Talk:Daily Kos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Daily Kos:
  • Reorder in some logical order. dkosopedia and yearlykos should be at the bottom.
  • figure out what to do with the huge list of celebrity diarists. (i.e. delete it)
  • move controversial things into a Controversy section instead of them being strewn about.
A userbox relating to this topic is available:
{{User:UBX/Dailykos}}
Dailykosicon.png This user is a Kossack.

No such thing as "power users."[edit]

I have been a member of DailyKos for a few years, and I do know this aspect of site mechanics very well. There are no "power users," and no members have the ability to "edit, delete, or otherwise prohibit diaries and responses posted by ordinary members."

What we do have is "trusted users." This status can be achieved by absolutely anyone at all, simply by having a history of their comments being well rated by other users. These trusted users have the ability to do two, and only two, things:

1) They can vote to "hide" a comment. This is more commonly known by users as "troll rating" a comment. This is done when the user feels the comment is offensive or breaks site rules. When a comment receives two or more such ratings, it is hidden from view from most casual visitors to the site, but can still be seen by the thousands of "trusted users." If other users disagree, they can "uprate" the comment and the comment will once again become visible. At no stage in this process is the comment deleted -- this is impossible and no one has this ability. Important note: This procedure applies only to comments. No one has the power to "hide" or "troll rate" a diary post. Once posted, a diary is there forever, visible to anyone and everyone.

2) They can also make changes to the tags of other users' diary posts. This is done when the original poster has made a typo, broken the understood tagging conventions, or has left out an important tag that would help other users find the post.

No one, not even these trusted users, has the power to delete content or prevent someone from posting. The only thing that can prevent a user from posting is being banned from the site. This happens when someone has received so many troll ratings that an automatic procedure, known as "autoban," kicks in. Site administrators also have the power to ban users for serious breaches of site rules (such as "outing" a user who prefers to remain anonymous, or making threats). Even once a user is banned, none of their diary posts or comments are deleted, as no one has the power to do so. And no one, not even an administrator, has the ability to edit content except the person who posted it.173.61.3.79 (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no one has replied to my comment above. This may seem like a minor issue, but the article as it stands makes it sound like there is some secret cabal at the heart of the site controlling content. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. No one, NOT EVEN AN ADMINISTRATOR, has the power to edit or delete content from the site. This isn't just a minor operational detail, it's a central feature of the heart of Daily Kos -- the site is completely community moderated. Please address this issue. Revelwoodie (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Declining participation on Dailykos[edit]

Dailykos participation is declining. I edited to reflect this but the bot would not accept my source. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/23/1102592/-It-s-Only-Numbers-the-DailyKos-Decline

I also wanted to add some info on Dailykos banning policy but without allowing Dailykos as a source this is not so easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisy496 (talkcontribs) 15:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Basic Site Description[edit]

I'm changing the first sentence's ending from "progressive point of view" to "Democratic partisan point of view" to match the proprietor's statement of purpose: "This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. [...] But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog [...]." I've added a reference to the statement of purpose. I've seen no evidence that "progressive point of view" is a better description than what the site explicitly self-identifies as. LiberalMindset (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, a bio snippet on an 'About' page written in the third person ("Markos Moulitsas Zúniga is founder and publisher of Daily Kos, the largest progressive community blog in the United States") doesn't carry as much weight as the proprietor's own words, especially when the proprietor has claimed (republished in the FAQ) "First of all, no one speaks for Daily Kos other than me. Period." I quote again his own words: "This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. [...] But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog [...]." 'Democratic' is not synonymous with 'progressive' or 'liberal', as one simple look at the so-called Progressive Caucus WITHIN the Democratic Party makes clear. Unless the proprietor has demonstrably called his site a progressive site, we ought to go by what he has demonstrably called it. (Actually, those familiar with some of the meta wars over at Daily Kos know that a certain faction there would love nothing more than to be able to pin "this is a progressive site" on the proprietor. If you have evidence of the proprietor calling his website a progressive website, I'm all ears.) LiberalMindset (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The proprietor has said other things on the topic over time -- see for example this comment from 2010. I think it's pretty fair to say that the site IS a partisan, Democratic blog. I also think it's fair to say that within the spectrum of Democratic party politics it leans toward the progressive side of things. I don't think "meta wars" really matter for these purposes. For a wiki reader that doesn't know anything about Daily Kos, saying that it lies both a) on the Democratic side of things and b) on the progressive side of things within the Democratic party is accurate and useful. I'll try to find a way to phrase it that hopefully both of you can be comfortable with. Themillofkeytone (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Themillofkeytone, I'm OK with your changing "Democratic partisan point of view" to "Democratic point of view" and have no desire to fight it out, but if you agree that it's a partisan blog and the owner himself has explicitly called it a partisan blog, then I don't see the problem with calling it "Democratic partisan." I honestly haven't seen any evidence of the owner's view evolving since 2004 -- yes, I checked out the comment to which you linked. As recently as 2012, however, he banned someone for vocal liberal/progressive criticism of Obama's foreign policy, presumably because the criticism occurred too close to an election. There was quite a bit of noise about this banning on other blog sites. For the sake of Wikipedia objectivity, though, what's relevant is that the owner justified it along the lines of "Does anyone else want to forget the purpose of this site?" It's hard to tell what that purported purpose is, if not the "Democratic" and "partisan" purpose his very own statement of purpose explicitly mentions. LiberalMindset (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I'll admit, I'm not very familiar with the ins-and-outs with what happens on the site. I took the word "partisan" out simply because I didn't the sentence flowed very well when I read it to myself. But I agree it is an accurate descriptor. Incidentally, if the incident that you mentioned was covered by secondary sources, it may be a good addition to the Controversies section or even a new "Viewpoint" section or something like that. Themillofkeytone (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
As a Kossack, I can tell you we do not fall in step with the DNC. Saying that we are is dishonest considering how consistently we go after democrats for misbehaving, especially the president. Zero Serenity (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you were yet another drive-by editor. "Democratic Party point of view" doesn't necessarily mean it's a DNC site. The proprietor, kos, in the reference given, has emphatically insisted "This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. [...] But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog [...]." I do not understand how one gets "liberal/progressive" out of that. Certainly there are liberals/progressives posting there, but there are also non-liberals/progressives posting there -- the Big Tent that the proprietor describes in the reference given. It's a Democratic Party site, plain and simple -- a partisan site even, but that can probably be charitably left out. LiberalMindset (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
You don't. I have posted the about page before but you refuse to read it. A source from 2004 is now ten years old and may not reflect the stance of the current editor team. If you can find me a source more recent, then show it to us, otherwise you're being dishonest. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
So an about page written in the third person is a stronger source than the proprietor's own words, huh, even when the proprietor has said that only he speaks for the site? I find that ridiculous. If you have evidence that the proprietor has changed his mind, then present it. But if he himself says "it's not a liberal blog," why the hell would you keep trying to call it one? Do you have an agenda to drive misled traffic to the site or something? As for the age of the source, do you need a statement every year from, say, Amazon that it's still an online retail site? If the proprietor's own statement is out of date, then point us to a new statement of his. It seems he's inviting questions from site users -- go in there and ask him whether Daily Kos is more accurately described as a liberal/progressive site or a Democratic Party site. Sorry, but the onus is on you to present evidence of his changing his mind since his original statement.
It's going to strike impartial Wikipedia editors as PRETTY odd that I've produced evidence of the proprietor saying "This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. [...] But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog [...]" -- while not one of you can produce a single instance of the proprietor calling his site a liberal/progressive site. I mean, for a so-called liberal/progressive site, that's PRETTY odd. You'd think there'd be at least a few instances of the proprietor calling his site a liberal/progressive site, his own words to the contrary notwithstanding. LiberalMindset (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Heh, in the last few days alone, kos has reminded everyone in multiple comments that his site is a partisan election-centric site: "And yes, this is a partisan election-centric site"; "this is a partisan elections-focused site"; "in a elections-focused partisan site". See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/10/1268607/-Remind-me-Is-this-a-Partisan-site
Look, I know kos pulls a sort of bait-and-switch and gets a lot of traffic from the impression that Daily Kos is a liberal/progressive site, but Wikipedia is a place of objective facts based on objective evidence. And the objective evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of "Democratic Party point of view" rather than "liberal/progressive point of view." LiberalMindset (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's another thing kos' shills won't be able to answer: If it's truly a liberal/progressive site, then why is advocacy for liberals/progressives in third parties a bannable offense? Do I need to quote that as well? Sheesh. LiberalMindset (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
You spend a lot of time attacking him in your comments. You're starting to smell of ulterior motive. I've reported this to edit warring. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
And as you've discovered there, some could reasonably see you acting in bad faith, given that I present the evidence you're incapable of presenting. Yes, I have found you quite frustrating. But thanks for moving the process along. I'm now investigating dispute resolution. LiberalMindset (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution request raised: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests/Third_Opinion LiberalMindset (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Im a 3rd Opinion. Ok first of all I would like to say that both of you have good arguments and sources however I have to agree with LiberalMindset some media outlets identify the site as using a Democratic Party point of view and the website itself has confirmed that it takes a Democratic Party point of view. Im sorry Zero Serenity but with this overwhelming amount of evidence I must say that it looks to me that the site takes a Democratic Party point of view.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Citations? Here's one just calling it lefty. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Since you haven't produced any evidence of the proprietor, kos, calling his site a liberal/progressive site, whereas there's plenty of evidence of his calling it a Democratic/partisan site, I'll consider that a lost cause. I am curious, however, about what you have to say about the site's official banning policy. Why aren't posters allowed to support liberals/progressives running as third-party candidates? That seems odd for a liberal/progressive site but is perfectly aligned with the M.O. of a Democratic Party site. If kos starts calling his site a liberal/progressive site, I'm more than happy to consider all past evidence outdated. But don't hold your breath waiting for him to do that. LiberalMindset (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
You show one off-the-cuff remark from 2004 whereas I cite the about page (which is probably written or approved by him). So, your overwhelming evidence is non-existent. I won't comment on the banning policy since it's BEYOND relevant and shows that you really do not seem to care what the article says. Zero Serenity (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I dunno, I think it strikes unbiased editors as strange that you can't produce a single instance of the proprietor calling his site a liberal/progressive site. On the other hand, there are many past and recent instances of his calling it a Democratic site, a partisan site -- even going as far as to say in the past that "it's not a liberal blog" (so let's just call it a liberal site anyway, eh?). The Maddow comment is a vague nothing -- not only that, but kos' stated reason (in the 2004 reference) for clarifying the site's purpose was that media personalities were getting the purpose all wrong. LiberalMindset (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
And if you can't see how the banning policy is relevant, that's not my problem. I don't know any other "liberal/progressive but totally not Democratic Party" site that insists on its members advocating for the Democratic Party, with advocacy of third-party liberals/progressives being a bannable offense. Good luck here. Pursue further dispute resolution if you like. LiberalMindset (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Look, my advice would be to ask kos point-blank in public whether Daily Kos is better described as a site with a "Democratic Party point of view" or a "liberal/progressive point of view." Maybe start a diary there and hope to get his input that way, since you say you're a Kossack. Otherwise, his existing comments seem pretty conclusive to me and apparently to the others here. LiberalMindset (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Democratic" is not a point of view. The word is "liberal," or "progressive." I have made this change. Hipocrite (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I've also provided sources that describe it as merely a liberal blog - the NYTimes, Polifact, and Mediaite. I could have done about a million more, but I think I've sourcebombed enough. Hipocrite (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Heh, you folks are getting more and more ridiculous. "Democratic Party point of view" is perfect English (I am a copy editor and do this for a living). I notice you say you're dyslexic, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the English. The owner has explicitly said it isn't a liberal blog, IN RESPONSE to media sources calling it a liberal blog. This really isn't that hard. LiberalMindset (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Happy to escalate this in the dispute-resolution process and take it all the way if you folks want to keep ignoring (i) the fact the owner has explicitly called it a Democratic, partisan site both in 2004 and a number of days ago -- and has explicitly said it isn't a liberal site in response to media sources mistakenly calling it a liberal site; (ii) the fact the site's official policy is to ban people who vocally support liberals/progressives running as third-party candidates. The escalation is only going to make things tougher on yourselves, in my opinion. LiberalMindset (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia relies on reliable, third party sources. Reliable, third party source describe the site as liberal. Do you believe "democratic party" is an adjective? Hipocrite (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to support clarification of the characterization of Daily Kos. I think it needs to be done to make the article accurate, but is not necessarily a choice between "progressive" and "Democratic". On August 15, 2016, Kos posted The new, updated, and improved Daily Kos Rules of the Road, which state: "SITE PURPOSE: This is a site for Democrats. That’s the fundamental premise underlying all expectations about posting, commenting, and interacting with other site users. We are here to connect, unite, work together toward a common purpose, whether it’s to elect more and better Democrats, to advocate for specific issues, or even to socialize among like-minded friends. But ultimately, we are fighting to make ours a stronger, more effective, more progressive Democratic Party." Simply quoting this statement in the article would make the nature and purpose of the site clear. Absent objections, I will modify.samtha25 (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 October 2014[edit]

On this page, could the following text:

[[Category:Protected redirects]]

...please be replaced with the following text:

{{R fully protected}}

...so that the redirect is is put into the category via a tranclusion in an Rcat template rather than a category transclusion? Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Redrose64 (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

2015-04-18 Changes to remove various items[edit]

I have removed a number of unsourced comments and items not in line with various WP policies. I believe this one might be a little more controversial than some other removals I've recently made, and I have no significant knowledge of Daily Kos itself, not being a reader myself. Someone with significantly more knowledge might be able to restore, re-write and re-source. Some of the items I removed DID add to the article [though most didn't], but there were weasel words and lack of sources. I didn't want someone to think I was just indiscriminantly nuking massive sections of the article. SourAcidHoldout (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the section called "guest bloggers" should really be called "front pagers". That's what they're called and they're not really guests. Popish Plot (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Daily Kos campaigns and presidential endorsements[edit]

Recently, the emails Daily Kos sends out under the title "Daily Kos Recommended" have, not only the usual Daily Kos diary posts, but also entries such as "It is an outrage that many women still make less than men in 2015. Stand with Hillary Clinton and fight to close the wage gap once and for all." Clicking on the link leads to a "Stand with Hillary" Daily Kos "Campaign". I'd be very happy if this Wikipedia article included information on Daily Kos campaigns - who starts them and what they're about. In particular, I'd love to know if this is the first time the Daily Kos has endorsed a presidential candidate prior to the presidential primaries! Of course, as with a lot of other information about the Daily Kos, it's hard to cite a source without using online references such as https://www.dailykos.com/campaigns/1528. Page Notes (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Endorsement of Hillary Clinton, 2016 Presidential Candidate and Markos' Site Decree of March 15, 2016[edit]

This is my first edit at Wikipedia. I am a Daily Kos user, blogger, and a reader. I have concerns that this Wikipedia page does not reflect the philosophical and political change happening at Daily Kos. Significant changes began taking shape in 2014. I need to do more research, and come back with links from Markos statements beginning in 2014. My concern is that the Wikipedia page is misleading. Please bare with me as I research this issue. I will return. Thank you. Ajaradom (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Where does Daily Kos get its polling from for the 2016 Presidential election?[edit]

Where does Daily Kos get its polling from for the 2016 Presidential election? It says that a couple of years ago it fired Research2000 as its pollster. I read the New York Times polling summary, and it includes Daily Kos's numbers, but they are of very different state-to-state from other pollsters, so I was just curious where DK's polling numbers come from so that I could look into the methodology and figure out why there are variances from other polls. This surely has been discussed on Daily Kos, but I have never read it. Thanks in advance to anybody who knows.Betathetapi545 (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daily Kos. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daily Kos. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)