Jump to content

Talk:Wikipediocracy/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Connected contributor template

If you don't want the connected contributor template to appear, remove it and we'll go to dispute resolution I suppose. Sounds like a straightforward situation. The editor in question has edited the text and this RfC, as well as all three AfDs. Sounds right. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Take it easy, bucko. Don't make up things before people say them. It can be embarrassing when you get it wrong.  — Scott • talk 01:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
If you add me to the template, I insist that you not alphabetize me. It's demeaning.→StaniStani 15:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Scott, the linked discussion is irrelevant as I am aware of no other persons with a COI. Alison is co-founder, participates in RfC and AfD discussions, edits the page. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks like you didn't investigate the issue thoroughly enough.  — Scott • talk 18:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, but your raising the issue was presumptuous. Only one COI has come to my attention. Site owners or founders clearly have a COI. Active participants, not. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC) (In my opinion.) Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
No, you're just an editor with a conflict of interest. Everyday situation. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Such big talk.  — Scott • talk 18:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
No, just the continuation of a pointless conversation. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
"Aber dem Pilze gleich ist der kleine Gedanke: er kriecht und duckt sich und will nirgendswo sein—bis der ganze Leib morsch und welk ist vor kleinen Pilzen." Writegeist (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alison, Scott, Only in death, Stanistani, Writegeist, SB Johnny, and Dan Murphy:

At Only in death's suggestion, I have left a note at WP:COIN. I think you are starting to move into WP:Harassment territory. Please justify your posting Core's name as a COI editor there, using definitions from WP:COI, or leave Core off the list. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please leave my comments alone. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Well that’s perfectly consistent with your recent contributions at Elizabeth Hirsh Fleisher ([1], [2], [3], [4]). Oh look, a hobgoblin. Writegeist (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Well I suggested it in jest as I was pretty sure that people would be intelligent enough to not take it seriously. I have replied at COIN, but the relavant part of COI would be "The word interest refers here to something in which a person has a stake or from which they stand to benefit.". Core's consistent negative editing and attempts to reduce the validity of wikipediocracy constitute an 'interest' that as an editor who has been subject to significant criticism there, any reduction in its reputation serves himself. This should have been obvious but use of the template also implicitly shines doubt on the articles depiction of wikipediocracy, so any negative-slanted (or positive) editing on the article by any wikipedia editor can be seen as having interest-based motive. Which is why use of the template was a bad idea in the first place. Basically you want to have your cake etc etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Look, as I pointed out at COIN, if you feel that starting an RfC is a horror, then by all means rush to wherever it is such things are adjudicated. You may want to be mindful of the fact that I didn't raise the issue in the first place. You also may want to soberly ponder whether there is genuine user misconduct on this page, and if so who are the perpetrators thereof. I don't know about you, but I see quite a bit, particularly disruption. Coretheapple (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Next lamest edit war?

(edit conflict)The purpose of {{connected contributor}} is supposed to alert the community of possible, not necessarily intentional bias in the article. It's been used here as some sort snarky ad hominem badge of shame / badge of honor and is serving no real purpose except as a candidate for the next entry in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Presumably I could request full protection at WP:RFPP but then we'd have to create a talk page of a talk page to quibble over the wording ... I hacked together the box starting with "This article documents a site, Wikipediocracy, critical of Wikipedia...." as intended catch all so we can stop this nonsense. Could we possibly just go with that? NE Ent 10:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It was added in this edit by an editor who naively believed that WP:COI, specifically WP:DISCLOSE should be enforced as it relates to the co-founder of the site. To the best of my knowledge, said co-founder - oh, I had better ping her @Alison: has not even once objected to being placed in that template. Other editors joined in. You call them "snarky." I call them "honest." I'm assuming good faith. They have conflicts of interest they have declared. Is that a surprise? Hell, look at the contents of this talk page and you see WP:OWN in action; the conflicts are so in-your-face that the connected contributor template is collateral. If indeed it was added for "snarky" or, that is, disruptive purposes, well, they oughtn't do that I guess. But I don't think that was the purpose. I think that what you have here is a lot of COI and, yes, a lot of people with connections to the subject matter who have their underwear in a twist. Coretheapple (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
And re NE Ent's template; I certainly have no problem with it, but not as a substitute for the connected contributor template. Jeshu H. Krist, if ever there was an article talk page that required that template, it is this one. I mean, seriously folks! I have never seen such sheer volume of COI and such well-neigh hysterical resistance to compliance with our weak COI guideline. And yes, I know that in the view of the editors who have declared a close connection with the subject article, this is a very special article about a very special website. Nevertheless, editors have declared their COI, and NE Ent's vague and uninformative (if well-intentioned) self-created little notice just doesn't substitute for the connected contributor one that applies to all articles, including the one that so many friends of the subject here are editing. Coretheapple (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
"hysterical" Oh, the irony.  — Scott • talk 17:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
"well-neigh hysterical"? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 23:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
How odd it is, that the self-declared conflicted editors find such "humor" in a subject that, by all visible indications, makes them purple with rage. Coretheapple (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Mmm-hmm.  — Scott • talk 00:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
@Scott: Since you have a self-declared COI, why do you edit the article? Why don't you comply with WP:COI? Coretheapple (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
What is the sound of one hand clapping?  — Scott • talk 09:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Why are you treating a serious question like a joke? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Editors need to discuss this issue seriously, cease the game playing and disruptive edits adding and removing their names from the template. Editors involved in the website are conflicted. Full stop. The site founder is the only one I know. Efforts to game the system by adding and removing names,the "soldarity with our afflicted COI sister" games must stop. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 04:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We probably should add a small section to the article on the harassment that some editors have received from some Wikipedians over their involvement with this article. In fact, I haven't seen harassment this bad since the days of the infamous ID Cab. Cla68 (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
What i see us WP:OWN and disruptive behavior by editors rallying around a disclosed COI editor. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Wording at top of 'activism' section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is really no consensus in the discussion. But there is strong support for Investigate, close to consensus. Discuss and explore had weak support, about half of Investigate. The rest were one of a kind requests. Hope that helps. AlbinoFerret 00:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

At the top of the "Website user activism" section it says as follows: "Wikipediocracy contributors have investigated problems, conflicts, and controversies associated with Wikipedia, some being reported by mainstream media." Should "investigate" be changed to "discuss," "explore" or some other word? I request that editors with a close association with the subject matter (founders, co-founders, moderators, administrators and others with official titles at Wikipediocracy) declare that in their responses. Coretheapple (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Discuss or explore. This passage is sourced to the home page of the website, which does not claim that the site's users investigate. Aside from being unsourced, it is non-neutral and a peacock term when applied to participants in bulletin board discussions. Proponents of "investigate" in the preceding discussion, when offering any argument at all, seem to be saying that the investigative nature of the website's users is obvious and that referring to them as "investigators" is clearly warranted. I think that's original research, and that claiming that bulletin board users "investigate" is self-serving, promotional, and needs to be sourced to multiple third-party sources. Coretheapple (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Discuss or "compile information" per NPOV. I refuse to make any statements about my off-wiki activity per the WMF privacy policy. NE Ent 16:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Don't care per Forridean. NE Ent 00:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • How about analyzed? That way, we don't get into the issue of whether or not they got it right, since investigation tends to imply getting it right. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Discuss or explore - Using investigate makes it sound like it is our job. Using discuss or explore is the right alternative. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Investigate, as explained above. Hey Coretheapple, how about you come clean about your ongoing grudge match with Wikipediocracy before asking people to disclose anything? Your frequent, tedious spats with Greg Kohs on Jimbo Wales' user talk page make it pretty obvious why you're trying to water down the language in this article.  — Scott • talk 19:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I raised this issue, and I have nothing but admiration for Wikipediocracy. Admiration for the site is not, however, a requirement for editing this article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Discuss is the proper term for Wiki-voice, in my view. "Water down" is not a term I'd use to describe this action. This is simply proper encyclopedic terminology. Jusdafax 19:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Investigate As Coretheapple is on another of his anti-wikipediocracy crusades, this time attempting to portray neutral words as non-neutral. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, appreciate the well-poisoning. Seems to be contagious. Coretheapple (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Investigate: To investigate means to research or study into a topic or event of interest. Discuss gives the notion that Wikipediocracy is mainly a forum, analyze is fine but implies in-depth research with is slightly worse WP:OR than the term "investigate". Esquivalience t 01:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • “Investigate” seems to hit the nail on the head—unless we can say “Wikipediocracy contributors scrutinize and discuss the dysfunctional aspects of Wikipedia’s processes, administration and user behaviour, some of which are reported by mainstream media.” Writegeist (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • “Investigate” - it already is a factual, neutral word and works perfectly fine in this context. If I didn't know better, I'd think someone with an agenda was trying to water down WO's remit. But they're not, of course :D - Alison ❤ 08:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Yes, I'm a co-founder of WO. We all know this.
    Surely just perception of it... I would be surprised if WO allows its article on Wikipedia to set its remit ;-) WJBscribe (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Alison: So what makes it factual? Your opinion of the site, neutral as I'm sure it is? (By the way, appreciate your disclosure that you are co-founder of the site. I guess the "connected contributor" template isn't very practical on this talk page, considering how immense it would be.) Coretheapple (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    Alison, I hold your website in high regard and there was no intent on my part to "water down WO's remit." I appreciate your strong feelings on the subject, since you are co-founder though i would disagree that "we all know this." In an RfC persons unacquainted with the subject may either participate or close the discussion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Investigate. Let's call a spade a spade... WJBscribe (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    Based on what exactly? I thought message boards discuss stuff. Really would like to know. Most of what I'm seeing in favor of "investigate" in this and the previous discussion is either monosyllabic "leave it alone," and various varieties of well-poisoning, personal attacks and innuendo, but not much in the way of policy-based argument as to why we are using a description that runs counter to the common-sense definition of a bulletin board discussion. What I do see from the article is that material produced in the discussions is utilized for investigations. Not quite the same thing as investigating. Coretheapple (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    Forridean puts it well below. I simply do not accept that investigate has any peacock, non-neutral meaning. It describes what the website does satisfactorily in plain English. WJBscribe (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Investigate Let's stick with language that is accurate. Damotclese (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Investigate They investigate stuff. When I was a participant at the website I helped along a few investigations. "Coretheapple" is editing with an agenda (he hates the website). Of course that's tolerated. It shouldn't be. Topic ban him and be done with it.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • So, that's it? You've used the site and that's what you see? Apart from poisoning the well and original research, do you have anything else to offer? Coretheapple (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Your well has been poisoned enough to kill a village by now given how much you insist on badgering people about it. How about accepting that other people don't agree with you and drop it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Well I'd have a hell of a time "dropping" an issue that was raised by another editor, in the section above me, and concurred in by three others there and two others here. Funny how every time someone tries to deal with either rampant COI in this article, or poor sourcing or (as in this case) puffery, the same editors trot out the same attacks and disruption. Hasn't worked in the past, but go ahead. Meanwhile, the refusal to discuss, the COI, the edit warring and the "IJUSTLIKEIT" responses speak for themselves. Coretheapple (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ranted about. I agree that we should stick with language that is accurate and let's not elide the facts here, it's not a service to the reader to do so. Herostratus (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Anything but "investigate" Considering that "To investigate means to research or study into a topic or event of interest." This would apply to me, and many others who contribute to WP. I investigated the BP oil spill for 2.5 years in order to help build the article. But this term gives an impression of importance that is undeserved. "Explore", "research", or similar terms are more appropriate, even if "investigate" is literally correct. [Ad hominem attacks on the OP and their supposed motivation have no place in this thread.] petrarchan47คุก 20:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, researching and studying topics or events of interest is exactly what goes on at WO so I don't see what your problem is with "investigate" here. And to comment, as Dan Murphy did, on the very obvious fact that the OP has an anti-WO agenda is hardly a personal attack. It wouldn't surprise me to see the OP agree with that, as he seems quite ballsy. Writegeist (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
My problem is that WO partisans, including COI editors, appear to have veto power over the content of this article to an extent remarkable even by the usual COI standards. Terms that would be considered puffery anywhere on Wikipedia (or WO for that matter) get a pass here for that reason. And by the way, at the moment things are pretty even, purely on a numerical basis, not adjusting for the "WP:DONTYOUDARECHANGEIT" contingent, which might explain the tactics deployed here. Are you guys going to fabricate WP:OHGOLLYHEHATESWO bull arguments about everyone who prefers some term other than "investigate"?Coretheapple (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Coretheapple, you seem to have misunderstood my first sentence above. It was not addressed to you. It was addressed to Petrarchan, as indicated by the indent. As for the substance of your post, with respect, I think maybe you don't see the disservice done to your cause by tactics here such as, most recently, the disparaging comment about a "dontyoudarchangeit contingent" and the equally ABF speculation about "fabricating bull arguments", which really aren't going to help you persuade people who dissent from your viewpoint that it's a sensible one. That's my final 2c :) Writegeist (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Except of course, his argument appears to be that using the word investigate is puffery. Which is laughable and doesn't really require a response. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Writegeist, it is quite normal for other editors to weigh in even when not directly addressed; I'm not sure why this particular instance causes agitation. The truth is, hinting at a POV to undercut an RfC is not in keeping with the guidelines, and if arguments are valid, that tactic shouldn't be necessary. My problem with the term "investigate" is that although it is technically correct (and, full disclosure, I am a huge fan of Wikipediocracy, of transparency, and of independent journalism), I think the term would be misleading to our readers. It denotes a more serious status than is, to my knowledge, supported by secondary sources. I think the term "armchair investigative journalists" is fitting (and a compliment), but I'm sure a more eloquent presentation exists. petrarchan47คุก 01:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the trouble to instruct me in normal WP practice—I’m quite the newbie. You seem to have mistaken my attempt at clarity for an attempt at—or perhaps you meant a state of—“agitation”. And stating something is not at all the same as merely hinting at it. I doubt that relentless agenda-pushing in an RfC is in keeping with the guidelines, but of course as a noob I may be wrong about that. I agree that there exists a more eloquent presentation than “armchair investigative journalist” (which is perfect , nevertheless, for those admirable reporters who investigate the dangerous mechanical failures of cheap imported Pantouflard™ reclining chairs); namely the eloquent and apposite “investigate”. Writegeist (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Are there reliable sources that refer to the work done at WO as investigative journalism? If not what is there to discuss? This isn't about our opinions, as I have already shared with you that I highly honor the work they do. But we can't editorialize on WP, and without RS that's what we'd be doing. petrarchan47คุก
  • Discuss per my previous comments. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC) If more detail required at this stage: in a nutshell, most neutral. "Investigate" cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice without sourcing. As covered in greater detail by Petrarchan above. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Investigate Summoned by a bot. After reading the discussion, it seems that any word selected as a replacement is intended to be loaded, and the assumption is that the word "investigate" is equally loaded. I don't think so. It is difficult to assemble an objective argument for a change here (equally, for no change) because the core proposal seems to place undue scrutiny on the semantics of a single word, and I don't think that's a normal part of copy editing for informational purposes. One might find this kind of scrutiny of secondary implications of a single simple word when writing for marketing, for example, or speech writing. Not for an encyclopedia; in this context, one would use any commonly understood word that conveys the desired meaning. Investigate, study, discuss, examine, analyze, any of them would work, all of them exist in most people's vocabulary, one could use any of them interchangeably and randomly or as one is generally inclined. I cannot fathom an objective reason to focus on and explicitly exchange any of those very serviceable words into another serviceable word, one is left to conclude that there's a WP:TEND motive. In short and to reiterate, I find the original assertion that "investigate" is some kind of superlative or peacock term to be fatuous -- it's a word, and it works. -- Forridean (T/C) 15:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC) [user has no association with the site or the subject]
  • Really folks! (only here for the RFC). It is nice to get things straight and precise, but this has all the earmarks of getting bogged down in nit-picking. It isn't even storm-in-teacup stuff. Drown the baby and throw out the RFC with the bathwater say I. If you are writing for your own introspective recursion, suit yourselves, but is this supposed to be encyclopaedic or just legalistic minuting of something or other? Exactly who do you think will imagine that you will not have investigated what you discussed? Or discussed what you investigated? Get a good night's sleep and forget about it. 105.228.156.83 (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Whoops, sorry! Forgot to sign; possibly I could swing a plea of having forgotten in the heat of the vital debate? JonRichfield (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Present Coretheapple with references. Since on Wikipedia, the rule is to back up every fact with sources (and we all do that, right?), did anyone stop to look at what the independent sources say about Wikipediocracy? Oh, wait -- here's one, fittingly enough from The Independent:
"However, it is believed that the Home Office has now interviewed a suspect, after it was handed evidence showing internet activity on the webpage uncovered in a joint investigation by The Telegraph and online watchdog Wikipediocracy." And here's another one:
"Finally, in December 2013, the case caught the eye of Wikipediocracy, a website that acts as a watchdog for Wikipedia. It wrote an explosive post analysing all of Wifione’s changes." And how about this:
"On Monday night, Kohs wrapped up an experiment in which he inserted outlandish errors into 31 articles and tracked whether editors ever found them."
So, we have references for "investigation", "analysing", "experiment", and "tracked". I don't know how your dictionary defines those, but they all seem to rise at least a little bit above mere "discussion" or "exploring". - 2001:558:1400:10:3D29:E13B:650:B47B (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2015 (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 added archive links to one external link on Wikipediocracy. 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Criticism

I notice there is no criticism section in the main article. I would like to add a Criticism section containing all or part of the following quote which is taken from a blog written by a former moderator of wikipediocracy. The reason i am not adding the material to the main article is because i am unsure about whether the blog can be treated as a reliable source. This is the raw edit:

Eric Barbour, a former moderator at Wikipediocracy, has offered this criticism of the Wikipediocracy site:

Although [a person], a professional sysop, a Wikipedia editor in good standing, and a minor WR player, was made the sysop of Wikipediocracy (WO), the same personalities were otherwise embedded. [a person] was responsible for the DNS, most of the same old farts (your humble narrator included) were in regular evidence, and hosting was provided -- by none other than [a person]. I was made a moderator along with several ex-WR moderators and mucky-mucks, including [a person] and [a person]. It started out well at first. The attached blog became a good adjunct, running a number of entries about Wikipedia atrocities. Some even attracted media attention; such as the "Qworty" story and the ongoing saga of "Wifione" (which [a person] and myself authored). Both stories were stunning in their basic idiocy...Despite not allowing well-known trolls like [an account] or [an account] into the forum, and [a person] banning crackpots more frequently than WR ever did, it still came to resemble WR. And I won't even mention the spanking they administered to me in July of this year, except to note: I wrote many of the items on the WO wiki, and after my kicking [a person] made most of the wiki articles disappear. Whether they were useful or not. The main purpose, to get the news media to notice Wikipedia problems, inevitably took a back seat to squabbling and idiocy.

And this is the blog: http://wikipedia-sucks-badly.blogspot.com/2015/09/flop-why-wikipedia-criticism-will.html Soham321 (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's see, is Eric Barbour a reliable source for statements of fact? Let's see... HAHAHAHA just kidding. Of course not.
We can't use stuff like this IMO. It's some guy's blog talking trash about identifiable people. I redacted all the names from your post and really the entire schmear should probably be oversighted, along with the link. I'm not sure so I haven't done this though. But please be much more careful about stuff like this in future, see WP:BLP (which applies equally to talk pages as articles).
I wouldn't worry about it anyway: I don't know as you can have a criticism section in this article, any more than Dogs Playing Poker would have an "Artistic criticism" section. It's kind of self-evident, and anyway it's funnier if you underplay. Herostratus (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
So, one of the missions of the Wikimedia movement is to write encyclopedia articles in a "funnier" way? Sad. - 96.93.25.166 (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of edit

Hi @Marquardtika: I noticed your revert of my edit marking it as suspended. I understand it's original research on my part to add this fact, but say for sake of argument the site doesn't come back online, at what point would it be reasonable to assume it's gone for good, if there is no verifiable announcement, or report in a reliable source, which is improbable? I have spoken privately with several of the most active members, but nobody has any conclusive information beyond saying "good riddance". — E --86.189.157.31 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a good question. It's unclear to me whether the site is down for a day or two or down more permanently. I think the site is a big enough deal that if it's gone for good, it will be covered somewhere. How about we wait a few days and reassess, and if it's still gone and there still hasn't been any coverage of it, we can say something like "As of X date, the site is offline." Marquardtika (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
So the site's back up. Looks like it was just some sort of technical glitch. Happens to all websites from time to time--ahem, Facebook and Instagram yesterday!--so nothing needs to be changed in this article. Marquardtika (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Many people use archive.org's wayback machine or similar to archive a snapshot of the site and then link to it with the date of the snap. Thank you for all your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A3A0:ADF:E514:A511:B289:1D30 (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Just echoing that I appreciated this article discussing criticism of wikipedia. Mathiastck (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipediocracy/Archive_3&oldid=1160858028"