Jump to content

Talk:Mike Masnick

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

Notability

[edit]

Not entirely sure how to justify the existence of this page.. but considering that slashdot, kuro5hin, metafiler and other significant blog founders are listed in Wikipedia, I thought that Michael Masnick deserved a mention. Sorry this entry is so "stubby" -- but I figured someone might help me flesh this page out. Thx.

---
I concur that Masnick merits a page.

Masnick has a blog post regarding this page at http://techdirt.com/articles/20081020/0324482588.shtml. He points out someone is spoofing him and changing his birthdate to an incorrect date. Correct date is December 8. Note that as I write this, the techdirt blog post is used as a citation for the correct date (which I was coming here to do myself - someone beat me to it.) Dmittleman (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Added reference to the Masnick Effect. Seeing that much of this entry is self-serving and not really justified, it would appear that this is in keeping with the content. It has about the same level as support as other parts of this entry.

I am not sure who keeps editing this entry to remove the reference, it is as valid as any other part of this thin bio, which mostly appears to be a self-serving promotional page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.65.236 (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.164.160 (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Actually, this entry seems to be nothing more than a self-advertisment, full of links to Masnick's own blog. Isn't self-referencing a little less than honest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.221.210 (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This still as of 2018 appears to be a self-promotional blatant advertisement written by "MHHFIVE" aka Mike Masnick himself. Likely time to delete, soon.Moresie (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Streisand effect" claim

[edit]

The following discussion originated on my talk page, I have moved it here for wider discussion: Active Banana (bananaphone 15:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

discussion transplanted from my talk page

[edit]

You have an edit reversal in for an item "sourced from a blog". The problem? Techdirt as a whole is a blog, and pretty much everything in the Bio is "sourced from a blog". The comments regarding "The Masnick Effect" are as valid as pretty much everything else in that bio, and it is a phrase and terminology that traces back at least a year or more. I am not sure why that particular edit is removed, yet other "blog sourced" material in the bio is permitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.66.173 (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I will respond here since you appear to be editing from a very dynamic set of IPs. The edit in question [1] is a selfpromoting, primary soureced claim from a blog for a non-notable phrase failing many Wikipedia content requirements.
  • Mansicks own writings cannot be the source to claim he "invented" something
  • The "something" that he is supposedly responsible for inventing is not important enough for its own article, and there is no indiction that it is a widely used phrase, so why would we mention that?. Pretty much every writer has come up with a unique turn of phrase and we dont include them in articles.

Active Banana (bananaphone 21:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, the article refers to his own "Streisand Effect", which is his own turn of a phrase. By your basis, that part of the article should also be removed. The only external reference is the subject himself discussing his own ideas on a radio program. Are we to suggest that the discussions on his blog are somehow not "media", but NPR is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.66.173 (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are two completely different situations. 1) The "phrase" under question is in fairly wide use and has been discussed by third parties so that it has its own article. 2) And the attribution of the phrase being on a third party source that has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Active Banana (bananaphone 14:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no fact checking on the NPR piece, it is only an interview with the man who coined the phrase. You have no significant third party usage, no usage really at all outside of the blog or the person in question in interview. I am unable to find third party usage of the phrase outside of techdirt.com except where Mike Masnick is either the topic of discussion or being interviewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.66.173 (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you make a claim that there was no fact checking related to that interview? I doubt that you will convince me, but this discussion should be taking place on the article talk page and you may be able to generate a consensus to remove the claim. Active Banana (bananaphone 15:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NPR is a respected news organization with a reputation for fact-checking, and this extends to their personal interviews. Active Banana is correct when he tells you there are two different things. The Streisand effect is a notable term, having gained currency on the Internet and elsewhere as a description of a common phenomenon. Its article has 39 references spanning 17 years of coverage. Conversely, creating an article on the Masnick Effect would meet with rapid notability challenges and deletion, because it has not been used or covered by the mainstream media. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF, however, before pointing to one thing and trying to use it to justify another. Elizium23 (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will follow guidelines in the future. I was not aware of those facts. The lack of discussion on this page (and instead just random deletions by other IP address users makes it very difficult to follow. Editing policies, especially on stub articles like this, are not clear. I will work to assure that the term "Masnick Effect" gets more wide coverage, and thus making it more clearly suitable for coverage here. However, IMHO, the Streisand effect hasn't gained much currency outside of a small group of supporters. If anything, it's crediblity is justified by Wikipedia, rather than only being mentioned by the same.Masnickeffect (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Streisand Effect has been thoroughly examined by the Wikipedia community Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Streisand_effect_(2nd_nomination) Active Banana (bananaphone 19:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it this way. Mike Masnick is the primary source for statements about Masnick. Therefore he is credible for information about himself, and information in his blog can be used, in a limited, restricted way, on Wikipedia. See WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability, this is what secondary sources are for. NPR is a secondary source reporting on Mike Masnick. Their article is credible for statements of fact about Masnick because they are covering the primary source and they would do prior research to show if the guy was an enormous liar who could not be trusted to give a straight interview. The article would not be credible for facts that Masnick asserted outside his area of expertise, say ancient Vedic Sanskrit texts used by Hindus. Wikipedia is using the NPR interview as a source for facts about Masnick, and that is expressly permissible. Elizium23 (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you consider it to be a little self-fulfilling. Masnick says it about Masnick, and provides it as background to NPR, who uses it in an interview of Masnick. Opinion bloggers are, almost by definition, people who tilt the truth or massage statements to get to the "truth" they want to teach. There have been any number of debates on his blog about his use of "strained truth" to make points. The coined phrase "Masnick Effect" has been used on a number of occassions. While Mr Masnick and the people who support him may not like the term or it's implications, it isn't any more and any less valid than the man writing his own press release.Masnickeffect (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mike Masnick. 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) 12:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MHHFIVE

[edit]

User MHHFive created this page and is so blatantly the subject of the page. Clear COI. In addition, the subject isn't notable. The page is supported by TechDirt--which is the author's blog--and medium.com, also a blog. Moresie (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Masnick&oldid=1219851018"