Miscellaneous desk
< July 15	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 16

Wikipedia "Blacklist"

What is this thing? The reason I tripped it is because I wanted to cite a URL of "The Examiner." Just what is wrong with The Examiner? Also, what else is on the Blacklist? Why does it exist? Gameknot Chess (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for the guideline, MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist for the list. Ssscienccce (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but, meh... all that page said is what the Blacklist is. The page gave no information as to the "why" of the Blacklist, or the criteria to be placed on the Blacklist. Do you agree? Gameknot Chess (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding examiner.com, see MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common requests#Requests that are often denied. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "why" is that some editor or admin has edited the blacklist, adding that website, and restoring it to that list if it was removed. I find the practice problematic--it amounts to an extra veto on top of edits that could be referenced from such sources. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Examiner.com#Criticism might help you understand the accuracy issues. A site like this that pays by the page view and has no editorial oversight is bound to attract crap "journalism". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might also find the discussions on the Reliable Sources noticeboard informative about why it isn't considered a reliable source. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worth remembering the primary reason why many sites are blacklist is not because they are generally unreliable although they would usually need to be, but because they are frequently added or used inappropriate by a variety of editors (could be the same person with multiple IPs or multiple accounts) to a variety of pages (could be on different wikis), particularly when done by someone with a commercial or other interest besides improving wikimedia projects, and this person may not be the site owner (beside affliates and content providers, it's always possible a rival is spamming a website to give it a bad name). This is reflected by the name of the blacklist. Many of the common examples in the whitelist reflect this. E.g. Examiner and sites like it are particularly problematic because the random writers tend to get paid by how many people visit their article. URL shorteners are used to obscure the real address and to get around the blacklist. Petitions usually aren't added for commercial reasns, but people have their own personal reasons to push them that don't reate to improving wikipedia or whatever project it is. There are some examples which don't fall in to this pattern of course, like scribd (we take copyright seriously). If you want to find out why a specific site was added more than guessing, you'll need to check out the comments when it was added and I don't think there always are some. If you want to confirm what I'm saying generally, take a look at the ongoing or archived discussions on adding sites. Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom-Unknown

I discovered a 3" cluster of Bright Yellow (Highlighter bright yellow)mushroom in my house plant. It was growing in my Ficus, at the root ball top. The plant looked like it was fingers, upward growing, with narrow condum type helmits. The caps were fitted close to the stem. Can you tell me what kind of mushroom this is. I have cats that like to eat my plants. One is a 19LB Siamese( she has left the plants alone, now) Our new little kitten is into everything and tastes or destroys the plants. I have them all up on shelves now, out of any reach. It still concerns me. Thank you for any help. Barb Lister — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.80.134 (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be some species of or close to the Clavariaceae, which includes the fairy fingers. (I am not sure that they have caps, though.) I have seen highlighter-orange ones in swampy woods in New Jersey. μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google Image search for "yellow fungus fingers" turned-up (amongst the horribly infected fingernails), Yellow Coral Fungus (Clavaria amoena), which seems to fit both your description and Medeis's taxonomy. Alansplodge (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, that may (as the blogger points out) be an incorrect identification, since our article Clavaria amoena says that it "appears to be distributed in temperate areas of the southern hemisphere". I suppose that it depends where your pot plant came from. A similar fungus is Clavulinopsis fusiformis "Golden Spindles", which is found in "North America, where it is most commonly found in woodland habitats.". Alansplodge (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a link to this query on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi talk page, in the hope that somebody who knows more than I do may be able to help. Alansplodge (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making an id with just an image is difficult enough ... with just a terse description it's bordering on futile. I can't imagine what a "narrow condum type helmit" looks like. Nevertheless, based on the color and the fact that it's growing in a potted plant, I'd guess Leucocoprinus birnbaumii. Sasata (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]