I just got my first block, Bet you can't guess why Options

Given that ED is complete puerile drivel, and given that WP policy is not to have articles on websites, fair enough. It does seem hypocritical though (WP is not censored) not to have an article on Wikipedia Review.

Given that ED is complete puerile drivel, and given that WP policy is not to have articles on websites, fair enough. It does seem hypocritical though (WP is not censored) not to have an article on Wikipedia Review.

No, I think that it's fair. WR started out as sort of an underground subversive movement, and was highly controversial, with an owner who was pretty, um.... unusual I suppose is a tactful word (not Adrian, the other guy before him). At this point, the discourse is pretty much on the up and up, but that doesn't redeem it in their eyes. After all, it is highly critical of them, and they don't tolerate criticism of them in general, so it makes perfect sense to me that they'd ban it, as such.

Strictly speaking WR is sufficiently legitimate (and sufficiently sourced by real publications) to warrant an article, and they'd be showing some integrity (not the right word, but I can't find it) to give it one. But the situation.... well, "it is what it is". And that's not happening anytime soon.

I'm still impressed (and amazed) that Poetlister got unblocked.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Sun 4th May 2008, 1:49pm

Given that ED is complete puerile drivel, and given that WP policy is not to have articles on websites, fair enough. It does seem hypocritical though (WP is not censored) not to have an article on Wikipedia Review.

Since when does WP have any policy against articles on websites, or articles on complete puerile drivel?

Since when does WP have any policy against articles on websites, or articles on complete puerile drivel?

A written policy? Come on Daniel. You know that's not necessary. Rules can be well unstated, and that's one of them.

Though your well-made slightly sarcastic point is understood.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Sun 4th May 2008, 1:58pm

Given that ED is complete puerile drivel, and given that WP policy is not to have articles on websites, fair enough. It does seem hypocritical though (WP is not censored) not to have an article on Wikipedia Review.

Since when does WP have any policy against articles on websites, or articles on complete puerile drivel?

WP has an extensive article (and many WP:COATRACK entries elsewhere in BLP space) to a public relations and political action web site launched two years ago by the Discovery Institute.

Writing a WR article would be more sanguine, since most WP-ers read this site religiously, and many respect the content.

"most WP-ers read this site religiously"??? I would think that depends on how you define a WP-er. I suspect that the vast majority of those who edit WP don't even read much stuff in the Wikipedia: namespace, much less external sites related to it... take a look at the number of different folk posting on the mailing lists for example. (I've read somewhere that you can extrapolate readership (inaccurately! ) by multiplying posts by a ratio somewhere between 10 and 100 or so)

Heck, I'd be surprised if a majority of admins read here even occasionally.

However, I would agree that it is likely that many who read here "respect the content" in the sense of agreeing with some of it or of using it to find out about things going on, and the like.

But this is all conjecture on my part, I may be wrong.

After all, it is highly critical of them, and they don't tolerate criticism of them in general, so it makes perfect sense to me that they'd ban it, as such.

It's the outing they don't like. Rightly or wrongly, they consider Brandt's outing of them "harassment", and as he posts here and sometimes mentions names or clues to them here (though less so these days) they consider it a site that harasses wikipedians.

They claimed the same thing about Don Murphy's website.

Given that ED is complete puerile drivel, and given that WP policy is not to have articles on websites, fair enough. It does seem hypocritical though (WP is not censored) not to have an article on Wikipedia Review.

Since when does WP have any policy against articles on websites, or articles on complete puerile drivel?

Very true. It was SlimVirgin who told me about the 'no websites' policy. No, don't say anything.

After all, it is highly critical of them, and they don't tolerate criticism of them in general, so it makes perfect sense to me that they'd ban it, as such.

It's the outing they don't like. Rightly or wrongly, they consider Brandt's outing of them "harassment", and as he posts here and sometimes mentions names or clues to them here (though less so these days) they consider it a site that harasses wikipedians.

People also post here to give Daniel Brandt information in aid of his current or future searches. Why they post here instead of just emailing him the info (perhaps they have google email addresses? Perhaps they want to be seen giving it? perhaps they want a confirmation that it was received? ) I could not say. But that practice plays into the hands of those who criticise this site as an enabling mechanism for outing/harassment, etc... even if the mods subsequently remove such posts, they are seen and remembered.

Just pointing that out.

That would come under the rubric of "contributing to the delinquency of a major."

They give Wikipedia Review and Wikitruth articles (which probably have more sources anyway- at least the WR one) partly so they can't be accused of being like that I imagine.

There is no Wikipedia Review article, only a redirect. (For a long time, there wasn't even a redirect, and my mentioning its existence will probably mean it gets deleted within the next 48 hours.) And the most recent edit to the Wikitruth article was to change the fact that WP administrators are contributors there to a "claim," when they know very, very well that it's true.

So yes, they can be accused of being like that, because they are like that.

Given that ED is complete puerile drivel, and given that WP policy is not to have articles on websites, fair enough. It does seem hypocritical though (WP is not censored) not to have an article on Wikipedia Review.

Since when does WP have any policy against articles on websites, or articles on complete puerile drivel?

...
Very true. It was SlimVirgin who told me about the 'no websites' policy. No, don't say anything.

WP:WEB, the guideline for including websites, is very stringent about the amount of notability a website has to have to be included. It has to have been mentioned in lots of newspapers etc, usually. So, Amazon won't have a problem getting in, but most people's fave site to visit, whatever it is, won't.

People also post here to give Daniel Brandt information in aid of his current or future searches. Why they post here instead of just emailing him the info (perhaps they have google email addresses? Perhaps they want to be seen giving it? perhaps they want a confirmation that it was received? ) I could not say. But that practice plays into the hands of those who criticise this site as an enabling mechanism for outing/harassment, etc... even if the mods subsequently remove such posts, they are seen and remembered.

Opt-out policy... Reciprocity... Opt-out policy... Reciprocity... Opt-out policy... Reciprocity...

Reciprocity is by mutual consent. Retribution is not.

They give Wikipedia Review and Wikitruth articles (which probably have more sources anyway- at least the WR one) partly so they can't be accused of being like that I imagine.

There is no Wikipedia Review article, only a redirect. (For a long time, there wasn't even a redirect, and my mentioning its existence will probably mean it gets deleted within the next 48 hours.) And the most recent edit to the Wikitruth article was to change the fact that WP administrators are contributors there to a "claim," when they know very, very well that it's true.

So yes, they can be accused of being like that, because they are like that.

Ah right, I thought WR had an article for some reason.

Reciprocity is by mutual consent. Retribution is not.

Neither of those things is necessarily by mutual consent. No deals have been made, but it's a fair assumption that if the status quo is maintained on Wikipedia, the status quo will be maintained here too.

Pussy Galore, I would like to point out that the article you submitted is no different from the one I made. It was made clear in the last DRV that more sources are needed. You need to add more sources or else you are just stirring up shit.

Shii

There is now a source which undoubtedly qualifies ED for inclusion, but I cannot recreate the article because the foolish actions taken by Pussy Galore would make it a too-soon "bad faith" recreation which would poison the well further. In other words, my honest effort to get a decent article was fucked up by someone who was apparently trolling for a block. In order to have a coherent discussion with Sceptre and those other dudes I will have to wait at least four months.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459249

Do NOT recreate the article based on this source alone. Wikipedia is irrational-- humans behave irrationally. If we give the subject some time to cool off there is a better chance we will get a good article in the future with fewer grudges held.

Shii

This post has been edited by Ashibaka: Thu 8th May 2008, 6:20am

Some people can't stand those who speak truth to power.

I resemble that remark, having remarked it before in a similar way.