ARBCOM Badsites, This is what they're saying about us ... Options Rating

[the fieryangel]

JzG is still upset about being called sexist (maybe you'll shut your mouth the next time, Guy?), but they also have quite a lot to about WR : Here's our entry!

So, whatcha think???

[blissyu2]

I find it odd that the ONLY TWO attack sites mentioned explicitly are ED and WR. What about Wikitruth? Is that not considered to be an attack site? I am sorry, but some of the most vicious attacks on ED are carbon copies of what was written on Wikitruth, and Wikitruth does out editors. They were the first ones to out the various transsexual administrators (Kelly Martin, Ambi, etc). I just find it hypocritical that they don't mention Wikitruth.

Furthermore, they pre-suppose what the purpose of the sites are.

ED - the purpose of ED is primarily to make fun of Live Journal, then later MySpace, Blogger, and other blogs. This has been extended to include Furry places, 4chan and Wikipedia. Wikipedia represents a tiny portion of what they do. Furthermore, ED has a policy not to use people's real names unless they are common knowledge or they gave their real names themselves. Whilst I do agree that ED is an attack site, by any sensible definition, it is not an outing site, and if any outing happens there, that is not the primary purpose of the site.

WR - the purpose of WR is to criticise aspects of Wikipedia, both macro and micro. WR criticises the major problems with Wikipedia's structure as well as individual examples of this. In analysing the individual examples, on occasion real world information must be given in order to properly prove it. Whilst WR does tolerate individuals moaning about their bans, that is far from the point of it, and it is far from a requirement of WR that someone must first be banned from Wikipedia (nor even that they must have ever used Wikipedia as an editor).

Wikitruth - the purpose of Wikitruth is primarily to uncensor deleted articles, and secondly to analyse controversial administrators and policies. Wikitruth IS an outing site (the two above are not). I just find it amazing that Wikitruth is not mentioned in this lot.

Wikipedia Watch - this is fundamentally an outing site, designed to out the real life identities of Wikipedia administrators and abusive users, and secondly to state individual criticisms.

Antisocialmedia - whilst it does include Wikipedia, it is not limited to it. I don't know a lot about it so can't comment too much more on it.

etc.

Now, as far as I know, the top 4 listed there are the 4 main sites with regards to discussion of Wikipedia. Now, I think that it is quite accurate to label Wikitruth and Wikipedia Watch as outing sites. It is not accurate to label WR or ED as outing sites. It is accurate to describe ED as an attack site. However, it is not accurate to describe the others as attack sites, at least not in the context of trying to do real world harm.

I find it a little odd that firstly they attribute the wrong definitions, and secondly that they fail to mention the only site that they consider to be prominent enough to be worth its own article - Wikitruth.