Talk:Groklaw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not entirely sure I understand the intent of this sentence:

It became a web site in September 2003, when its popularity caused it to outgrow the blog software.

Isn't Groklaw both a blog and a web site simultaneously, as a novel is a book? Is this meant to refer to a change in content management software, or hosting, or getting a separate domain name, or...? --Brion 08:08, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's probably just as you guess, meaning it is no longer blog software being used for personal notes but instead more of a news/research site. Perhaps a rephrasing is in order. OlofE 10:41, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Groklaw obviously belongs in Category:Weblogs, but I also added it to Category:Linux and Category:Law. Should it be in Category:Free software instead of Linux? Or in Category:Legal resources rather than Law? -- Khym Chanur 05:32, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

The following: ..However, all the attacks have one thing in common: they never attack content of the site in any specifics; it so far has all been personal attacks on PJ.. is just pure BS, in my opinon. Nobody ever voiced a single criticism of Groklaw which wasn't a personal attack on PJ? Even a cursory search on Google gives reason to believe otherwise 1 2. Also the reference to the "alleged" (who alleges otherwise?) suicides and the implication that they were not is not NPOV, but also distasteful, direspectful, morally reprehensible and sensationalist. I am deleting that entire paragraph. BluePlatypus 16:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is written with sarcastic bias that is damaging to wikipedia. Knowing nothing about this topic, I still feel compelled to edit this article to remove the overt bias. What's scary is how much subtle bias there must be. This is an embarrassment.--Njerseyguy 22:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'll try do a re-write

I've been on Groklaw almost since the start, and I think I can strip the bias out - but not tonight, it's going to be a big job. UrbanTerrorist 05:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite finished - I think that 90% of the text is new. Comments please. UrbanTerrorist 02:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I just read this and I'm fairly impressed with the text at large. I fixed a few grammatical things, but everything seems objective and informative. However, I never read the original article, so I'm afraid I can't provide any comparison views. Daniel Lindsäth 11:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

Although much improved, this article still suffers from considerable bias. I point out of a few passages as examples:

  • This has been used as a criticism of the blog in the past, however the critics have missed some important points
  • Whether it has had any actual effect on the court case is moot. Its effect on the Open Source Community is now a part of history.
  • The amount of research done to assemble the article was impressive
  • Her steady analysis of events, statements, and court records provided a much needed resource.
  • ...the excellent research she used in putting together every article impressed many readers

None of these are cited and appear to be the opinions of the authors. All tip the scales of the article toward the pro-Groklaw POV. All criticism of Groklaw has been removed from the article or been refuted by the article directly (see the first bullet). I'm hard-pressed to find any balance in the article at all. Because of this, I have to slap a POV tag on here for now. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 16:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Not opinion - truth. It will take a week or two (we've just moved in with my father who is in palliative care, and not expected to live to see Christmass) but I have citations that should satisfy your request. I do admit to a bit of bias - I've was on Groklaw when it was still at RadioUserland, I'm still there, and I like PJ. I also happen to have an opinion of Darl McBride and Ralph Yarro which is unprintable :) however when I worked on their entries I managed with great effort to keep it under control.
UrbanTerrorist 01:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you -- citations will certainly help a lot. While I'm sure you are correct that all those statements are true, the tone still concerns me somewhat. Remember that the threshhold for Wikipedia is "Verifiability Not Truth". When I see phrases like "her excellent research", I just cringe. The reason being that research being excellent or not is purely a judgement call and one a NPOV article should not make. However, if someone reputable and third party said her research is excellent, great! However, the sentence should be reworded to something like "According to Foobar Magazine, her research was excellent and proved a great resource for the Xyz Effort." Keep it objective. My natural response to each of my bullet points above is "says who, the author?" I'm sure you can understand what I mean by this. Further, I noticed that there has been some criticism of Groklaw that have been either removed or immasculated by the article as it currently reads. In order to present a neutral article, detractors from Groklaw need equal standing with its supporters. Thank you again for offering to take up the cup and fix this article. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 04:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Heck - what do you expect me to do - I'm a Wikipedia addict now - I NEED MY FIX OF EDITING :) UrbanTerrorist 01:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Being something of a bystandard to Groklaw (and an ardent hater of the FSF movement, but a proponent of open source development), I decided to try to remove some of the POV-nature of the article. How did I do? Korval 05:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove this article

This is ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.69.214.26 (talk)

Feel free to follow the standard deletion process if you believe it should be removed. DMacks 17:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/o/Talk%7EGroklaw_0d49.html"