The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Useful Links: Featured Article CandidatesFeatured Article ReviewArticles for DeletionDeletion Review

8 Pages V  1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> [[Wikipedia Review]]
Rootology
post Tue 1st July 2008, 3:16pm
Post #1


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,489
Joined: Fri 26th Jan 2007, 11:11pm
Member No.: 877



Didn't see this coming...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._Review_article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neil/wr

It's not up on DRV yet.

Now on DRV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del...ikipedia_Review

This post has been edited by Rootology: Tue 1st July 2008, 3:32pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Tue 1st July 2008, 3:23pm
Post #2


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



I love how the Metz reference is "undesirable" because Metz has a history of being critical of Wikipedia.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rootology
post Tue 1st July 2008, 3:32pm
Post #3


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,489
Joined: Fri 26th Jan 2007, 11:11pm
Member No.: 877



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 1st July 2008, 8:23am) *

I love how the Metz reference is "undesirable" because Metz has a history of being critical of Wikipedia.


Yeah, I saw that. Sorry, Sceptre, that's not really workable under RS. He's hardly some guy that just bashes Wikipedia:

all "by Cade Metz" hits on Google, showing he's just a plain old tech journalist

Cade Metz on The Register, all articles That's 523 articles. His work on Wikipedia is 22 articles. Only 4% of his Register work is on Wikipedia. And that doesn't account for his non-Register work, which appears even broader...

And it's on DRV now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del...ikipedia_Review

This post has been edited by Rootology: Tue 1st July 2008, 3:29pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BobbyBombastic
post Tue 1st July 2008, 3:57pm
Post #4


gabba gabba hey
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,071
Joined: Mon 2nd Apr 2007, 6:27pm
From: BADCITY, Iowa
Member No.: 1,223



QUOTE
The site was formerly hosted by ProBoards[4], but is now created using WordPress.
Wordpress was the blog software. I believe the forum software is Invision Power Board though I'm not certain and always forget what it is. huh.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sceptre
post Tue 1st July 2008, 4:12pm
Post #5


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed 24th May 2006, 6:06pm
Member No.: 209

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Rootology @ Tue 1st July 2008, 4:32pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 1st July 2008, 8:23am) *

I love how the Metz reference is "undesirable" because Metz has a history of being critical of Wikipedia.


Yeah, I saw that. Sorry, Sceptre, that's not really workable under RS. He's hardly some guy that just bashes Wikipedia:

all "by Cade Metz" hits on Google, showing he's just a plain old tech journalist

Cade Metz on The Register, all articles That's 523 articles. His work on Wikipedia is 22 articles. Only 4% of his Register work is on Wikipedia. And that doesn't account for his non-Register work, which appears even broader...

And it's on DRV now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del...ikipedia_Review


My reason for that is not Metz being critical of Wikipedia, its him being over-critical to the point where a reader would get a strong vibe of conspiracy theorism, especially regarding Overstock (that's not to say he's wrong, though - I stayed well out of the Mantmoreland stuff)


QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Tue 1st July 2008, 4:57pm) *

QUOTE
The site was formerly hosted by ProBoards[4], but is now created using WordPress.
Wordpress was the blog software. I believe the forum software is Invision Power Board though I'm not certain and always forget what it is. huh.gif


I believe WR runs on vBulletin.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rootology
post Tue 1st July 2008, 4:18pm
Post #6


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,489
Joined: Fri 26th Jan 2007, 11:11pm
Member No.: 877



QUOTE(Sceptre @ Tue 1st July 2008, 9:12am) *

QUOTE(Rootology @ Tue 1st July 2008, 4:32pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 1st July 2008, 8:23am) *

I love how the Metz reference is "undesirable" because Metz has a history of being critical of Wikipedia.


Yeah, I saw that. Sorry, Sceptre, that's not really workable under RS. He's hardly some guy that just bashes Wikipedia:

all "by Cade Metz" hits on Google, showing he's just a plain old tech journalist

Cade Metz on The Register, all articles That's 523 articles. His work on Wikipedia is 22 articles. Only 4% of his Register work is on Wikipedia. And that doesn't account for his non-Register work, which appears even broader...

And it's on DRV now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del...ikipedia_Review


My reason for that is not Metz being critical of Wikipedia, its him being over-critical to the point where a reader would get a strong vibe of conspiracy theorism, especially regarding Overstock (that's not to say he's wrong, though - I stayed well out of the Mantmoreland stuff)


I can see people going that route, yeah. I honestly don't know if that makes him an unreliable source, though. I know there was a ton of Register bashing (but only after the Register and Metz dug into Wikipedia) but that sort of stuff is just silly. Its like if the New York Times or Sydney Morning Herald totally tore into Wikipedia in a couple of scathing articles. Would any future reporting be tainted? What about if they totally tore into Microsoft, or Disney, or Citizendium? Would their future reporting on those subjects then be suspect? Of course not...

QUOTE(Sceptre @ Tue 1st July 2008, 9:12am) *

QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Tue 1st July 2008, 4:57pm) *

QUOTE
The site was formerly hosted by ProBoards[4], but is now created using WordPress.
Wordpress was the blog software. I believe the forum software is Invision Power Board though I'm not certain and always forget what it is. huh.gif


I believe WR runs on vBulletin.


I think it does.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gomi
post Tue 1st July 2008, 4:25pm
Post #7


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565



QUOTE(Sceptre @ Tue 1st July 2008, 9:12am) *
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Tue 1st July 2008, 4:57pm) *
QUOTE
The site was formerly hosted by ProBoards[4], but is now created using WordPress.
Wordpress was the blog software. I believe the forum software is Invision Power Board though I'm not certain and always forget what it is. huh.gif
I believe WR runs on vBulletin.

And I think the computer it runs on is (or perhaps is not, or maybe once was) a Dell 3254 quad-core rack-mount server with 4Gb of DDR400 SDRAM.

Oh, and none of that, including the type of software it runs, is remotely relevant to our purpose here. Its inclusion seems to be either a poorly-managed remnant of a previous article or an obscure signifier of the convoluted history of WR, in which the purported admins of the ProBoards incarnation were found to be evil skinheads or something.

(This post brought to you by FireFox, Windows XP, Planar™ flat-panel monitors, and the letter 'Q'.)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Neil
post Tue 1st July 2008, 4:29pm
Post #8


Awesome member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 302
Joined: Thu 14th Feb 2008, 1:56am
From: UK
Member No.: 4,822

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Actually, I put it in there, it was never in there before.

I don't see it does any harm to mention what engine a site runs on. I do it on most of the articles I put together on websites (see, for example, Forumwarz).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Tue 1st July 2008, 4:32pm
Post #9


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(gomi @ Tue 1st July 2008, 12:25pm) *

QUOTE(Sceptre @ Tue 1st July 2008, 9:12am) *

QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Tue 1st July 2008, 4:57pm) *

QUOTE

The site was formerly hosted by ProBoards[4], but is now created using WordPress.


Wordpress was the blog software. I believe the forum software is Invision Power Board though I'm not certain and always forget what it is. huh.gif


I believe WR runs on vBulletin.


And I think the computer it runs on is (or perhaps is not, or maybe once was) a Dell 3254 quad-core rack-mount server with 4Gb of DDR400 SDRAM.

Oh, and none of that, including the type of software it runs, is remotely relevant to our purpose here. Its inclusion seems to be either a poorly-managed remnant of previous article or an obscure signifier of the convoluted history of WR, in which the purported admins of the ProBoards incarnation were found to be evil skinheads or something.

(This post brought to you by FireFox, Windows XP, Planar™ flat-panel monitors, and the letter 'Q'.)


Yeah, and I heard the Dell 3254 once burnt its SDRAM Card …

Or was that its CO-BRA ???

Jon cool.gif

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Tue 1st July 2008, 4:36pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
maggot3
post Tue 1st July 2008, 5:16pm
Post #10


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed 21st May 2008, 5:48pm
Member No.: 6,260

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I'm almost certain it runs on Invision Power Board.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cyofee
post Tue 1st July 2008, 5:25pm
Post #11


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 329
Joined: Sat 4th Aug 2007, 12:54pm
Member No.: 2,233



Yes, it runs on IPB.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Piperdown
post Tue 1st July 2008, 5:27pm
Post #12


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined: Mon 10th Sep 2007, 3:09pm
Member No.: 2,995



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 1st July 2008, 8:23am) *

I love how the Metz reference is "undesirable" because Metz has a history of being critical of Wikipedia.


to remind everyone, El Req has been used for years as a RS on WP, and even on Patrick Byrne by Gary's socks, on an article that was negative (Byrne is crazy meme) of course.

By the way, Metz's latest was not very complimentary to Byrne at all, so folks on WP believing that Metz is a shill for Overstock are about as right about that as they were right in believing David Gerard's still not-held-accountable banning of at least 1 (moi) and others for being imaginary shills for Overstock. Talk about a conspiracy theory, lol.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Tue 1st July 2008, 5:28pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
prospero
post Tue 1st July 2008, 5:28pm
Post #13


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue 27th May 2008, 4:17pm
Member No.: 6,357

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



How long before Slim and the gang show up? Like I said on AN, you can rest assured that she and MONGO are going to pitch a fit over this one.

This post has been edited by prospero: Tue 1st July 2008, 5:28pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Piperdown
post Tue 1st July 2008, 5:30pm
Post #14


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined: Mon 10th Sep 2007, 3:09pm
Member No.: 2,995



QUOTE(prospero @ Tue 1st July 2008, 5:28pm) *

How long before Slim and the gang show up? Like I said on AN, you can rest assured that she and MONGO are going to pitch a fit over this one.


who cares? what "power" those 2 clowns held is gone.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Neil
post Tue 1st July 2008, 5:34pm
Post #15


Awesome member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 302
Joined: Thu 14th Feb 2008, 1:56am
From: UK
Member No.: 4,822

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(cyofee @ Tue 1st July 2008, 6:25pm) *

Yes, it runs on IPB.


Fixed now.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Tue 1st July 2008, 8:58pm
Post #16


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,868
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



I'm disappointed that he didn't use any material from Blissy's version.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guy
post Tue 1st July 2008, 10:00pm
Post #17


Postmaster General
*********

Group: Inactive
Posts: 4,294
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 8:52pm
From: London
Member No.: 23



QUOTE(prospero @ Tue 1st July 2008, 6:28pm) *

How long before Slim and the gang show up? Like I said on AN, you can rest assured that she and MONGO are going to pitch a fit over this one.

They'll be livid that WR's stalking of her and the claims about her true identity (which apparently are false but she stil wants them covered up) aren't mentioned.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Tue 1st July 2008, 10:54pm
Post #18


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 1st July 2008, 1:58pm) *

I'm disappointed that he didn't use any material from Blissy's version.
I'm not. Here's the text of the Wikipedia Mail I just sent to Neil:
QUOTE
Hi, Neil,

I've taken a look at your draft article on the Wikipedia Review, and I think you've done a good job. There are, however, some suggestions I would make, regarding mention of notable activities at the Review: first, that the Review focusses much attention on allegations of Conflict of Interest on the part of prominent Wikipedia editors, and has attempted to produce evidence to support these allegations (a practice that critics of the Review refer to as "outing.") Secondly, that there is much analysis and criticism of ArbCom decisions and practices. More generally, it would be fair to say that the Review alleges a pattern of disregard, on the part of Wikipedia, for its own policies, such as WP:BLP and WP:NOT.

Regards,
Herschelkrustofsky
Member of the WR staff

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Piperdown
post Tue 1st July 2008, 10:56pm
Post #19


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined: Mon 10th Sep 2007, 3:09pm
Member No.: 2,995



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 1st July 2008, 10:54pm) *

QUOTE
Hi, Neil,

I've taken a look at your draft article on the Wikipedia Review, and I think you've done a good job. There are, however, some suggestions I would make, regarding mention of notable activities at the Review: first, that the Review focusses much attention on allegations of Conflict of Interest on the part of prominent Wikipedia editors, and has attempted to produce evidence to support these allegations (a practice that critics of the Review refer to as "outing.") Secondly, that there is much analysis and criticism of ArbCom decisions and practices. More generally, it would be fair to say that the Review alleges a pattern of disregard, on the part of Wikipedia, for its own policies, such as WP:BLP and WP:NOT.

Regards,
Herschelkrustofsky
Member of the WR staff



Hersch, you're gonna need RS for those claims ;-). When in WP....

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Tue 1st July 2008, 10:56pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
WhispersOfWisdom
post Wed 2nd July 2008, 2:53am
Post #20


Lee Nysted
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed 8th Aug 2007, 12:58am
Member No.: 2,310



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 1st July 2008, 7:54pm) *

QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 1st July 2008, 1:58pm) *

I'm disappointed that he didn't use any material from Blissy's version.
I'm not. Here's the text of the Wikipedia Mail I just sent to Neil:
QUOTE
Hi, Neil,

I've taken a look at your draft article on the Wikipedia Review, and I think you've done a good job. There are, however, some suggestions I would make, regarding mention of notable activities at the Review: first, that the Review focusses much attention on allegations of Conflict of Interest on the part of prominent Wikipedia editors, and has attempted to produce evidence to support these allegations (a practice that critics of the Review refer to as "outing.") Secondly, that there is much analysis and criticism of ArbCom decisions and practices. More generally, it would be fair to say that the Review alleges a pattern of disregard, on the part of Wikipedia, for its own policies, such as WP:BLP and WP:NOT.

Regards,
Herschelkrustofsky
Member of the WR staff



It's about time...and space...it surely is.

Nice job, Neil; about a site that really does quite a few good things and, in fact, has even done a few great things. Time tested for intelligent rants and good solid feedback from all walks of life, I say...

it's time to spread the good news. I say yes. smile.gif

Now back to where I best serve my family, friends, and everyone else in the free world.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th 2 18, 5:09am