of the business. It was certainly not an endorsement of the content, not by any stretch. Possibly it could be used as a reference for the business model back when. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

All fair points here, Mangoe. FYI, I just revised the "Accolades" section to more accurately reflect the content of the Forbes article...but if you have any further concerns, please don't hesitate to raise them. Ryan521982 (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Keith Olbermann[edit]

I included the reference to Keith Olbermann under the Criticism section. The reference included is a link to the MSNBC website that is of a transcript for the broadcast of Countdown with Keith Olbermann from November 2, 2009. Please do not send me private messages in an attempt to intimidate me into silence with false claims that my addition, of Olbermann in the Criticism section, was not sourced. I also did not accuse him of a crime, but I wrote that it COULD potentially be a crime under New York state law. And that is true. In naming David Xaviel as "Best Uninformed Blogger"--his attack was a malicious personal attack because it had no journalistic purpose, he used the person's name without permission, which can make it libelous (because the written transcript is available online).

And here's where this gets a little strange but it is real. I'm David Xaviel. He named me without my consent after I published a series of blogs on The Bleacher Report that were intended as humor and fake news after I had applied for TheOnion that year. I thought that the mainstream media would get the joke that I was using the Bleacher Report like TheOnion. But, it has been clear to me that Mr. Olbermann's attack is because he's emotionally unstable--he has been fired numerous times because he's too difficult to work with and has been suspended for harassing people on Twitter.

And Mr. Olbermann cannot say that naming me as "Best Uninformed Blogger," was simply a joke because Countdown was not a comedy show. It was a news program with editorial opinions. If Mr. Olbermann had asked my permission to use my name, I would have clarified that the blogs were intended as fake news about sports and that I could easily delete the article because The Bleacher Report gave broad editing power without any controls, which is why readers could get confused and even troubled by the "memory hole" (1984) feel of The Bleacher Report.

I will add that I continue to this day to be distressed by what Mr. Olbermann did. Internet trolls began bullying me on Facebook boards, I would get Facebook messages from a "Wouldja Blohme," as well as death threats on my blogs, or internet trolls would write blogs about me. I suspect that people have been hacking and bugging my computer and phone in order to follow me because my devices have been targets of cyber-attacks. Gregg Doyel of CBSsportsline.com also began to publish messages that my name on it--again, without having asked my consent. I complained about him to CBS and has since been fired (I can't claim to know the official reasons for his dismissal). This year, people have left strange messages on my car at work or they call me at work to insult me. Recently, I was contacted by a "fan" after he tracked me down through a college paper I wrote for in order to text me about a blog I wrote from 2009 (which I had deleted). This person tried to explain that he was a fan, but it all sounded like BS to gain my confidence. I have tried to let it go by not keeping extensive records of stalking, harassment, and bullying... even though I have needed extensive counseling because of the aggressions. I simply want that crap to stop. The offenders reading this will accept that they need to move on. I would add that I hope this section can enlighten bloggers as to the toll that blogging can take and reconsider what they do or want to do. I was a humorist who would ask provocative questions or would write blogs to encourage people to think or feel differently about various subjects. 99.135.68.198 (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that about the continued bullying. Being in the right isn't enough, though. Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs; that's not what it's built for, and that's not what it's good at. Wikipedia's policies, such as WP:BLP, are very clear on this. Without reliable sources, insinuating that someone committed a crime is only barely better than outright saying they did. If a reliable, independent source characterizes this as a potential crime, that might, possibly, be included with attribution, but not before that. Likewise saying it was malicious or libelous have legal implications which absolutely need reliable, independent sources to even consider. I left a boilerplate message on your talk page to explain this, not to intimidate you into silence.
Even calling this an "attack" is a problem, because the only thing supporting it is a transcript of Olbermann being insulting. Calling it an attack is the same language that would be used for a physical assault, which is confusing, to say the least. Olbermann was and is known for being insulting and sarcastic for supposed comic effect, which does fall under editorial content. It does not have to be a comedy show to include jokes, and he does not need a published writer's permission to mention that writer by name.
The only reason this incident is even being considered is because of your personal experiences, but that's not something Wikipedia can use. Wikipedia is not the place for sharing personal experiences (known as "original research"). Information must be verifiable, meaning it must ultimately come from outside Wikipedia in a way that can be confirmed by readers. Without knowing any of this background information you have provided, this appears to be a passing mention of no lasting significance to the Bleacher Report. If that's not the case, you will need reliable sources of substance explaining the situation before including it again. I would strongly suggest proposing such changes on the talk page rather than making them yourself, since you have a conflict of interest. Grayfell (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, you clearly are insisting on something false. That is not "original research," and you need to stop belittling me with false contrition and mockery. As I said, the TRANSCRIPT from the Countdown show is on the official MSNBC website. You are saying the MSNBC is not a reliable resource. Which one is it? There's a reason that Keith Olbermann has been fired multiple times--he's a journalistic hack and he reaps what he sows.2603:3024:1521:CE00:7017:9C21:6283:DFF4 (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so I'm trying to explain why your proposals aren't going to work. Olbermann insulted you once in 2009. That's all the source says, and without independent sources, this doesn't belong in the article. He's likely insulted thousands of people on his shows, but most of that goes unreported. That's not a defense of him, but it's a fact. So why is this different? Why does this one incident reflect on Bleacher Report? Find a WP:SECONDARY source explaining why the reader should consider this encyclopedically important, otherwise this doesn't belong. I know this sounds belittling, but according to Wikipedia, your personal anecdotes are original research, and cannot be used. Read the links I posted above if you don't believe me. Grayfell (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Not reliable[edit]

Please remove Bleacher Report as a source. It is fraudulently used in thousands of Wikipedia articles. Please find a real source or don't write anything. Warshington (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bleacher Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)