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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> WikiTruth a "Hoax", says Jimbo (Village Voice), Blacklisted, deleted, reinstated... Make up your minds, people!
Google News
post Tue 2nd May 2006, 11:31pm
Post #1


RSS Feed Reader
********

Group: Bots
Posts: 3,147
Joined: Mon 3rd Apr 2006, 10:04am
Member No.: 94




Wikipedia spars with a splinter site for truth
Village Voice, NY - 22 minutes ago
Ah, Wikipedia: No true believer in the democratic promise of the Web can fail to gladden at the very mention of this grand experiment—the universal ...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Donny
post Wed 3rd May 2006, 1:12am
Post #2


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 11:27pm
Member No.: 79



This was a good article about the Wikitruth site and a blast at Wikipedia.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Selina
post Wed 3rd May 2006, 9:41pm
Post #3


Cat herder
******

Group: Staffy
Posts: 1,513
Joined: Sun 19th Feb 2006, 10:28pm
Member No.: 1

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Interesting, I forgot to check Alexa rankings.. ha funny how we are not notable but Wikitruth is wink.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
blissyu2
post Thu 4th May 2006, 12:01pm
Post #4


the wookie
*********

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 12:14am
From: Australia
Member No.: 5

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Wikipedia is unlikely to want to make an article on Wikipedia Review purely because they hate to acknowledge criticism. In order to get an article made about us, we would have to get major media attention. Yes, we have an Alexa rank higher than Wikipedia Watch and Wikitruth, but we do not have as much media attention. We have now 1 story that has mentioned us - we probably need 10-15, and at least a few that are primarily focussed around us. We are a long way off getting that. Wikipedia's rules on Alexa rank are also a fair bit stricter than that. They also require 5,000 registered members - we have less than 200. Granted we had 250 on the old forum, but even if we added the two we are still under 500, 1/10th of the way there.

Yes, we are the first major interactive forum for criticism of Wikipedia (Lir's forum was before this, but nobody went there), and we are also by far the largest, and are influential on other projects, such as Wikitruth for sure. They get a lot of their information from here, that much they can't dispute. And whilst ordinarily that would be enough for a Wikipedia article, because Wikipedia hates us, its not.

I think that this forum is going well. What we need now is to get some more exposure. We need this to be a collaboration of all critics of Wikipedia, or as many as possible. Whilst we don't need to exclude non-critics, I think that critics need to be our focus. People who think that Wikipedia is perfect do not belong here, quite frankly. And people who come to bash this site or destroy it do not belong. Sometimes I think we are too tolerant of such people. Wikipedia certainly doesn't tolerate critics, no matter how constructive they are.

We also probably need to have a side project of some kind. A group blog was suggested, and I think is a good idea. I am totally bankrupt right now so I can't put up money for such a thing. Does the current software allow this? Everyone who is in the group "Wikipedia Review cabal" should be able to add entries. I think that this would help this site. Also perhaps some single page user pages for anyone in that same group might be good too. And if we have e-mail addresses, perhaps a selina@wikipediareview.com, lir@wikipediareview.com etc might be good too, at least for a few people.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Donny
post Thu 4th May 2006, 1:22pm
Post #5


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 11:27pm
Member No.: 79



Better have a look at the Alexa traffic comparison before jumping to conclusions - type in "wikitruth.info" to get the comparison graph. It looks like Wikitruth is lower down just because it's newer than this site. cool.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
blissyu2
post Thu 4th May 2006, 1:38pm
Post #6


the wookie
*********

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 12:14am
From: Australia
Member No.: 5

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Donny @ Thu 4th May 2006, 10:52pm) *

Better have a look at the Alexa traffic comparison before jumping to conclusions - type in "wikitruth.info" to get the comparison graph. It looks like Wikitruth is lower down just because it's newer than this site. cool.gif

I don't really understand how Alexa works, and its reputedly not very reliable. But just the same, if any place says that WR is more popular than WT, then that's something. If we believed Wikipedia, WT is ridiculously popular, while WR is a nobody. And I don't think that's right.

Great post by Hushthis, again.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Newsvine
post Mon 1st May 2006, 7:12am
Post #7


RSS Feed Reader
****

Group: Bots
Posts: 437
Joined: Fri 31st Mar 2006, 1:37am
Member No.: 89



Less than 2 weeks ago claimed Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales that WikiTruth.info is just a "Hoax". Since then were Votes to keep the Article about WikiTruth ignored and simply deleted and now was the whole site even banned from Wikipedia.

http://roy-sac.newsvine.com/_news/2006/05/...-from-wikipedia
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Selina
post Tue 16th May 2006, 4:30pm
Post #8


Cat herder
******

Group: Staffy
Posts: 1,513
Joined: Sun 19th Feb 2006, 10:28pm
Member No.: 1

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Hey I never noticed this before... Pretty cool, looks like Wikitruth may be entering the news. Or maybe not though, that guy hasn't made any articles since this one sleep.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sgrayban
post Tue 16th May 2006, 11:28pm
Post #9


Gone
*****

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 907
Joined: Sun 26th Feb 2006, 10:29pm
Member No.: 7

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=...sm_of_Wikitruth
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sgrayban
post Tue 16th May 2006, 11:45pm
Post #10


Gone
*****

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 907
Joined: Sun 26th Feb 2006, 10:29pm
Member No.: 7

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Also I don't see wikitruth on the spam blacklist at all. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist

And it was removed per Jimbo http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...xt&oldid=339904

And SV censors WikiTruth's Criticism !! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=53009192
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Selina
post Wed 17th May 2006, 12:12am
Post #11


Cat herder
******

Group: Staffy
Posts: 1,513
Joined: Sun 19th Feb 2006, 10:28pm
Member No.: 1

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



"banned user"? Noosphere isn't banned at all from the looks of it...
~confused~

But yeah, it's a similar situation as Wikipedia Review, only Wikitruth has people that are Wikipedia admins in it so they get to keep an article wink.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
blissyu2
post Wed 17th May 2006, 11:02am
Post #12


the wookie
*********

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 12:14am
From: Australia
Member No.: 5

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Yeah, that was the very accurate and relevant constructive editing that I added, that was why WCityMike got so upset. See, he was upset because it was not only wrong to delete stuff, but it was also very constructive editing. Slim Virgin said it was vandalism to add that. But she was wrong.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kotepho
post Wed 17th May 2006, 7:55pm
Post #13


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue 28th Mar 2006, 6:40pm
Member No.: 84



Diff
I'll give you two guesses as to who did this edit that added the section.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sgrayban
post Wed 17th May 2006, 8:11pm
Post #14


Gone
*****

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 907
Joined: Sun 26th Feb 2006, 10:29pm
Member No.: 7

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Why would they even censor http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=53688616 ?

It's pretty obvious the wikitruth people are either admin or have close friends that are. After all some of there screen shots have been admin only ones.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

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: 24th 5 13, 6:28pm