From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Websites / Computing   
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

New Changes[edit]

I agree with the bottom poster. Since this was a dispute on Digg, which transcended here, there is no need to revamp this page with has existed for years without complaint.

The wikipedia entry for this article is currently being re-written. It will be posted within two days to meet wikipedia's standards. Honcho45 23:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

While this is currently happening, I'm wondering if the new changes for Slyck would have an impact on this article. One example is the addition of tech related news. Just a thought I bring to the Wikipedia community. :)--IceCube2 04:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Speedy Deletion Template[edit]

I've removed the speedy deletion template because some user on Digg decided they didn't like Slyck and tried removing the article. It originated from what likely is [this page]. I highly doubt WikiPedia wants to get involved with the politics of a single user on a third party site. Thanks for your understanding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IceCube2 (talkcontribs) 01:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC).


I'm not entirely sure about what constitutes credible third party sources (given that file-sharing isn't as talked about as other things like politics in the media), but I thought I'd at least make an attempt to offer something that might help with citing references.

Kevin Hearn's interview was reposted in a number of places. One site is MP3NewsWire. Also, if there is a need to refer to third party sources over the Muslix64 article (not mentioned yet, but AFAIK, Slyck was the first to do an interview with him) You can refer to sites like EFF and The BBC. I hope this helps. (Yes, I forgot to sign my last comment, sorry)--IceCube2 01:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Several citations have been added in, so I have removed the questionable notability template.--IceCube2 07:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


It seems that there is very little objectivity on this entry concerning, considering that IceCube2 is a writer on, better known as Drew Wilson.

I stepped in because a couple of Digg users were going to delete the page because they had a hissy fit over an article. I wouldn't otherwise step in had a tiny majority of users came by to wreak havoc on an otherwise objective WikiPedia entry. The users were not objective in trying to delete the page to begin with and, really, were out to vandalize WikiPedia, so my interception of the move back then was really for the interest of Wikipedia more than anything else.--IceCube2 01:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Slyck Objectivity[edit]

Slyck does not have an editor as such - even though Ray Hoffman does make the claim to be the editor-in-chief, but that is rather vague. Apart from the MPAA interview (Dean Garfield), there has been little effort to present the other side of the article. Also, a diet of "SlyckTom" and "IceCube" articles present very little variation. When "SlyckNick", "MaliciousIntent" and others were writing original news articles, the variation was much better. It is unfortunate that there is very little attempt to bring both sides of the copyright debate together at Slyck. It does make you question whether Slyck is truly the objective, accurate news source it claims to be!

Two "news" writers make not a news site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That may be your opinion on the site itself, and that's perfectly fine. In that light, Wikipedia has an extensive article on Fox news which have been called out as being only reporting with a political bias. Also, if you actually bothered to read Slyck news, you'll know that SlyckTom's articles and my articles differ quite a lot actually. Slyck writes a large number of original news with a particular goal of being unbiased and not just some random rumor mill, so we have a unique place online and fill a void that is otherwise would be vacant to this day. Either way, your argument does not affect the status of this article on Wikipedia.--IceCube2 01:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Slyck is rewriting news articles found on other websites of late - not much news there. And the numbers of page views are down too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

They had orginal news so it is good enough for me --Zache (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Fall of Slyck[edit]

"While Slyck has gained a reputation for accuracy within certain circles, there is no visible editorial policy which could ensure that Slyck does develop into a more credible news website.

According to Alexa Internet, Slyck has been surpassed in the number of web page views by both and since about 2007."

I'm glad someone other than me was able to point this out. It's been over a week now since there's been any new news articles. When I left Slycks writing staff, I predicted that (yes, I can't reference that :P ) eventually the number of news articles published would decline after a deterioration in quality (something I also observed)

As it stands right now, Tom is the only writer (he doubles as an editor) on Slyck now. The entire writing staff has either stopped writing for Slyck or left Slyck altogether. I'm quite sure that this decline will only continue given the circumstances of the site (much of which I probably shouldn't divulge here) It's only surviving at all thanks to the 'other news' feature, but a lack of leadership on the site will help cause the ultimate demise of the site.

Either Slyck is going to undertake a massive overhaul or it's going to see a continued slide in readership to the point of either the admin paying out of pocket to keep the site running or an all-out shut down. At this point, the prospects for the site are sadly grim from what I see.--IceCube85 (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the filesharing scene has changed somewhat with Bittorrent and Limewire being dominant. There has been no new developments in the P2P realm, so therefore no real news, apart from the legal issues surrounding the legality of filesharing and the continuing lawsuits against American users.

However, there has always been a leadership problem with Slyck - Tom. As an old-time Slyck (& Slyway) reader I have noted that Slyck has been through a lot of good writers. And then the new writers came through: I remember LordFoul doing an excellent article and then nothing. Same with LanJackal. Slyck had a lot going for it, but has lost a lot of decent people. Forum discussion is very limited with only a few making comments. Forum participation was always excellent with many viewpoints making Slyck forums a worthwhile read.

I will always remember the heyday of Slyck with great fondness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Slyck's writing staff[edit]

Slyck no longer has any other news writers apart from Tom Mennecke - and he is writing as little as possilbe now. IceCube (Drew Wilson has departed from Slyck - check his blog: The addition to the article with regards to Slyck becoming a news hub can be seen on the site itself - go check for yourself. Slyck does not have any recent news apart from 3 articles this month of May 2008. The user contribution is high though. News stories are posted all the time by users. That should be enough for anyone to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

IceCube has his own filesharing news website now: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:FA68:DB00:2057:EA4:1FA1:728D (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes to this article[edit]

I made numerous edits to this particular article for good reason. First off, the article was changed on 20:19, 22 March 2010 by a person on This change I felt made the article promote Slyck,com. My feeling on this matter is that Wikipedia is about facts, not self-promotion of a website. So I rewrote and edited some of the article and added headings to give the reader a bit more of an clearer view on —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:40:34 07 May 2010 is in terminal decline in my opinion, and for that reason, the fact should be highlighted. P2P news is pretty much in decline too, but the Alexa ratings themselves tell a story, as does itself show decline. A good 5 years ago, a news story would generate in excess of 100 threads in a forum discussion, now if you get 20, that is a big response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your edits. However, a general overview over the state of P2P coverage in the media is outside the scope of this article, and in any case it lacked citations.
Besides, on Wikipedia precise factual statements are preferred over vague descriptions such as "in last number of years", "substantial coverage" and "a great deal of space".
Finally, original resesarch and personal speculation ("For this reason, perhaps, has seen a decline") are discouraged on Wikipedia - and besides, this reasoning wasn't particularly convincing, as it would equally well apply to TorrentFreak, for example.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no personal speculation here - Slyck is in decline's ratings give you that info, as does Slyck's own forum. Responses to articles, number of reads of articles are severely down.

I think there is a problem here - how do you give references to a website that is currently in decline? I think there has to be a way to report on the decline of = perhaps through the rankings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I should have phrased my comment more clearly - by "personal speculation", I was referring to "for this reason", i.e. the assertion that Slyck's apparent decrease in visitors was caused by e.g. Ars Technica and ZDnet doing more P2P coverage.
Citing references such as Alexa is a good first step, which is why I left [1] in the article. There are problems with that too, though. First, the Alexa data only goes back one year, so it doesn't fully support an assertion about trends since 2007 (it was first inserted, by someone with an IP address similar to yours, in February 2008 [2]). Second, Alexa ratings are often considered as unreliable and subject to various biases, although they are often quoted and probably among the best such rankings. Third, some people might still consider the interpretation of such charts as original research, and would prefer to cite a source which makes this statement directly ("Slyck has been surpassed in the number of web pageviews by both and since about 2007").
Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Where does the comment regarding anti-religious stance come from??? There may be a certain viewpoint from one or two individuals, but I don't think that it is a reflection of the site itself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed the entry regarding Slyck's anti religious stance, as there is no basis for it - unless a link or three can be provided. I was a member of Slyck for many years and yes, there were people like that, but never had that particular stance!

I have changed the notable articles a bit for a bit more clarity on who was being interviewed and what made it notable.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2013

Replaced the portion on religious intolerance. Certainly the site would prefer its moderator members prejudices to remain personal opinion but they do have a significant impact on the sites content and the mods in question do troll the site regularly making aggressive posts targeting religious groups.

Certainly that is embarrassing for Slyck, but this is not to say it does not happen, and this is an informative page on what happens on their site, not an advertisment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Since this is supposed to be an entry adding to Wikipedia, there have to be verified sources regarding this info. Otherwise it is pure hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Certainly there is a wealth of verifiable sources, as noted above there is question of what should be taken as a source in relation to a forum site. The source in question is the site itself and the issue being discussed is common knowledge among site regulars. If it were useful there could be a link to the hours and hours of text arguing back and forth on the site,or copies of private messages from the forum, but to my knowledge no third party verifications exist for a private forum.

Replacing the text in the near future unless someone would prefer it be sent to some level of formal arbitration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

In an effort to find a more opinion-neutral wording to describe the events I am suggesting the following

" Other factors contributing to the diminishing audience of Slyck include at least one of the moderators putting forward, what were taken to be, religiously intolerant views, and a number of the members taking offense to his opinions. Escalating discussion has lead to the moderator in question making bans and at least one of the few remaining staff leaving in protest of other moderators actions."

If anyone wants to suggest any changes to the language they can feel free. Nobody is trying to press a case against slyck, it is however factual and historical information on the decline of membership at the site, and it would seem to be useful information for any individual thinking of making posts there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Updated as above — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


I have simply condensed the article. Made some changes in language and style. Content has remained teh same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


Since Drew Wilson is mentioned in the article, would it be appropriate to point out that Wilson has been working on his own news project since 2013? Plenty of articles about bands mention how members have gone on to other projects, so I don't see why not. [About Freezenet] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:FA68:DB00:848B:CEF1:535D:D7FD (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections, I guess I can just add this bit of info into the article myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:FA68:DB00:24D6:4F25:61A5:5E3D (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Changes made on 12 March 2018[edit]

I have shortened the intro, added a new section about the content of the website. This is important as content included debate about Copyright legislation and intellectual property. The site also covered extensively, the attempts by authorities to stop piracy and file sharing. This website does need to be saved for posterity! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)