Jump to content

Talk:Gawker Media/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Consumerist

I added the The Consumerist to the list. Here is the post saying that it is a Gawker Media title.--Geedubber 10:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Lat leaving

did Lat leave on his own accord? or was he "let go" ? Geedubber 13:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gawker.jpg

Image:Gawker.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Valleywag

I know that Valleywag is a Gawker site - their "advertise with us" link goes to gawker's site. Not to mention, they use the same layout as all other gawker blogs.

Here is a source for all sites operated by gawker: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.62.115 (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Bloodcopy

Bloodcopy isn't a real blog, it's a marketing scheme which has pissed off readers throughout the Gawker commentariat. Gabriel Snyder explained the whole thing here: About That Vampire Blog Thing.... Deleting as such. Drjayphd (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Defunct v Formerly owned?

The difference being...? If a site is still operating (such as Oddjack and Screenhead appear to be) then shouldn't they be formerly owned? And if it's been rolled into another Gawker site (as Sploid seems to be, similar to Defamer and Valleywag) shouldn't it be listed as such? Darquis (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable source

Hello, the user User_talk:GiantSnowman has made a claim that Gawker is not a reliable source? Could someone please confirm if this is true or not true?Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:RSN. There have already been some discusions on it. Яehevkor ✉ 11:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Sploid

Sploid was tabloidesque - under what logic would that be rolled into lifehacker? As it is now old links to sploid redirect to gawker (which has become the catchall for the gossip and tabloid sites such as valleywag and defamer that used to be separate). I'm adjusting the article accordingly, but if I'm wrong, by all means let me know. Darquis (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be back at the moment. I'm not really sure what it is, but it may be worth expanding a little. {C  A S U K I T E  T} 01:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Created By

Some listed are editors/former editors and not the creators of the different blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.192.138.71 (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan sex tape

Now that Hogan has won his lawsuit (per reliable sources), is it really appropriate to continue linking to the article on the Gawker website that they refused to take down and that prompted the case in the first place, even as a "reference"? Also, is mentioning the racial content WP:DUE? 70.24.7.43 (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't clean up Gawker's image. Leave the reference. Gawker on suicide watch! 107.214.236.216 (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gawker Media. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Rename to Gizmodo Media Group or make new article

TWO ARTICLES:

There is a clear consensus to have two articles:

  1. Keep the Gawker Media article as is to discuss the company before its assets were sold to Univision Communications and to discuss the ongoing lawsuits against it and its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.
  2. Create a new article about Gizmodo Media Group to discuss the new entity Univision created after it purchased Gawker Media's assets.

Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All there in the title. Going forward should this article be renamed to Gizmodo Media Group or should we create a new article with that name as a continuation? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • It has such a significant historical existence under its own name, that a separate article should reman from the period going up to the sale of the firm. DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • New article - I think a new article should be created. I think the two organizations are distinct enough that separate articles should be created. I don't see this as a typical rebrand - seems like a major change in the organization and a clear break from the past. Also the rename just occurred, so it would not be commonly known about the new name yet, so at the very least we should hold off. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Follow up - it looks like the initial reporting wasn't entirely clear. Gawker Media continues to exist: [2]. It is still the subject of the lawsuits by Bollea and is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. Gwker Media simply sold its core business assets to what is now called Gizmodo Media Group. Since the lawsuits, which are significant part of this article, do not even involve Gizmodo, I would continue to argue that they should be separate articles. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Different names, per above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Two different names, new article Right, the goal is to make information easy to locate, it should not be renamed, there should be two articles, keep Gawker. Damotclese (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Rename - This is just the new name for the same collection of blogs. It's just now a subsidiary with a different name. The entire history of Gawker Media is still relevant to Gizmodo Media Group. This isn't like Viacom pre-2005, CBS, and Viacom, where one entity split into a renamed entity and a new entity of the previous name. One entity was purchased, and as a subsidiary was renamed. It's not even like Kraft-Mondelez. There is precedent: Altria isn't a separate page from Philip Morris Companies, Academi hosts the company's notorious history as Blackwater and Xe, Anderson Consulting isn't separate from Accenture, Research in Motion's history is contained at BlackBerry Limited... I cannot find any instances where a notable business, an already distinct entity, changed its name, during an acquisition or spinoff, and two pages for the entity are created for the two different names. In terms of ease of finding information, this is the obvious choice: someone seeking information on the Gawker blog, which is shuttered, would go to Gawker.com. If someone wants to read about GMG, they would logically expect the unit's history to be part of the same page (much as it is with another major, non-renamed Univision Communications acquisition, The Onion). The fact that the entity was purchased and renamed doesn't mean it has a separate history. This is the same entity as Gawker Media under a different name and under different ownership. That's it. How big of an intended "break from the past" it is is totally irrelevant. This is a rebrand of the same portfolio of blogs. If, at some point, GMG dramatically shifts its focus, close its blogs, rename things, whatever, I'd be convinced that they are in some way distinct. As it is, though, there aren't separate pages for every film studio or other tech/media business to separately catalog its actions, history, and direction under each different owner (and in tech and media, this is not an uncommon occurrence). I wouldn't even be surprised if Univision sells or spins off GMG or even more of Fusion Media Group. Again, unless there's some substantial reorganization, this is really just Gawker Media under a new shingle. Jbbdude (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, I chose the examples I did because they had considerably more notorious histories under their old names than Gawker Media. Blackwater, Phillip Morris, and Anderson Consulting were each the subject of huge industry-defining legal and political controversies. Their new names did not sever them from their history, just as it doesn't for GMG. Jbbdude (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I see your point, but here's a minor difference. You listed companies that just did a name change. Here we have a acquisition and a name change at the same time, while one section (Gawker itself) is being jettisoned as part of the process. Hence why I went straight to RFC instead of making the choice myself. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 21:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
As I stated above, I cannot find any instances where a notable business, an already distinct entity, changed its name, during an acquisition or spinoff, and two pages for the entity are created for the two different names. The fact that one property was simultaneously closed down doesn't seem to change the situation much. I understand the belief that it would, given that the property happened to be the business's flagship brand and shared its name with the business, but businesses are regularly acquired with divisions being merged. In this case, most of staff was reassigned, assets remain in control of this successor entity, etc. The properties were sold, the division has a new name, and one blog is closed. Those are parts of a business's history, not an indication of an entirely new business. Jbbdude (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
This isn't correct, and this seems to be a common misconception (the reporting on this isn't always clear). Gawker Media still exists: [3]. Gawker's core assets were sold to Univision, which renamed them Gizmodo Media Group. But the entity that is the subject of the Bollea lawsuits still exists as Gawker Media. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Every report before this news indicated that Univision won the auction for Gawker's assets for $135m. They were indicated as the ones who made the choice not to continue the Gawker blog, and that the future of the Gawker blog was uncertain even within Gawker Media between Univision's bid and the announcement of the Gawker shutdown just before the bankruptcy court's approval of the acquisition. Either way, though, the fate of a particular shell is hardly relevant, in my eyes, to the core question. This is the single successor entity of Gawker Media, aside from one shuttered blog and an ongoing protracted legal battle. I don't know how the potential future liabilities of the Gawker Media assets were distributed with the sale, but at a $135m price tag and with an ongoing bankruptcy, I would imagine the agreement would have shifted at least some of that burden onto Univision (which would seem borne out by Univision's choice to delete past posts which were subjects of litigation). The history of GMG is, until the acquisition, the history of Gawker Media. In a story posted today on Gizmodo, a Gizmodo author wrote: "the network of sites formerly known as Gawker Media (following the purchase of the company’s assets out of bankruptcy by Univision, it is now known as Gizmodo Media Group)". In that same post, the writer discusses new suits filed by Peter Thiel's lawyers against Gizmodo Media Group for content posted by Gawker Media blogs before the Univision acquisition, which seems to confirm that Univision/GMG has taken on at least some potential liabilities of Gawker Media. This is the same set of properties, even if one news report from today suggests that it is a distinct legal entity. It's the same blogs, employees, and (most important for encyclopedic purposes) history.
In practical terms: what is the value of creating a new page for GMG? GMG will have a one line history about its life since the sale, and Gawker Media will house the entire history of the portfolio of blogs until they were all sold. I do not see the value in splitting the history in two when the assets are all in the same place, aside from one shuttered blog (that the new WSJ article did not clarify was going to stay online, let alone ever be revived; only that the winding-down Gawker Media entity would potentially face liability for posts still online). What reader would expect to read a history of GMG without its history as Gawker Media, and what reader of Gawker Media's page wouldn't expect to see its recent history under a new name? Jbbdude (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Leaning on the two articles option. (Please look up the Ship of Theseus paradox.) Gawker was an entity that now essentially possesses nothing but its name. (The continuation of the use of the Gawker name or entity in legal disputes is not relevant.) All Gawker's assets, etc, have been moved elsewhere. The name "Gawker" in people's minds, and in Wikipedia, can signify either the story of Gawker until it ceased to exist as Gawker, or the story of the entity known as Gawker before and from then on known as something else. So, either way forward is not a "mistake." But I'm in favor of lean, easily navigated articles, and support spin offs per Wikirules : access to other, linked texts is easier than easy online. Therefore, I find it preferable to have one article containing the whole story of the dear, departed Gawker until its departed, and another with the story of the new entity, linked of course to the Gawker entry. But I have no strong view on the subject. -The Gnome (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • New article, the 2 companies are separate companies, each with their own history. CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • New Article Looking into, let's say, a generation's time, Gizmodo Media Group will have gone to do a number of additional notable things in its own right, having purchased assets from Gawker. Gaawker, on the other hand, will remain as it is. The split clearly happened here, so getting ahead of the obvious fork will be wise, in my opinion.Heterodidact (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • New Article freeze current article, add the usual linkages to new article. Summoned by bot,Timtempleton (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Gawker Media. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 15:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gawker Media. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gawker_Media/Archive_1&oldid=1136753479"