Talk:Digg Patriots

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neutral POV

This article reads like a cut-and-paste from the AlterNet story. Its only corroborating links are sources citing the same article. As such it lacks NPOV. If there's no objection, may I suggest additional citations for verification? It might be worthwhile to include the published responses from a few individuals identified with this Digg Patriots group. DocHolliday (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objection in principle to including DP response (or indeed any followup to be found), but most of those (with the possible exception of the last one) don't look like particularly notable blogs. Also, if you are a member of DP as I suspect from your contribution history, it would be good of you to say so. Rd232 ^talk 06:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. No, I'm not a member of the Digg Patriots. I'll start working on a few revisions and post them here in the discussion before editing the page. DocHolliday (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 10 days later and here are a few more references to add to the mix:

Separately may I point out, freakoutnation.com in the "External Links" is not an authoritative source. A review of the other material on that site would indicate a clear bias, and the article linked provides no evidence for the allegations it contains. Further, it appears freakoutnation.com is operated by the same group that publishes #5 and #8 in the reference section. (newsjunkiepost.com and pubrecord.org)

In the interest of an objective, neutral article, may I suggest we only use information from #5 and #8 that can be corroborated by other sources, independent from the AlterNet article and other websites operated by p2blogs.com? DocHolliday (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears someone else has already removed freakoutnation.com from the external links. Since there's no comment or objection, I will be removing the newsjunkiepost.com references and add the sources listed above. DocHolliday (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to add these as external links rather than adding the information to the article itself? I had a quick look and they don't satisfy any of the criteria for external links in WP:EL. The information should be added to the article and they can be given as sources. --Muhandes (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the information from RightWingNews and ConservativeBrawler should be added to the article, since both authors are members of this Digg Patriots group. I only included them in EL after discussion, in which it was mentioned that neither source was "particularly notable." Certainly, at the very least, these links fall within the WP:ELMAYBE. The SocialBlade and DrillDown links both satisfy WP:ELYES. Both of these pages contain neutral, accurate material, however the information is in the form of a podcast. Would it be better to transcribe the comments and link the source? DocHolliday (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If something is said in a podcast and you believe it is reliable, I believe you can write the facts down and give the podcast as a source. As for the other ones, I'm not sure WP:ELMAYBE applies as these might not be even considered "knowledgeable sources", but I'm not going to argue about it. --Muhandes (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll transcribe the relevant information from the two podcasts and move them to sources. DocHolliday (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, how have you ascertained that the RightWingNews and ConservativeBrawler items both "contain neutral, accurate material" ? Or am I misunderstanding what you're trying to say there? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding. The RightWingNews article was written by "punx" and the ConservativeBrawler post was written by "SethStuck," both of whom have been identified by the author of the AlterNet article as leaders of this Digg Patriots group. Therefore, a reasonable person might expect them to be knowledgeable of the group's activities. The Drill Down podcast and the Social Blade Show video are neutral, accurate third party sources. DocHolliday (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two more references

DocHolliday (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ont thing making your job difficult is that there is so much misinformation in the original Alternet and related pieces, much of which Ole Ole Olson has backed away from, some of which he hasn't but has been proven to be wrong. For example, the "leader" status of people, or even "member" status of people has been wrong. Look also how a blogger named anomaly100 claimed that the Digg Patriots were "recruiting" an alleged racist by the username Dilberto. It is clear, however, that even though Dilberto had requested membership, the Digg Patriots were disturbed by some of his approach and decided not to offer membership to him!24.213.186.138 (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(indent reset) I've attempted to add a relevant piece of information to this story, specifically regarding how Ole Ole Olsen came by the information in the first place, which was by having unauthorized access to a hacked Yahoo account. This information is detailed on my Wordpress blog, along with visual evidence as to the hack. Unfortunately, when I try to post this link to the external links section, it gets nullified because of it being my own blog page. Any suggestions? (I don't have ads on my Wordpress blog, and I'm aware of Wikipedia's nofollow tag, so it's not as though I'm trying to cash in on any expected traffic boost.) Can I please get an editorial decision as to the inclusion/exclusion of this story, NewsJunkiePost Implicated in Computer Hacking to Breach Diggpatriots Yahoo Group, as a viable part of the overall story? Thanks! TheRJCarter (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I initially removed the link because it's the editor's own blog (therjcarter.wordpress.com), so there's a self-promotion issue.

Looking further at the blog entry and its merits… WP:ELYES point #3 says to include "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material." However, the blog post is not independent, because the blogger admits to being a member of Digg Patriots. The accuracy of the material is undefined, because it is the original research of the blogger. WP:ELNO #11 says to avoid "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." The recognized authority exception is intended to be limited in scope, and I see no evidence that the blogger is a recognized authority. Based on that, I would say that the external links guidelines say that it should not be included in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Paragraph

Although the Yahoo group was apparently shut down, there is a an active Facebook page and Twitter account for the Digg Patriots.

Also, the following sentence is not supported by the AlterNet article. "Founded in May 2009, the group had made over 40,000 contributions to Digg." There were allegedly 40,000 posts in the Digg Patriots Yahoo group, however there is no indication how many contributions were made to Digg.

Proposed edit: "The Digg Patriots are a group of US conservatives organised to promote news stories and opinion articles on the popular social media website, Digg. After an AlterNet article published on 5 August 2010 raised allegations of censorship of the site's front page, Digg announced an investigation." DocHolliday (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the reason for formation. The group was formed to allow members to keep in touch after Digg removed the ability to "Shout" to other members.

Also, be careful of the claims thrown around out there. For example, note that the Facebook and Twitter account listed above were not put up by the Digg Patriots. The person putting up and running those sites was never a Digg Patriot. In fact, this highlights some important points that should be discussed if this article stays up--the way false accusations were made against innocent Diggers, and the very strong possibility that many of the more egregious allegations were actions perpetrated by '"infiltrators"' of the group, not the Digg Patriots themselves!24.213.186.138 (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 24.213.186.138 ! This does help some of the NPOV problems. It could probably be reworded to more clearly describe the group. I'd like to leave the changes you've made, but perhaps edit or move paragraphs around.

Apologies if the links I offered were incorrect. Certainly the Facebook - Digg Patriots and Twitter - Digg Patriots are followed / friends with 12 or more of the "Digg Patriots" named in the AlterNet article. We should change this organization page to include the logo and link for the "Official Site." If there's no objection, I'd like to include those. DocHolliday (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies to me are needed; I'm not associated with the group. I just wanted to correct the issue based on my own research. Of course, original research itself can't be included, but if careful, truth can be included on Wikipedia in some cases, as long as other policies are followed. 24.213.186.138 (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I have a hard time believing that this topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Significant coverage? No, very limited actually and much of it just reporting on the alertnet allegations. This article should be deleted, placed on someone's user page until the issue develops, or be reduced to a sentence in the main article on Digg.Lord of the Ping (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement here. As mentioned previously, at least 3 of the sources in the References are part of the same group as the author of the AlterNet article. Any input from the other editors? DocHolliday (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's enough to scrape WP:AFD, but there's only one way to find out. (I must say I thought there'd be more coverage.) Rd232 ^talk 16:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would nominate the article for deletion, but I don't know how to.Lord of the Ping (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are manual instructions at WP:AFD. You can also install WP:TWINKLE (tick the box in the Gadgets tab of your Preferences) - this gives you extra tabs, including an "XFD" tab to nominate things for deletion. Rd232 ^talk 10:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fact-Checking

Apologies. I'm still fact-checking the original AlterNet piece.

The sentence "Digg is 'by far the most influential social media site,' with 25 million page views per month - around a third of the New York Times," is incorrect. As of January 2010, pingdom.com reported that Digg gets approximately 340 million page views per month. Looking at the traffic that other social media sites generate, it may be true to say Digg is "an" influential social media site, but it is not "the most influential." Obviously, that statement and the incorrect page view stats should be fixed.

Also, I notice the paragraph related to ScienceBlogs starts with "ScienceBlogs noted that Digg Patriots had particularly targeted for burial a range of websites they disapproved of." That's not correct. An anonymous blog hosted at scienceblogs.com written by "Mike the Mad Biologist" merely includes a cut-and-paste quote from the original AlterNet article. Further, at least two of the individuals allegedly targeted by this group have taken the investigator to task for this unsubstantiated claim. (See MrBabyman's comments on The Drill Down and J.D. Rucker's Social Blade Show referenced above.)

While we're waiting for a decision on whether or not to delete this article, may I suggest we delete this 'Science Blogs' paragraph? DocHolliday (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has this actually been nominated for deletion? Do you have a link the discussion?Lord of the Ping (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. I'm assuming Rd232 can nominate it if he chooses to. Would you object to deleting the 'Science Blogs' paragraph in the interim? DocHolliday (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not object, please do it. Remember, Be Bold.Lord of the Ping (talk) 06:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating your own article for deletion tends to confuse people. If you think it worth nominating, do it. You could also wait a little longer to see if there's more followup. Rd232 ^talk 07:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deleting the unverifiable 'Science Blogs' paragraph. To Rd232's point, I'm also beginning to think it would be worthwhile to wait until more follow up comes along. DocHolliday (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brand Damage

Or is it brain damage? The name is unimportant. I have a thought on further edits, and I need your input. Specifically, "The company's only official statement regarding the AlterNet investigation was that it is 'certainly an interesting look into the lengths people will go to create the Digg™ experience they think is best.'"

I'd like to emphasize this point.

The problem is this evidence was presented to Digg™ some thirty days prior to the AlterNet article. Yet, having all the evidence, Digg™ dismissed it. Why? DocHolliday (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to delete the paragraph beginning with "The AlterNet story alleged the group primarily aimed to vote down 'liberal' political stories, but "also targeted non-political content... " It doesn't make sense to repeat allegations for which no evidence was offered. The "lead investigator" was asked point blank on The Drill Down "Where is the hard evidence." Their take on this right-wing bury brigade controversy can be summarized in one line: "To call this an investigation seems a little far-fetched." (Time index 27:00 The Drill Down) I'd like to include that quote along with the company's response at the top of the 'Alternate Investigation' section. Comments welcome DocHolliday (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

166.137.140.236

I've never used Digg, never mind Digg v4, so it could be good or bad or all manner of things. But, if this vandalism carries on, I'm going to ask for action to be taken against 166.137.140.236. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truth vs. Verifiability

Grayshi points out that oan editor with conflict of interest should recuse himself from editing. I recognize now that my preference for truth over what others have claimed is in conflict with Wikipedia (see WP:V, which states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth . . .") Based on WP:COI ("Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.") and my ultimate value of truth, I cannot honestly agree that interest in Wikipedia's aims are greater than my interest in truth, and I must therefore recuse myself.

Just so others interested in truth can understand, I am not and never have been a member of the Digg Patriots or the Inevestigators. My knowledge is based upon even-handed investigation, gaining information from both sides and deciding on that. DocHolliday has done an admirable job trying to make the first sentence close to the truth while maintaining verifiability, but one would have to delve into original research to point out that even the Investigators admitted only a handful of the DiggPatriots actively participated in any organized burying efforts--and that would be pretty odd if the group was formed for that purpose!

They also confirm that most of the traffic was about other things...how discussing childrens' school, illnesses, etc., is for some nefarious purpose, I can't comprehend, but to "verify" this case, the DiggPatriots would have to release their personal e-mail to the public. Sorry, but if Wikipedia is going to be a "release or smear" rag, I want nothing to do with it. I'm already disgusted by the way Ole Ole Olson and company have sent around (to third parties) private e-mail from innocent people. Note to those who want to post this info--those are verifiable points, as the "Investigators" have admitted smearing innocents in their haste to release info. Anyone who has read their statements and watched the BannedOnTheWeb/TheDrillDown/SocialBlade videos knows this.
Cheers! 24.213.186.138 (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

While a somewhat interesting story, I'm not convinced this group is notable enough to have a separate article. They received a brief spurt of news coverage, most of it from online sources, but not the kind of long-term coverage that would indicate notability; this is really a story about Digg, and should be merged into that article. This article is brief enough that merging it in wouldn't overwhelm the Digg article or extend it to unreasonable lengths. Robofish (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge I agree with you. It should be merged. Sae1962 (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty to Verify

People who spend a lot of time on political discussions have long held that you can recognize the DiggPatriots by the terminology they prefer and the propagandizing nature of what they advocate. The similarity of their screen-names (preferences, for example, for "stars and stripes" words like patriot, american, freedom, and liberty) is also a known method of identifying them. They have been referred to by some as a "conservative version of anonymous" but all of this takes place in web-discussion environments that wikipedia does not allow as a "source" for obvious reasons. 98.203.19.162 (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Digg Patriots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Digg Patriots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100808134356/http://blogs.alternet.org/oleoleolson/2010/08/05/massive-censorship-of-digg-uncovered/ to http://blogs.alternet.org/oleoleolson/2010/08/05/massive-censorship-of-digg-uncovered/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Digg Patriots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.alternet.org/oleoleolson/2010/08/05/massive-censorship-of-digg-uncovered/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100815043601/http://gawker.com:80/5605982/is-digg-being-hijacked-by-a-right+wing-fringe-group to http://gawker.com/5605982/is-digg-being-hijacked-by-a-right+wing-fringe-group

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]