Talk:Boing Boing
| WikiProject Blogging | (Rated B-class, High-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Internet culture | (Rated Start-class, High-importance) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article, Boing Boing, has been edited by User:Doctorow, a person mentioned in the article.
|
 Archives |
|
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Changes by Doctorow[edit]
I've made two changes:
1. Reverted to trim out the snotty stuff about the Bush administration, which comes from a hyperbolic email exchange in which someone wrote to me to tell me off for criticising Bush on BB. A cursory glance at BB or any of our archives will make it abundantly clear that the Boing Boing's primary occupation has little to do with the Bush administration or US politics in general. There's an order of magnitude more material about, for example, the possibility that sasquatches are real, than there is about US politics. NPOV suggests that the article should be concerned with accurately reflecting the subject matter, not pursuing an email flamewar after you've ended up in your opponent's killfile.
2. Cut "substantial" which does not represent NPOV. Substantial compared to what? If someone wants to criticise the amount of advertising on BB, then create an entry about blog advertising that contains metrics for advertising based on surveys or research, then link BB into it. Impressionistic terms like "substantial" have no business here.
Cory Doctorow
0600h GMT, December 3, 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorow (talk • contribs)
You have to laugh at his double standards: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/02/04/responding-to-your-c.html
You mean a copyfightin' activist who owns Disney stock (you know, the corporation that gets copyright laws changed to keep ol' Mickey under their control long after it's author has died, as well as stealing Kimba the White Lion and making it The Lion King) has double standards? I am shocked. Shocked, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.198.137 (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Nationality, place, scope?[edit]
I quickly read the article and I can't find what should be obvious at first sight imho: where was the zine published? What are the spatial boundaries and point of view of the website's editorial? Is it a USA production? A canadian one? Or from somewhere else? It is not precised on the boingboing.net either. I'm afraid my comment is applicable to many other articles on en.wikipedia. Quite often it is implied by the writers that something is "american", or so I assume. 109.0.198.225 (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Section on censorship[edit]
The section on censorship has recently been removed[1], restored[2]. Its also been picked up in BoingBoing's twitter feed.[3] So I guess we should discuss it.
The sourcing pretty week with a blog post[4], a forum thread[5] and another two blog posts[6] [7]. Disemvoweling and the Violet Blue incident both have better sourcing.--Salix (talk): 07:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's fair to say those items with citations to blog posts, forum threads and so on don't belong. The language of that section is unencyclopedic and angry ("literally stripping out the vowels of any comment a moderator had taken exception to"), and seems to be childish ax-grinding spilling over from comment threads there. The section omits (and would as-is, obscure) other, more well-sourced criticisms of Boing Boing from over the years. Wardner (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
-
- Agree with both of the above. The tone sounds like "get a load of what they're up to now!" -- seems POV or at least unencyclopedic. Yes, the sources are poor. A couple disgruntled users posting blogs and message board threads could be found for just about any site. To me anyway, it's entirely UNDUE. --— Rhododendrites talk | 16:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
