Talk:Mainstream Media

Why 1987?

Please explain the significance of 1987. Such a specific point in time deserves a citation. Thank you. Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons: A) The Fairness Doctrine was abolished that year, and, B) That was the year of the beginnings of the true integration of the World Wide Web and the Internet, both of which opened the door for the Alternative Media to become a major player. Does that answer your question? (And, yes, I do realize that the average person didn't have access to the Internet in 1987, but it was the starting point.)

As to why it's not on the page, it's not on the page because...well, honestly, sometimes I forget to explain things, even if I had to do research to figure them out in the first place. I will try to fix that shortly. Josh ua In gram 20:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide View

Thank you for your prompt response to the above question. Here is another major issue which should be an urgent priority for anyone contributing to this article: The article seems to assume that the term "mainstream media" is a term only used in the USA. English Wikipedia is used by a much larger group than only those in the USA. For more info see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

Anyone who contributes to this article should make this an urgent priority in future contributions to this article. Thank you. Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, you're welcome. You just happened to catch me at a good time. Second, someone else is going to have to hit the international places, if anyone wants it done before tomorrow. I'm getting ready for bed. Josh ua In gram 01:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

I added some British outlets. I labeled it European because I'm ignorant to the particulars of which European countries are English-speaking. I also reordered the article back to what it was, because it made more sense to me that way. I also removed the "citation needed" plug before the lists begin. I assume that it is obvious why these specific outlets are considered "mainstream." (That's why the definition is there.) Josh ua In gram 23:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to redirect

Most of the additions after changing from redirect did not have any significant citations. For example, the use of the Fairness Doctrine as a cut off appears to violate WP:OR; the citation used to justify doesn't even have the phrase "mainstream media" in it. Likewise, the list of media outlets did not cite any sources to what is or is not considered "mainstream". I have therefore reverted to the redirect as most of the information was uncited and/or a violation of WP:OR. Yobol (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why not try to build it up instead of tearing it down? Without some discussion first, you have no right to redirect it. Josh ua In gram 22:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting to redirect present previously. There has been no information provided to define what "mainstream media" is, in addition to the problems I noted above. Indeed, this appears to be a copy-and-paste of the Conservapedia page on Mainstream Media [1]. I will be removing the content that appear to be violations of WP:OR. Before re-adding any information, please remember to cite said information. Yobol (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a perfectly fine point to make! Those citations will be added as soon as possible. Thank you for pointing out the missing references. Josh ua In gram 23:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have asked for further comments at the Original Research Noticeboard. [2]Yobol (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this is a copyright violation. Conservapedia doesn't have a free enough licence.

The phrase "This license is revocable..." in their copyright terms is problematic. Wikipedia automatically licences most of its content under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL, but our assertion of those terms would suddenly be null and void if Conservapedia exercised their right to revoke the licence. CC licences are specifically irrevocable—we cannot in good faith assert a CC licence if some party has the right to cancel the licence. (Their assurance that revocation takes place in "rare instances" is not sufficient.)

I'm going to revert this back to a redirect. Feel free to comb Citizendium or Knol to see if they have a suitable article; their terms are generally compatible with Wikipedia. TheFeds 02:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done fighting with you people. While I did NOT copy that direct from Conservapedia, I did get the information from a friend, and I can't pretend that it isn't (at the very least) horribly similar. But I don't have the energy to mess with you people anymore. If you can't handle the idea of a page that makes the mainstream media look like they really are, then so be it. Josh ua In gram 02:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could have been more specific on your talk page: I know it's not a direct copy, but it's clearly a derivative, using identical structure and phrasing in some parts of the article. Though we can all appreciate the degree of creative input you applied, you have to realize that it was not enough to qualify as an original work.

Also, I need to stress that when importing anything into Wikipedia, you have to be able to make a good-faith claim that it is free enough. If you thought your friend created it, and he was releasing it to you under a free licence (express or implied) that's an innocent mistake; but if you knew he got it from somewhere else, it was up to you to establish that it was free at the source. The hassle of that process is one good reason why it's better to write your own content.

For future reference, please see WP:fair use for important information on how to import non-free works into Wikipedia. Particularly: "Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes" and "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."

Finally, I don't think that I implied that I have a problem with this topic—I even suggested that we search for free content to replace this at Citizendium and Knol. They release their content under compatible terms, and you could build upon that without issue. TheFeds 03:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]