Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed early and kept by overwhelming consensus. No need to prolong this, esp. in light of the aforementioned "screwup." El_C 06:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikitruth

This article was restored after a speedy deletion was reviewed and overturned. A prior AfD, in April, ended in no consensus. Procedural listing, so I abstain for now. ~ trialsanderrors 18:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Big bold notice - original speedy (by me) was due to a Google screwup, apparently Google is case sensitive (so be warned) and I had googled WikiTruth instead and so google decided that 150 hits was all it was going to pop by. That being said, it would have gone to AfD had I seen some propser results -- Tawker 06:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'll back up Tawker here, we had a conversation on IRC and I can verify the bizzare google results...

Lowercase search for "encyclopedia dramatica": Results 1 - 10 of about 13,400 for encyclopedia dramatica. (0.07 seconds)

Uppercase search for "Encyclopedia Dramatica": Results 1 - 10 of about 195,000 for Encyclopedia Dramatica. (0.06 seconds)

I have no idea whats up with google, but I can certainly see how Tawker might have gotten a wierd result in a search for "WikiTruth" ALKIVAR™ 06:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I first thought maybe google has problems with it. After all, there's a web page all about it and it recommended yahoo. So I tried Yahoo and noticed no difference in capitalization. Then I tried google and no capitalization different either.

Google:

Wikitruth - 102,00

WikiTruth - 102,00

"encyclopedia dramatica" - 133,000

"Encyclopedia Dramatica" - 133,000

Yahoo:

Wikitruth - 11,400

WikiTruth - 11,400

"encyclopedia dramatica" - 135,000

"Encyclopedia Dramatica" - 135,000

I tried in different web browsers and got the same result. I got radically different numbers for both sites than you two. Anomo 11:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Google returns different results depending on which server you happen to hit. For what it's worth, here's another google test excluding the sites themselves:

• "encyclopedia dramatica" -site:encyclopediadramatica.com (47.800 hits on my screen)
• wikitruth -site:wikitruth.info (102.000 hits on my screen).

Zocky | picture popups 21:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It has been covered in respectable media outlets, looks like. Edward Wakelin 18:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but it deserves a mention on Criticism of Wikipedia. 1ne 19:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:WEB in terms of multiple media mentions. No reason has been given to delete, really. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, a well-known critic website about a notable encyclopedia, and its criticisms have been commented on in public by the said notable encyclopedia. All this has gotten into newspaper stories like the one in the Guardian, making the whole thing notable enough. Zocky | picture popups 19:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Mentioned in a number of mainstream publications, thorn in Wikipedia's side, amply meets WP:WEB, no reason given for deletion. JASpencer 19:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, newsworthy and interesting --Bedders 19:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, plus deleting it makes us look juvenile (not a criterion, I know). --Dhartung | Talk 20:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per media coverage and being somewhat widely known among critical sites. Also, the article, the AfDs, and the countless public debates have, over time, given me a profound zen revelation: We're All (speaking now of both us and them) Wasting Time. It's got to count. Perhaps by keeping this article Wikipedia can contribute to our implied mission of enrichening human minds and knowledge. Because life is too short for people to truly know anything. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia as realized, as opposed to idealized, is an essentially farcical undertaking. Wikitruth is notable by objective – and even Wikipedia – criteria as well as an appropriate response, whoever lies behind it, whatever their motives. Arcsincostan 21:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Wouldn't go as far as saying farcical. Here I was thinking Wikipedia was more like a case of having rules written by gods and implementation carried out by well-meaning, but ultimately so human, mortals. First step when understanding any process in society is to understand that even though some people may have higher responsibilities than you, they still have the same basic human weaknesses. =) --wwwwolf(barks/growls) 22:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • WP Rules are a Gift of the Gods? Carried out by mere mortals. - Yup, that explains everything. Arcsincostan 17:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • (Picturing User:Dannyisme walking down from the mountain, carrying tablets that say "WP:V", "WP:NOR", "WP:NPOV" and one that's obscured by the others) "The lord Jimbo has given you these four..." (drops the last stone tablet, which shatters) "Three! Three commandments for all to obey!" --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, has recieved multiple non-trivial mentions in major media outlets. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think Tawker was just trying to get himself criticized on their site :) I oppose deletion, but I wouldn't be against merging into the longer Criticism of Wikipedia article, where sites like Wikipedia Watch and Wikipedia Review are mentioned and discussed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The "speedy" that erased this page declared it failed "WP:WEB." However, "WP:WEB" is not a criteria for speedy deletion. The majority of negative commentators on it's overturning simply said they didn't like the site because it was negative, or because it was (they asserted) created by a banned user. However, like them or hate them, whether they were started by a banned user or by Jesus Christ, the fact remains that killing the messenger doesn't change the message. The bottom line is that Wikitruth meets all criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. One of Wikitrith's largest criticisms of Wikipedia is that pages can (and very often are) deleted without warning and leaving no trace, despite the GFDL. Speedy-deleting the Wikitruth entry on Wikipedia does not delete their criticism, it validates it. Xaa 21:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Websites that fail to assert notability per WP:WEB are subject to CSD A7 these days. However, this was introduced very recently and applying it to old articles with considerable history and would likely to cause debate if unilaterally removed is iffy at best, dubious at worst. CSD is primarily intended to remove new articles in case where it's entirely uncontroversial (as in "every user should know that it doesn't help to create articles that fail CSD, because those get deleted"). If there's even tad bit of possibility the site is at all notable, it's an AfD case. I wouldn't go enforcing the "new" A7 on old articles unless it's extremely clear-cut and there's not been significant improvement since creation. This article clearly isn't an open-and-shut case and it should be AfD'd. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Jeff and others, and my comments at DRV. --W.marsh 21:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, we've been here before and there's no new information suggesting it should be deleted. --Spoom - Talk 21:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Criticism of Wikipedia. The mentions in the media are sparse at best and mostly in the context of Wikipedia. Just because it criticizes Wikipedia doesn't make it any more or less notable. If this was a site criticizing Microsoft, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. It would have been deleted already. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, simply removing their page on Wikipedia does not make their criticisms any less valid, especially about the powers of admins deciding things by themselves. Notable, no original research etc. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 22:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)
• Keep Tawker speedy deleted it, its redirects, and its talk page, and then salted the article--all while never giving communication about it on the wiki. Then despite it being early October, he claimed he was going on Thansgiving holiday. Maybe he deleted the article due to emotional turmoil, but yet his wikistress level says good on his userpage. Is Tawker's account hijacked? Anomo 22:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. First, sarcasm and abuse aren't appropriate here. Second, do be careful to do a bit of fact-checking before you wield sarcasm and bad faith in the future—while the United States celebrates Thanksgiving in November, this is not the case everywhere. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I considered assuming that the account would be hijacked before Tawker would ever do what he did was assuming good faith. Anomo 11:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. In my opinion, this anti-Wikipedia site has been created by multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias User:NightCrawler and his many other sockpuppets. DW was under a hard ban since 2003 (see [1]) and "has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales", etc. in 2005. See [2], [3]. One of the criticisms against Wikipedia centers on Jimbo Wales and the Wikipedia:Office Actions page which deals with certain legal issues. Ted Wilkes claimed to have much legal knowledge and used this knowledge in his mud-throwing campaign against arbcom member Fred Bauder. Wilkes, who plumed himself on being one of the best and most active contributors to Wikipedia, was blocked by arbcom ruling on 19 March 2006 for one year. See [4]. Is it just mere coincidence that Wikitruth was started shortly after that date, on 20 March 2006? His alias NightCrawler had much trouble with administrator Angela, ironically wishing Angie "WikiLove," etc. See [5], [6]. Significantly, Angela Beesley is attacked on the Wikitruth pages. Furthermore, administrator FCYTravis is one of Wikitruth's whipping boys, perhaps because Ted Wilkes had some trouble with this administrator on the Talk:Nick Adams page. See, for instance, [7]. Wikitruth also frequently claims that too many vandals and trolls "game the system" on Wikipedia. Is it just by chance that Wilkes and his supporter User:Wyss frequently accused user Onefortyone of gaming the system, being a troll, the "most dangerous vandal", etc., falsely claiming that this user's edits were fabricated, unfounded, or unwarranted and therefore must be removed. See [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Wyss even accused administrator Mel Etitis of being a troll. See [13]. For a summary of the facts, see also [14], [15]. Significantly, Wikitruth is recommended on Wyss's user page. See also [16]. So much for my suspicion concerning the origin of Wikitruth. Therefore, any reference to this biased anti-Wikipedia site should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.141.247.48 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Comment Who created Wikitruth and their true aims are irrelevant. Their notability and publicity pass muster IMHO. See my keep comment further down for my opinion. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 00:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep, this is not the right venue for discussing who started Wikitruth, and it has - and shouldn't have - any bearing whether or not this article is kept. (Nasty mean people get articles too!) Unless you can demonstrate this article was created by the user in question (or any other permabanned troll), which I haven't investigated myself, but I'm relying on the assumption that someone might have caught such detail much earlier - and even in such case, deleting it would be a controversial enough move to warrant discussion here. Fascinating tidbits, though, if demonstrably true and could be included to the article while avoiding OR. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reasons it was kept in the first AfD. --Myles Long 23:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the notability of this group has only increased since the first AfD. Silensor 00:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Arcsincostan. Morton devonshire 00:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, as in NOW! Not only is this more than worthy, but deleting it is exactly what Wikitruth wants, so they can libel Wikipedia further and use it to fuel their arguments against it. We should keep this article and do our best to make it fair, honest and NPOV, as we do with the rest of Wikipedia. That is the best way to discredit their arguments. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 00:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleting this article just gives wikitruth one more feather in its hat... yet more proof wikipedia doesnt accept criticism. Kitch is quite right, keep it, npov the hell out of it and show them that we take criticism seriously. ALKIVAR™ 02:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Merge with Criticism of Wikipedia. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-08 02:29Z
• Keep as per all above. Notable and well-written article. Vivelequebeclibre 03:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Why the Wikipedia communuity keeps articles like these is one thing I don't understand. Naconkantari 03:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Strong Strong Delete - this fails WP Web hence an A7 delete. We deleted ED's page per the same criteria (and it's had google hits too...), we do not feed the trolls on Wikipedia. Hence Wikitruth needs to go to /dev/null -- Tawker 04:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A DRV result has already decided that A7 was not valid for a speedy deletion in this case. --67.71.78.201 04:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm, isn't that just a tad obvious - why else would it be here. Apparently a google screwup gave me odder hits for my original search so hits might not be as big of a facor originally. ED and Wikitruth appear to have similiar hit counts but one exists and the other does not. Anyways, technical screwup led to the first speedy, but my reasoning still stands here. BTW, may I suggest logging in.. it makes life easier -- Tawker 06:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Tawker, as I've demonstrated above, it does meet WP:WEB. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As usual, this depends on how we read multiple and non-trivial. Orlowski's piece is merely repeating the arguments he made on the Reg for the benefit of the sandal-wearing lentil-eating Grauniad readers. Wikitruth is merely a hook on which to hang this (and if you get paid by the word, it's a pretty good idea to recycle earlier work). Ebiz just regurgitates Orlowski, so that can't qualify towards multiple. The Village Voice piece is independent, and presumably non-trivial, and an unbalanced rant into the bargain. No doubt you see this as meeting WP:WEB's requirements, but I don't. So we disagree, no surprise there. However, the impossibility of this ever being NPOV means that we'll be back here again, after a decent interval, repeating exactly the same arguments. "Avoid writing or editing articles about [Wikipedia], since we all find objectivity especially difficult when we ourselves are concerned." Good advice that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Tawker, I think that speedy deleting it, speedy deleting the redirects, salting the article, and especially speedy deleting the talk page and then remaining silent about it on wiki until it was restored really hurt this AFD. Before you did that, not that many people were paying attention to the artcle and then suddenly the news of what you did spread everywhere and lots of people came to vote to keep it. So the actions hurt your cause and you would have done better by AFDing it through process.Anomo 11:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep totally meets WP:WEB. Geedubber 05:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; media mentions aren't on their own merit, but because "OGM a website criticizes Wikipedia". Any other similar website would not have made media. Ral315 (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Hands up: who thinks this is a reliable source? ~ trialsanderrors 07:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Lol. That is all, seriously. --72.160.120.252 09:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep DXRAW 09:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Unfortunately. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this part of the collective Wikipedian vanity series of articles which will never be WP:NPOV. The argument to keep this, and similar articles, appears to be "Wikitruth/Daniel Brandt/whatever criticised Wikipedia and Andrew Orlowski/Slashdot/whatever picked it up". Who cares ? Apparently lots of Wikipedia editors do, perhaps because it makes them feel important (cf. WP:CVU). WP:AUTO more or less explains why this sort of article is a Bad Thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete essentially navel-gazing. Oh look, wikipedia is important enough that there's a website devoted to picayune errors and issues!!! Wikipedia is not, above all, about Wikipedia. Eusebeus 11:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I didn't know that Wikipedia entries were indexed on Google but... "wikitruth" returns 101,000 Google hits (NOT case sensitive) and when searching "wiki truth" (11,600,000 hits), the WikiTruth site comes first (second with "wi ki truth"). Besides, the history and discussion pages are quite active and this article is listed in the category "Wikipedia critics". But maybe this category has to go too. Doesn't it fall also under the "we do not feed the trolls" argument? And as trolls feed on most Wikipedia articles, maybe we should marked them all for AfD. Josie dethiers 12:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Wikipedia finally must learn to accept that it has reached a stage where even criticism on Wikipedia can be of significance on itself. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Getting rid of this article would be petty and even pov. Criticism of wikipedia should be accurately chronicled in the database. -- TrojanMan 00:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, has been referenced on multiple well known news websites --James 02:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per Kitch and Reinoutr and principle. Let's follow the rules, folks.
• Keep. Notability under WP:WEB more than satisfied by Guardian/Register articles. That said, it's an attack site, not serious criticism of Wikipedia. The article should characterize Wikitruth's content accurately. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article passes WP:WEB. -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep You guys look like you are proving the point of the article by even having a delete notice, it ruins your credibility. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.118.113.164 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable for now, in the absense of more useful critic websites. -- Cjensen 22:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per comments as above, meets WP:WEB guidelines for inclusion. Yamaguchi先生 23:13, 9 October 2006
• Keep meets criteria for inclusion.--Tbeatty 04:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep. Keep. KEEP!!! Does every website that criticizes Wikipedia have to go through this 'controversy' bupkis? Mein Gott!! Indiawilliams 05:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. To paraphrase what Dylan said of Lenny Bruce; The WikiTruth "Sure is funny and they sure tell the Wikitruth and they know what they're talking about." Unfortunately, there are too many zealots here, who don't think it's funny, can't handle the truth and don't know jack shit about what this project is SUPPOSED to stand for (Exactly which part of "ALL of human knowledge" don't you understand?). Maybe if you heeded the messengers, rather than trying to delete their messages, this project would better live up to its ideals, its potential and its promise.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.