Talk:Ekşi Sözlük
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This site also has a moderation system which is used to watch the entries. The users are being watched after they have written the entry and if it is illegal too much, you will be sentenced to be a "rookie" and will not be able to write entries until you enter 10 legal and "nice" entries for moderators.
[edit] Number of moderators?
While reverting some bursts of vandalism, I noticed that one anon contributor (who did seem to be valid) changed the number of moderators from 7 to 9. Had he not been between two anon vandals I wouldn't have batted an eye, as it is can someone confirm? --Kizor 12:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
there are 2 new moderators since may 6, 2005 in this website.
http://sozluk.sourtimes.org/show.asp?t=%237459891
Current moderator count is 9 according to http://sozluk.sourtimes.org/stats.asp
[edit] Praetors
Added this particular new user group.
[edit] Registered Users
Added this new user group.
[edit] To 85.97.64.62
If you had read the article, you would have seen the link just at the beginning of the article. So first read, then mumble. Jensboot 13:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC) hepsi yalan-it's all lie
[edit] Locked Topics
The article says (in Legal Issues) there are no more locked topics. Currently "Adnan Oktar" and "Harun Yahya" (an author and his pen name respectively) topics are locked and I don't know if there are more. A moderator or a praetor should mention this in the article or "no more locked topics" statement should be removed.
page need serious update.--88.241.243.217 23:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism
i can not understand which person does remove the legal criticism part of this article. The criticism is based on the entry's found on the "eksi sozluk" website itself, so WHY shouldnt it be here too? i think this is a play of some "protecting" hormones the person itself developed for protecting the "eksi sozluk" idea. but criticism is criticism, and it has to be public. nothing is perfect
85.104.225.101
im requesting that this page should be protected against vandalism. Some clown is deleting the negative criticism from the page. He seems like trying to save the negative image and the radical moderators from their bad image. the criticism is based on the users entry's found on the eksi sözlük site, and should be keeped on wikipedia.
[edit] In reply to Criticism
Eksi Sozluk and Wikipedia are different websites and they have different concepts. On Eksi Sozluk, there is not such a rule that forces users to add entries based on facts. Whereas on Wikipedia, all content must be true. For example, on Eksi Sozluk, under topic "5", you can add an entry which reads "5 is the sum of 2 and 16", and it will not be removed as it is a legal entry no matter the calculation is wrong. You can not refer to the entries added by the users in order to edit Eksi Sozluk page on Wikipedia.
Therefore, I have kept and will keep on removing the "same" content of Criticism section due to the fact that the arguments in this section are all based on false information, unless the content is fixed, which means, based on truth.
And stop referring to Vandalism, as it looks stupid.
[edit] reply
ANONYMOUS USER; you are violating 3RR and keep reverting the artice over and over again! you are warned, before you will be banned.
[edit] About Criticism
Dear my friend,
First off, please let me tell you how much sorry I am to see that you are a dumbass. It is clear that you have problems with understanding what you read, not because you are a dumbass but highly likely because of you are an idiot.
I know that giving you the same reason over and over again doesn't satisfy you and I also know that mentioning the same reason now will not make you understand why I am doing this, because you are a moron.
Yet, since I am a nice person with happy feelings all of the time, I will explain again why I have removed the criticism section and will remove it in the future because I am sure you will continue posting it no matter what because you are a sickhead.
Okay. I don't care about what criticism says. I don't care whether it is productive or destructive. I don't care who wrote it. I only care about the arguments you used to create this section. I only care whether they are based on true, or false information. You can criticise about anything, but it must be based on facts.
You're saying, as being an super idiot, the arguments are based on user entries. I say, user entries are not facts. They are just entries. If I posted an entry to Eksi Sozluk, saying you are a smart person, then you wouldn't believe it, because I might be lying. You can't refer to that entry to prove that you are smart, as you can't refer to user entries to criticise.
Once again. I am ok with criticisms, everybody is. Only if they are based on facts, not fantasies, not hearsay stuff.
Before I finish, I want to give you a hint. You can't start your sentence with "Although not proven". Try doing that under "Benjamin Franklin" title, and post "Although not proven, he is said to be an islamist chaotic gay car dealer", and refer to some website.
This place is encylopedia my stupid friend, keep it that way.
[edit] reply
you rude person. i will keep adding this criticism over and over again. and i allso reported you to the moderators. i can only return your compliments. clown
[edit] reply to the idiot
If you can't afford to hear words like idiot and moron, then you shouldn't say looser and clown to me in the first place. And thanks for proving again that you are an idiot.
[edit] reply to the clown
even if you will die, i will still revert this article you can not simply remove a section, try to improve it. and to your personel comments, if you insist, i can take this history as a evidence.
[edit] Step by step explanation for the retarded
Dear my stupid friend,
Below you will find the exact reasons on why the criticism section is not supposed to be here on Wikipedia because it is based on false information. I hope you will understand this time, although considering you're being an idiot, it's not probable.
My responses are in paranthesis and bold. Ok, here I go.
Eksi Sozluk is often critisized by its members due to its ambiguous moderation standards and practice which renders moderators virtually untouchable lawmakers/punishers whose basis for acts and deeds are invisible to general public.(This is relative, so it is a valid criticism.) Due to his schedule and workload at Microsoft the site administrator ssg had lost his effectiveness in administering the mods for the last few years. (Hearsay information. Not true.) Left to their own jugdement the mods, who are often claimed to be ignorant of the fundementals of Law, apply the laws without any relevance to the spirit of the laws/rules that govern and regulate Eksi Sozluk. (Completely false information. "Left to their own judgement the mods" means, if we leave out ssg, only mods will remain, which is not true. There are also praetors, who are asked for their opinions regarding the entries since praetors consist of professional lawyers and law students. Also, this paragraph has 3 sentences, of which the last 2 are based on false information. Leaving out the last 2, the first one does not make any sense. Thus, the entire paragraph has been removed.)
One such example is the case of "gotumuze girebilir" rule (the meaning roughly translates as: "(this entry) may put us into peril"). (The previous paragraph is removed, so this sentence, starting with "One such example" does not make any sense. Removed) This law initially created to prevent the site admins from possible libel suits or mafia assaults by those who may be offended by entries that they can read (This means they have to be active/living Turkish speaking citizens that can actually read the site) (This is partly acceptable. But the sentence in the paranthesis is not true. It is not required, to maintain integrity.) However the rule is now effective against non-Turkish international celebrities, deseased international historical figures and similar non-cases. Notable examples are: Stalin, Benjamin franklin, Joseph Fiennes.(This is true. But in total, this paragraph, after evaluation, has 2 sentences and they are partly true. Thus, removed.)
The moderators have almost no tolerance to entry's that contain criticism of religion (especially Islam). (False. I would suggest the poster to read anti religion stuff posted by users. Yet, this sentence is acceptable as a valid criticism as it shows an opinion.) Alltough not proven, it's rumoured that the author of eksi sozluk (Sedat Kapanoglu) is a fanatic islamist which may prove that allmost all moderators watch those religious entry's carefully. (Super false. Wikipedia is not for rumours. It is for facts, valid opinions and critics. It is so obvious that you made this rumour up to support your previous sentence.)
Most of the valid criticisms often stem from the site rules and regulations basic lack of knowledge regarding law making and judicial systems. (False. There are praetors who are asked for their valuable opinions regarding the entries which may shutdown the site.) Another example of such lack of knowledge is seen in the way the basic punishment system operates. (Acceptable.) "Çaylak Modu" (The Rookie Mode) is a way of punishing users by making them prove themselves by writing 10 valid and legal entries who are judged by the mods as guilty within the framework of the existing laws. (Acceptable.) However, once a user is turned into rookie he is not told the reason why, but rather expected to know why he is guilty for whichever reason. (Acceptable.) In the rookie mode a user has no access to send or receive messages to make inquiries on the nature of his/her punishment, or an option to make an appeal, an aspect which disenfranchise and alienate many users and increase the number of conformists and imitators who adds up to the mediocrity of a site that was once the mecca for freedom of speech and ripe with marginal thoughts, practices. (Acceptable.)
So, to summarize, I have kept and will keep removing the "same" content over and over again. Do not expect me to make modifications over the content, as you are the one who has critics about the site. Fix your errors.
Until then, see you my dear friend.
[edit] regarding criticisms
Criticisms do not have to be valid (i.e. factual), as the critics who criticise voice subjective thoughts on objective things/events.
So, the criticism that are "retold" here are the "opinions/observations" of the people who do not necessarily have to be making reasonable/factual deductions/judgements on objective facts.
If a certain group of people claim: "a lot of people believe sedat kapanoglu to be islamofascist" you only need to prove that such people exist, whether or not Sedat Kapanoglu is an islamofascist. The fact here that needs to check out is the observable existence of such people making such statements, not the factual correspondence of the claim itself.
If you want to rebute the criticism, you may add a "Rebuttal of the criticisms" in the article (as is done here in wikipedia on many articles regarding subjective conflicts) and voice the counter arguments which state your side of the facts, which of course will not be any more truthful than the criticisms.
Thank you and enjoy wikipedia.
[edit] Response to the finalized criticism section
Thank you for taking my friendly suggestions seriously and finalizing the criticism section. I have to admit that it's my pleasure to see the section being part of the article again although I still see the little of your yes-you-are-right-but-i-am-more-than-you part here in this discussion page, however it is okay to be here as well as the criticism section for it obviously shows the evolution of the criticism despite you are being stubborn.
As for the you-need-to-prove-that issue you mentioned somewhere up there, please be my guest and post all opinions believed to be true by certain amount of people and courage wiki peeps to add rebuttal sections. You don't have to be a bright guy to predict that this would eventually kill wiki.
No more I say.
[edit] time
sooner or later, people will understand what i want to say, and they will post it here just wait, just wait. You dont seem to look out clearly about this topic, and dont even TRY to understand what is fact and what is going on so i dont blame you. sooner or later, even YOU will understand what is meaned in the criticism. so till the day will come, keep masturbating.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.104.225.101 (talk • contribs).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.96.132.129 (talk • contribs) .
[edit] The latest version of criticism
This section is full of misleading and confusing statements rather than a clear explanation of known/cited criticisms about Eksi Sozluk. Here are some of the parts that need to be clarified. I'll remove relevant section if problems in the section aren't resolved.
"Eksi Sozluk is often criticised by its members due to its ambiguous moderation standards and practice which renders moderators virtually/legally untouchable lawmakers/punishers whose basis for acts and deeds are invisible to general public."
'(Often? What's the source for "frequent criticism"?. Can we also add "Eksi Sozluk is often criticised for being too perfect in every aspect since it's closed moderation system virtually keeps everything in balance" here?)'
"One specific example is the case of "götümüze girebilir" rule (the meaning roughly translates as: "(this entry) may put us into peril"). This law initially created to prevent the site admins from possible libel suits or mafia assaults by those who may be offended by entries that they can read and understand and wouldn't want others who too can read/understand to do so. However, the rule now seems to be effective against non-Turkish international celebrities, deceased international historical figures and similar non-cases who are mostly unlikely to cause a peril. Notable examples are: Stalin, Benjamin Franklin, Joseph Fiennes."
'How is that a specific example for "moderators being virtually/legally untouchable" or existence of "ambiguous moderation standards"? As it's put, that is a very clear/specific moderation standard which do not allow any ambiguity at all'
"Most of the valid criticisms often stem from the site rules and regulations basic lack of knowledge regarding law making and judicial systems. Though the advice of praetors are often asked, praetors came in after the rules and regulations issued by a coder-turned-site-admin Sedat Kapanoğlu, who is neither informed nor knowledgeable in the fundamentals of lawmaking and debates criticisms by appealing to "unquestionable authority issuing personal fascist order"."
'What's the source for where valid criticisms stem from? How can it ever be stated that any discrepancy between site moderation and lawmaking/judicial systems is an indication of "lack of knowledge" on these areas? If it's an assumption because there isn't a contradicting evidence, it's not a valid statement in the first place. Please note that this is not part of the explained criticism but the statement about where criticisms stem from.'
'How is site founder's career or existing lawmaking knowledge is related to the actual application? What's the source for Sedat Kapanoglu's level of lawmaking education/knowledge? What's the source for Sedat Kapanoglu debating criticisms by appealing to such and such excuses?'
"Praetors, who are known to be students/practitioners of open law systems are also questioned and criticised since they "play along" within the framework of this closed and single-sided judicial system which shares few with the fundamentals of modern lawmaking and judicial systems."
'Are Praetors criticised BECAUSE they play along with the framework or FOR playing along with the framework? Although both cases need to be cited regardless, that statement is currently not a valid criticism but a subjective claim with no references.'
"Though not proven, it is widely stated by users that there might be nepotism and comradeship between praetors and mods, being the part of valid criticism since it is the existing closed administration method that allows such rumors to propagate and emanate."
'Where and when is that "widely" stated?'
"Another example is experienced in the way the basic punishment system operates. "Çaylak Modu" (The Rookie Mode) is a way of punishing/rehabilitating users who are sentenced guilty within the framework of the existing laws, by making them prove themselves by writing 10 valid and legal entries to be judged by the mods. However, the process allows no right to self defense, and is immediately executed once the mods (if need be consenting praetors) choose to do so. So once a user is turned into rookie he/she is not told the reason why, but rather expected to know why he/she is guilty for whichever reason.
In the rookie mode a user has no access to send or receive messages to make inquiries on the nature of his/her punishment, or an option to make an appeal, an aspect which disenfranchise and alienate many users and increase the number of conformists and imitators who add up to the mediocrity of a site that was once the mecca for freedom of speech and ripe with marginal thoughts, practices."
'What's this example for? To explain why criticisms happen? If that so, which criticism is this example linked to? Where did that criticism take place which is told to be because punishment system? If it's a rumor, can we add infinite number of random rumors and flood the article by relying on that rumors cannot be cited?'
SSG 01:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] picture
the picture for this article is too big. there would be no difference to put a propper 800x600 picture since the content of ekşi sözlük is suited for 800x600. the bigger picture only wastes bandwidth.
and for the author of the picture, OK, we all agree you have a big screen and its very cool.
