Talk:Wikitruth/Archive 01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of inactive discussion. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Contents

[edit] Talk page deletion

Someone is wiping the wikitruth page, as im not in the history ...

Much more disturbing, someone is deleting the history of the DISCUSSION page. - O^O
There is some talk at Talk:Wikitruth.info that was deleted for a while because the corresponding article was deleted (this is common practice). I'd ask all admins to keep everything undeleted for now and to keep the commentary to the AfD page. Then we can do whatever is appropriate with the redirects/talk pages when the AfD closes. Pcb21 Pete 15:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The really ironic thing is, this is blatantly going to be deleted again. Shit! wikipedia has become like china..

The censorship and other underhanded tactics are going against everything Wikipedia stands for, and it only lends great strength to WikiTruth's case. Stop the hypocrisy! E. Sn0 =31337= 01:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content from now merged Talk:Wikitruth.info

This page was speedied (twice?) and then protected against recreation. We must not go down that road so quickly. It looks really bad (some have even said "cultish"!) to snuff out mention of sites critical of Wikipedia. Now I know you can quote notability standards etc. But the appearance of not being censorious is also important. At least, this page should not be a speedy candidate so that a reasoned debate can take place. Pcb21 Pete 10:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now listed this page on afd, so that it is no longer subject to speedy deletion, and will go through the full public process prior to being kept or deleted. -- The Anome 12:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I've restored these talk pages whilst the active deletion debate is going on. Pcb21 Pete 14:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
At least "censored" Wikipedia lets the public edit it, unlike WikiTruth which doesn't even allow comments. NTK 04:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The article was created by User:Wik as spam. It was meant to be speedied, so that they could then claim censorship. It was meant to be added to the spam black list. Its called Wikipedia:Gaming the system. These aren't critics here, these are long term admins. Wikitruth == the cabal. Now you know that it isn't a myth. 203.122.231.195 18:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Register article

Doesn't seem to actually mention wikitruth at all, unless I am missing something... Just another star in the night T | @ | C 04:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Your missing something... look for the line break where he goes to Jimbo (WikiTruth.info is mentioned there)  ALKIVAR™ 05:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent - thank you. I've put it back in along with some text and such. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 05:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need to add this to the article

I added one glaring "out of context" edit that they put on their site. I added it to the article. Essentially, they accused me of not knowing that names of schools are capitalized...they gave a diff...but failed to mention that the next edit I made after that corrected the error. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If you could expand that section with other stuff as well that would be great. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 06:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
It would have been so much better to have spent your time actually fixing the error that I have just fixed by moving the article to the correct name. Grace Note 09:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed text

Please source the following. It seems to be a mishmash of opinion and original research. What reputable source has debated its inclusion in Wikipedia? What source has discussed the page on "WooHooKitty"? Could you please give sources for criticisms of "Wikitruth"? The only sources we have were neutral, from what I can see. People, Wikipedia is not a source and cannot be. Please review the foundation policies if you're not clear on that. Grace Note 07:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debate over the website's inclusion on Wikipedia

Soon after the site Wikitruth.info was created, a Wikipedia article on the website was created. However, the article was quickly put up for deletion. Some do not believe that the criticisms this website makes, or the fact that Jimbo Wales himself has already referenced and commented on the site, are worth considering in the determination of notability and do not believe that Wikipedia should hold all relevant, true material.

People who feel that this article should remain say that considering that the website is very relevant to Wikipedia as a whole, is a manifesto offering awareness of problems in Wikipedia, offers analysis of vandalism on Wikipedia, and has been featured in important press such as the Guardian, Slashdot and Techweb News, the definition of notability is satisfied. Since notability is a subjective concept, some argue that all material which isn't complete nonsense should not be deleted.

[edit] Criticisms

A chief criticism of the site is that it is not possible to register. Even though every page has a "create an account or log in" link, when one clicks on the link, there is no option to create an account. [1][2]. Another criticism of the site is that they give information out of context to create a false impression. An example is accusing Woohookitty of "He does not know that names are written with capital letters" and then giving wikitruth.info/index.php?title=WooHooKitty&diff=2541&oldid=2478 this diff] prove their point. They fail to mention that Woohookitty's next edit corrected the name of the school. In addition, although the website contains criticisms of certain Wikipedia administrators, some of the criticisms may be construed as personal attacks, such as referring to an "ordinary Wikipedian" as "rude, stupid and almost entirely lacking in a sense of humour" [3], and in general often offend some, especially the targets of said criticisms.

Give me a minute, I'll see if I can source these better - if not I'll re-purge them. IIRC Wikipedia can be used as a source in some cases but I'll need to double-check that. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 07:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot ever be used as a source. See WP:NOR: "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source." You may only include material that has been published already by a reputable source. You may not include stuff on other Wikipedia pages. Please do not include sections about Wikipedia debates or Wikipedians' criticisms in this or any other article unless those debates or criticisms have been covered by other sources. Grace Note 09:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
"unless those debates or criticisms have been covered by other sources" - yes I know that's why I just adding in the Wikitruth references themselves which should cover that - it was mentioned in the slashdot thread as well. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 09:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship?

If this article will be deleted, it will represent a clear proof of the censorship of Wikipedia. Mik - Italy

But if it is not deleted, it will represent clear proof that Wikipedia is a self-referential navel-gazing big bag of trivia! What to do!? Pcb21 Pete 08:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 09:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, who you talking to? Pcb21 Pete 09:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there are a bunch of administrators who have already (privately) said that they will delete this article off of Wikipedia; it's just a matter of time and waiting for the interest to die down. And because they have all the time in the world, they can point to the article's existence as "see, we allow criticism"... until it goes.
I wonder if that is true. We'll see. --80.146.118.106 12:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deletion is bad

does anyone know if there is a legitamate reason for the pages deletion? it would have to be extreemly good, becuase there are far more pages far worse than this, so if the justification for the deletion is not extreemly good, this points to blatant censorship on wikipedia, which generaly goes against what wikipedia, and the concept of a wiki is. whether or not the wikitruth site is correct is irrelavat, because wikipedia should have an unbiased viewpoint and a neutral tone-if this page is deleted, wikipedia will obviously lose this, becuase a factual wikipedia page (ie this is the site, here's its URL, here is its aims ect) should be permissible, even if wikipedia was censored to protect itself or others. Censorship in any form on wikipedia probably constitutes a denial of the right to free speech, because wikipedia is supposed to be free as in freedom - if is an encyclopedia "anyone can edit" then (in my oppinion) the right to freedom of speech and thought applies, and the possibility that the wikipedia administrators (note Administrators) are censoring wikipedia, becomes very real indeed.

the censorship of this page (or deletion to the politicaly correct) also shows an almost irational fear and bizzare desire to protect wikipedia, because it is unlikeley that wikipedia will be hindered by the wikitruth site. What the wikitruth site is realisticaly able to do is raise awareness about the abuses of power perpetrated by the administrators, and could lead to a reduction in their power and the respect they recieve as a result. the admin response to this article perhaps reflects the points raised by the wikitruth site, and for this reason the wikipedia page on wikitruth should be preserved from the administration, either through the intervention of higher powers or the introduction of a system to forcefully remove those Administrators who abuse their power by deleting pages in this fassion or otherwise acting irresposiby. This in turn would make administrators more accountable for their actions and would make these sorts of situations far less frequent, as administrators would be afraid for their "jobs" if they were seen to restrict wikipedia's freedom.

Deletion is not censorship. I find it ironic that there is nothing on Wikitruth that could remotely qualify as encyclopedic content. Fortunately, this article is only about Wikitruth as an Internet phenomenon, not supporting or responding to its claim. Peter Grey 16:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Deletion can absolutely be censorship. The original two-sentence stub concerning this website was deleted within minutes sans explanation. That fits every definition of "censor" I've ever seen or heard of: prevent something you dislike from being heard. Wikitruth is not supposed to be an encyclopedia. It is intended to be critical and satirical of Wikipedia because its authors, when they tried to speak out here on Wikipedia itself, were forcibly silenced. I didn't really believe anything their site had to say until I realized that the old Jack Thompson article, to which I had contributed, had radically changed, and that some articles indeed have been modified against Wikipedia policy. Gauging by my own observations, the reaction here on Wikipedia, and statements by Mr. Wales regarding the site, what they have to say needs to be heard. --Southpaw018 22:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikitruth is just what you needed.

Wikitruth is very refreshing indeed. Not perfect, blunt certainly, offensive maybe. But exactly what you wikizombies needed. Finally the jimbo-wales cult is presented for the hypocritical tomfoolery it is. The bottom line is, Wikipedia has a bunch of good articles (the popular ones), but most of the rest is controlled by special interest groups that pretty much dictate what's going on. The adoption pages are particularly biased. But you can't even SAY they are biased, because there's a small groups of dedicated wiki-fascist that will do everything they can to suppress any contraditing opinion, or let it in just to ridicule it. Are you blind? Can't you see that, instead of having the 'whole planet' editing the wiki, you just have the privileged with internet connections? Can't you see that even within this privileged group, that as long as you can recruit 10 of your mates (or 10 IPs) you can simply vote pretty much anything in your favour? NOTE: this message will be deleted by the wikicrew in 10 minutes or so. TELL THE WIKITRUTH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.195.188.100 (talk • contribs).

You said, "Wikipedia has a bunch of good articles (the popular ones), but most of the rest is controlled by special interest groups that pretty much dictate what's going on." Click the random article link a few times. There are 300,000 articles on wikipedia, very few of which special interest groups have stakes in. Try to find censorship and manipulation in Thirumandhamkunnu, Sapygidae, and XMLHTTP. Tlogmer Talk / Contributions 06:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Correction: there are over 1,086,000+ articles on Wikipedia at this time. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow, Tlogmer must have been here for a while, to be that far off. But anyway, Wikitruth isn't too keen on criticism. They just like adding pictures, flashy buttons, and lulz to existing criticism. When they actually try to make real criticism, they stuff it up. But what do you expect from User:Grace Note and his friends in the cabal? User:Raul654, User:Wik, User:SlimVirgin, User:Snowspinner and others. Hardly what you'd call critics. But then again, Wikitruth isn't a critic site. Its a site aiming at destroying Wikipedia. The only solution is to sue them. Anything less will destroy Wikipedia. And then who will end up running the show? More than likely it will be Wik's admin sock puppet. 203.122.231.195 18:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TELL THE WIKITRUTH

some great quotes to add:

If this article will be deleted, it will represent a clear proof of the censorship of Wikipedia. Mik - Italy

But if it is not deleted, it will represent clear proof that Wikipedia is a self-referential navel-gazing big bag of trivia! What to do!? Pcb21 Pete 08:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
It is a catch-*insert clever wiki-related number here*. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We should thank the cosmos ...

... for enabling us to put the info on OTHER wikipedias mwahahah.. the ones where they CANT understand what is being written so they can't delete. Unless THE GUY tells the admins of that wikipedia to delete an article with that kind of content, which will, of course, be WRITTEN EVERYWHERE and WIKIPEDIA shall loose its credibility. How sorry would I be then...

[edit] Speedy Deletion Nomination by Ardenn

Please note that I formally contest the speedy deletion of this article, for reasons stated by others in the edit history, namely, the continued growth of this article, and the fact that due to coverage in Slashdot, Digg, the Guardian, and numerous places elsewhere on the Internet, the subject of the article now easily surpasses notability standards. It has an ongoing deletion review at the moment. The article's material has changed enough that the "repost" reason no longer satisfies. — WCityMike (T | C) 20:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of procedure for this, but I also formally contest the speedy deletion. (For the reasons listed, and because an article cannot be proposed for regular and speedy deletion simultaneously. Tlogmer Talk / Contributions 20:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes they can. That doesn't change the fact that this speedy is silly and in bad faith. Kotepho 20:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
You're in bad faith for POV pushing. Ardenn 20:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The only other edit to this article I have made is cleanup. If someone is POV pushing in this article, it is certainly not me. Kotepho 20:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I formally contest the POV editors who are pushing this article on us. Ardenn 20:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If you think the article is slanted, you should add a neutrality notice to it -- which I see you've done -- and work to improve the text (message editors, etc.). Not nominate the article for speedy (!) deletion. (For the record, I think the wikitruth editors are slimy in the grand tradition of british tabloid writers, undercutting any valid criticisms they make with smears and insinuations about people's appearance and sexuality. I'm determined to see this article kept and improved because its level tone undercuts their demagogy.) Tlogmer Talk / Contributions 20:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This article does not fall under CSD G4 as it is "significantly different" than the previous deleted content, which itself was speedy deleted. It makes much more sense to just let the AFD close (since the subject has yet to have one). Also, the circumstances has changed drastically since it was first deleted. Kotepho 20:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The silly little templates have been removed, this does not qualify as a repost by any means. Silensor 20:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Arden, if you disagree with the article's contents and/or believe it has problems, your vote in the article's AfD is the proper outlet for your disbelief. Continually placing it up for speedy deletion under guidelines that are incorrect is not a proper outlet. Note that the speedy deletion guidelines state, "If there is a dispute over whether the page should be deleted, consider first listing it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." The contents of this page do not fulfill Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion; point of view is not a cause for speedy deletion, even assuming that it existed, which it did not.

Right now, there is a rollicking debate going on in the AfD for this. Your continued attempts to short-circuit that by ramming your opinion through the speedy deletion process is entirely in bad faith and does nothing to help your cause. This article, in fact, has been speedy deleted on previous occasions and then restored by other admins. I disagree with your stance on this article, but even were I to agree, your efforts would bear better fruit if focused in different arenas. This does nothing but disparage your cause. — WCityMike (T | C) 20:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

One more sd-repost from Adrenn before tomorrow is 4RR. -- Gnetwerker 22:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And WCityMike was blocked for violating 3RR. Ardenn 03:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"TELL THE WIKITRUTH": http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70670-0.html?tw=wn_index_3 Terror Island 23:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lighten up

If a little bit of criticism is enough to give half of Wikipedia heart attacks, then you're taking yourselves way too seriously. Lighten up. -- noosphere 03:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Seconded, heartily. E. Sn0 =31337= 05:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I would hardly call deriding an editor's weight and grammar wikitruth.info/index.php?title=WooHooKitty, an editor's sexuality wikitruth.info/index.php?title=FCYTravis, the sexuality of most Wikipedians wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Magic_Incantation, and the living conditions of CVU members wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Vandalism_exposed constructive criticism. In a few places, the Wikitruth editors do make some good points, and the Eloquence/Danny altercation will most likely allow them to make more good criticisms. But the criticism that they make is so overpowered by the random insults that it is widely lost. I think the editors would do much better if they were to be more civil (TELL THE WIKITRUTH: Please be more civil and to the point in your criticism. It would help considerably. Having to read through random insults really makes in harder to find the actual criticism.). That said, some people on wikien-l seem to be much worse about not having heart attacks over the site - take a look at the posts where a variety of admins are trying to find the possible rogue (not rouge) admins involved so as to punish them. --Philosophus 22:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good

Good to see this article here. Wikipedia should aim to be more transparent, not less. That's the best way to handle criticism. And while you're at it, recreate Wikipedia Review. Ta. 203.122.195.111 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How would they find "tell the wikitruth"

Out of curiousity, can anybody tell me how they would be able to find instances of people typing "tell the wikitruth"? To the best of my knowledge, there is no properly functioning search on Wikipedia. - O^O

By just looking in the obvious places, I guess. The magic incantation would surely less effective if you put in on one of the 990,000 talk pages that is never read. Anyway, they appear to have an email address now. Pcb21 Pete 16:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Use google. It's not going to be perfectly up to date, but searching for "tell the wikitruth" site:en.wikipedia.org might turn up results. ~MDD4696 16:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response(s) - I think you confirmed my belief that there is no "magic" way to search wikipedia completely. There are thousands of pages that probably never get indexed. - O^O

[edit] Future Speedy Deletion Nominations

Those Wikipedia editors who believe that this page, post-AfD, does not qualify as a candidate for speedy deletion, should note that the article was once again nominated for speedy deletion by Ardenn this evening. My reversion of same led to complaints filed by Ardenn in 3RR and ANI against me. I say this not to prolong the disagreement between Ardenn and I, nor to cast aspersions upon him, but to simply to provide as neutral a notice as I can phrase neutrally phrased a notice as I can for others that if you believe that this article does not merit speedy deletion, you may wish to be on guard for renominations. — WCityMike (T | C) 02:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that User:Ardenn has tried to delete this section three times[1][2][3], citing WP:NPA and WP:RPA. -- noosphere 03:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I did. I have the right to disappear. See your own open mediation cabal request. Ardenn 03:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I see that you're upset, Ardenn. However, deleting information from a talk page is considered vandalism unless the comments were obvious, extreme personal attacks. And there's nothing even remotely resembling a personal attack in WCityMike's comment above, as far as I can see. If you think there is please point it out and why you think it constitus a personal attack.
As for your alleged "right to disappear", I see no such "right" in any Wikipedia policies, or anywhere else for that matter. I presume you mean you don't want to any mention of your actions to be made on this talk page. I don't see this as a reasonable request. On Wikipedia our actions are open to all, and there are no policies prohibiting anyone from discussing them on a talk page.
We should, of course, be civil. However, WCityMike was being perfectly civil. In fact, he was going out of his way not to offend you, saying "I say this not to prolong the disagreement between Ardenn and I, nor to cast aspersions upon him, but to simply to provide as neutrally phrased a notice as I can for others..." On Wikipedia it's rare to see such polite, respectful words come from someone engaged in a dispute and WCityMike should be commended for the civility and maturity he has displayed in his response.
You, on the other hand, have attempted to delete even a civil discussion of your actions, which I believe is inexcusable. In fact, I believe it is vandalism, and will continue to revert it if you try it again. I suggest you resolve your dispute with WCityMike through mediation, not by deleting his comments. -- noosphere 04:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
No, there is an actual policy on Wikimedia on the right to disappear, I just haven't been able to find it. I have seen it before though. Ardenn 04:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
See right to vanish. Ardenn 04:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, from reading Right to Vanish, it refers specifically to users who decide to leave Wikimedia projects or who want to delete personal information (which "typically includes, but is not limited to, name, address, telephone number, instant messenger contact details, photograph, appearance, food tastes, political views and similar details of an individual person".) Your demands do not fit these criteria in any way; instead, you appear to want to "vanish" your participation in a rather heated debate. Personally, I can't see any reason for Wikipedia to condone the wanton deletion of discussions on talk pages. --Ckatz 04:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Ardenn, as I noted in a reply to you on my talk page, that article doesn't mention anything about you having the right to remove other people's comments about your actions on talk pages.
You are, of course, free to "ask that people not refer to you by your name" but " these actions require a degree of co-operation from the user of the project, so Wikimedia cannot make guarantees on this matter."
Finally, that page is not a Wikipedia policy, or even a guideline, so it only has marginal relevance to this dispute, at best. -- noosphere 04:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
As I already mentioned on your talk page, I only respond to comments left on my talk page. Ardenn 04:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Why? -- noosphere 05:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chill Out Now

Hey, folks. Look now, let's just chill out. Disagreement is normal. Don't matter if no one delete this page and claim bias. We shall overcome. Disagreement is normal. Let Wikitruth become a part of all Wiki. Peace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.125.149.60 (talk • contribs).

[edit] WHOIS info

The owner of the site is not known, because the domain name is registered with Domains by Proxy, Inc, a DNS registrar who masks the personal information of website owners.[4]

Why is this here? What does it have to do with the article? It seems like some kind of personal attempt to find out who runs the site and it doesn't feel like it belongs in this article. At any rate it seems like a lone thought with no connection to the article, other issues withstanding. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 06:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. I have no objection if someone wants to restore it and doesn't feel as irked as I do - although I'd reccommend tieing it a bit closer with the article... Just another star in the night T | @ | C 06:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I added it to show that their is no way of knowing if an admin is running it. I'm putting it back in again. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
That reasoning does not make sense. Say the domain was registered to Charles Scott, you still wouldn't know if it was run by an admin. Even if we had someone with a mop named Charles Scott that doesn't mean that they are Charles Scott and not impersonating them. Also, the screenshot goes pretty well to proving that they have an admin. Lastly, this is sounding like WP:OR to me and it isn't exactly WP:V. The archives as sources proposal is failing quite spectacularly. Kotepho 16:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
It is verifiable obviously. You are also stretching the definition of what "original research" is. May as well leave it in, no harm done. Pcb21 Pete 16:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
How is this not verifiable? If it is verifiable, then it is not orginal research. And the fact remains that they are definitely masking themselves. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say it wasn't verifiable; I said it fails WP:V. I forgot that we weren't trying to be an encyclopedia, but TBSDY's blog. Leave it in, I don't really care. Wikipedia is already a trash heap as it is. However, your argument for re-adding it was quite silly. Kotepho 17:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Upon re-reading this I think I might have been a little too sardonic. Kotepho 19:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
(someone objected to the criticism here, so I have removed it, as I do not wish to offend anyone) Just another star in the night T | @ | C 18:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Rot. It is clearly important to the Wikipedia community who is behind the site, so the fact that the usual method (WHOIS) cannot be used is a definite positive addition to the article. Play the ball, not the man. Pcb21 Pete 21:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Important to the 'Wikipedia community' (how do you qualify that? TwoThree people care?) does not make it encyclopedic. Kotepho 21:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I care. Does that make 3?--God Ω War 21:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. Kotepho 21:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Not a big reader of the mailing list then? Pcb21 Pete 23:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I quite enjoyed the mailling list discussion, but it gives quite a skewed view of the 'community'. Kotepho
Even if it does, I'm sure you'll agree that it is a gross mischaracterization to suggestion only three people care. Pcb21 Pete 23:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Has it occured to you that maybe I wasn't being literal with the count and it in no way affects my position? Kotepho 23:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I wonder, does that mean we want to add whois information to every article about a given website? Just those who mention Wikipedia? Or those that are critical of it? Do we really want to facilitate retribution on Wikipedia critics? How about posting the home addresses of judges and abortion doctors? I'm sure you'll find some Wikipedia editors and readers interested in that information. -- noosphere 22:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Come on, if you are going to make an analogy, do it properly. As it is, your comment just reads like a smear. Pcb21 Pete 23:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
What? -- noosphere 23:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I was pointing out that your analogies are flawed. Pcb21 Pete 23:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd care to elaborate. -- noosphere 23:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
You asked for it.... :)
Let ~ denote "analagous to"
Let P be the statement "Mr. X registered domain Y"
Let Q be the statement "Dr. Abortion lives at address Z"
Let R be the statement "Despite interest amongst wiki-stake-burners in knowing who registered domain Y, that information has not been published"
Let S be the statement "Despite interest amongst pro-life groups in knowing where Dr. Abortion lives, that information has not been published"
Then P ~ Q and R ~ S. You are were suggesting that R ~ Q. Which is absurd.
Pcb21 Pete 00:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Why do you believe it is absurd? -- noosphere 00:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How much I hate to admit it...

How much I hate to admit it, everything I have experienced over this article proves their point. Ardenn 03:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • While I have certainly observed that the debate on this article has brought out some of the worst qualities in wikipedians, after all the noise over Wikitruth, I'm still not clear what exactly their 'point' is. Wikitruth says that Wikipedia it is often filled with crazy people, experiences some issues with manipulative personalities, and falls prey to abuse and censorshipwikitruth.info/index.php?title=Main_Page. Which is true, of course. And Wikitruth seems to be a far greater example of the exact same problems. Which makes me wonder if their real complaint is simply that they weren't the crazy, manipulative, abusive and censoring ones. Peter Grey 04:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The point of most Anit-Wikipedia groups is that Wikipedia doesn't work, because while they try not to be a democracy, it's a democracy of the super majority. I was basically bullied. Ardenn 04:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
You were bullied in to trying to speedy delete this article and other people's comments? -- noosphere 04:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I was bullied by WCityMike with his comments, and by Mdd4969, for rules that WCityMike violated, when I had only violated one rule. I was bullied by the people on this page because my view was unpopular. Ardenn 04:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I do believe you violated both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in the matter. You also skated close to violating 3RR in your actions as well.--128.226.198.45 04:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't the only one who violated policy, yet at the time I was the only one to be blocked. Ardenn 04:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
WCityMike was blocked shortly after your block expired. There's nothing that forces an admin to make a block. They do it if they feel one was neceessary. MDD4649 didn't feel it was appropriate for WCityMike in his opinion. Another admin did.--128.226.198.45 04:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No-one claims Wikipedia works perfectly, or that it has eliminated bullying. Why would Wikipedia be any different from any other human activity? Peter Grey 04:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Because it's supposed to be an encyclopedia. Ardenn 04:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Take that attitude to a new job at Brittanica and see how far it gets you. You'll likely find that the editors you would be working for there are far bigger "bullies" than anyone at WP. --EngineerScotty 22:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totally disputed?

Ardenn has added a {{totallydisputed}} tag to this article[4]. The tag claims the "neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page."

There is, from what I can see, no neutrality or factual accuracy dispute of the article here. So, before I remove the tag I'd like to ask if Ardenn or anyone else would like to dispute something specific in the article that they feel is not presented according to WP:NPOV or is factually inaccurate. -- noosphere 05:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the neutrality of the aticle, and the factual accuracy because most of the sources are not reliable sources per WP:CITE and WP:V. Ardenn 05:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you tell us why you think each of the sources you dispute doesn't meet those standards? -- noosphere 05:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikitruth in itself isn't a reliable source per Jimbo Wales. Ardenn 05:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you please provide a citation for that? -- noosphere 05:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to find one tomorrow, but that's part of the problem. It's not mentioned in the article at all. Ardenn 05:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll save you the trouble. Even if you find an opinion of Jimbo's to that effect, there's nothing in WP:CITE or WP:V that says Jimbo's opinions regarding whether he thinks a given site is "a reliable source" are relevant. Now, if he ordered us to delete this article or anything in it, that would be a different story. But somehow I don't think he wants to do that. Of course, you could always ask him. -- noosphere 06:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
It's an opposite opinion. So far this article is pretty one-sided. Ardenn 06:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome to put Jimbo's opinion of Wikitruth in the article. -- noosphere 06:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Please identify a fact that is under dispute. Peter Grey 05:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
1. The WHOIS info is irrelevant.
Why do you think it's irrelevant? -- noosphere 05:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not relveant to the article at all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ardenn 05:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with WP:NOT. Now, could you tell us why you think it's not relevant? -- noosphere 05:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
2. "To communicate with the Wikitruth editors, one is instructed to write the words tell the wikitruth anywhere on Wikipedia."
What's your dispute with this statement? -- noosphere 05:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Prove it. Ardenn 05:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
From Wikitruth.info: wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Magic_Incantation The easiest way to contact the staff of Wikitruth is simply to use the Magic Incantation. --Ckatz 05:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
It's stated right here: wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Magic_Incantation -- noosphere 05:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
3. "Another group of criticisms centers around specific Wikipedia processes. Wikitruth characterizes "RC Patrollers," a group of Wikipedia editors who inspect recent changes in Wikipedia articles, as "a Junior Woodchuck Club" that prevents legitimate edits to Wikipedia articles [13]. Wikitruth also claims that it is easy for Wikipedia editors to "game the system" by outwardly following Wikipedia protocol [14]." Ardenn 05:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
What's your dispute with this statement? -- noosphere 05:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll get back to you on this one. Ardenn 05:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Take your time. Until then, there's no dispute. -- noosphere 05:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Just so we're clear. People are reputable sources for themselves. If someone has a website on which they say they were born in 1935, then it is allowable to source an edit to that.

From WP:RS:

"Personal websites as primary sources

A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing."

It is far preferable to have material that consists of what others have said about Wikitruth, but where that lacks, what it says about itself is acceptable under this policy.Grace Note 06:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Good find, Grace Note. -- noosphere 06:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] despite the efforts

Despite the efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation, the owner of the site could not be traced, because the domain name is registered with Domains by Proxy, Inc, a DNS registrar who masks the personal information of website owners.

This is cited by a link to the WHOIS info, but is there any evidence the foundation actually made an effort to trace this? Sounds like a storm in a teacup to me. --W(t) 05:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know of any efford on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation itself. Perhaps that should instead say "Despite the efforts of some Wikipedia editors", with a verifiable citation. The "some", of course, should be more specific if possible. -- noosphere 05:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC
It's a reasonable assumption people have looked at the whois, but I don't see that being particularly relevant. I'll have a go at fixing it, hold on. --W(t) 05:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


I've removed the original research from this. The only thing that can be sourced is that the site is registered through Proxy, Inc. Wikipedia's efforts to find out who is behind it have not yet been reported in a reputable source. Grace Note 06:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Just need to look at your userpage, Grace Note, to see who is behind it. Hey Lane. 203.122.231.195 18:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership and Editors

User:RN has just added a {{pov-section}} tag to the Ownership and Editors section [5]. The tag states, "the neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see discussion on the talk page," yet there's no such dispute on this talk page, from what I can see (this is becoming a habit). So, would RN or someone else like to tell us what the neutrality dispute consists of? If not, this tag should also be deleted. -- noosphere 06:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guardian

The Guardian..I think on 17th of April also had an article on Wikipedia and Wiki truth..perhaps something to put on the publicity? -- - K a s h Talk | email 18:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It is already mentioned. It was the story that the slashdot post was based on. Kotepho 18:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
All thanks to Andrew Orlowski, who ran the story as an intended partner with his Wikipedia Review story. Instead, however, he ran the Larry Sanger/Jimbo Wales story as the partner. There's links on WR about the whole thing. Although something tells me that Wikipedia won't allow that evidence to be used in this article. 203.122.195.111 11:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed Blissy, we won't. It's hardly a verifiable source. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this page now protected?

There is no protection notice or discussion of reasons for protection. Strongly suggest this page is unprotected straightaway. Pcb21 Pete 08:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be protected, to preserve it against vandals and further bad-faith speedy delete nominations, but the admin responsible for protecting it should immediately give the reasons for protection or provide a notice on the talk page, as is required by Wikipedia:List of protected pages#Procedure. I'm going to try to find out who protected the page and leave a message reminding the admin in question that policy is a result of community consensus and that admins do not have license to simply do as they please. Captainktainer 08:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I find it ironic that one of the things Wikitruth criticises is alleged secrecy of the "god-king" and his minions. In any case, more transparency is needed, especially in light of the Moeller and Danny tiff. Copysan 09:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The guy (Drini) who redirected the page to Criticism of Wikipedia was the guy who protected it. Silensor undid the redirect but kept the protection. There has been precious little vandalism to this page, so it should not be protected. Pcb21 Pete 10:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
It's only semi-protected. -- Gnetwerker 14:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yep but if anyone objects to me un-semi-protecting it, I'd like them to speak up soon. Pcb21 Pete 16:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok given the circumstances (originally no notice, and never any reason given for protection) I have unprotected. I am sure someone will speak up if I have done bad! Pcb21 Pete 19:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's protected again. I've requested unprotection. I'm still not entirely clear why the page is being protected. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 09:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible blacklisting notification

I'm putting this here so everyone (including, I suspect, the person[s] behind Wikitruth) knows what is going on. While it has previously been suggested that we should blacklist wikitruth (requests which I had previously denied), Doc Glascow recently pointed out that it might be legally prudent to blacklist them, in that it might help insulate the Foundation from the lawsuit that that site will inevitably generate (from parties who are not happy about Wikitruth's reposting deleted content). I've forwarded the question to the legal mailing list and the foundation's attorney, and I'm going to go with whatever they decide. Raul654 18:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the person behind Wikitruth does know. But why are you talking to yourself Seek? Raul654 = Seek = head of the cabal = head of Wikitruth. Soon to be head of Wikimedia? If only. But do you really think that you could survive a lawsuit, Raul? Or do you think that Jimbo will back down because he loves you? Big betrayal, Raul, but perhaps you went too far. 203.122.231.195 18:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
So let me get this straight - I'm Seek, and I blacklisted wikitruth not because of Brad's email, but because it's...um... a way of preventing a lawsuit against myself? So anything I do to further wikitruth's agenda is evidence that I'm behind it, and anything I do against it is evidence that I'm behind it and trying not to get sued. I'll give you credit - your theory is very creative. Unfortunately, it's also what psychologists call a self-reinforcing delusion. Raul654 18:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hehe. You're very good at Wikipedia:Gaming the system aren't you Raul? Of course, you know that you had to black list it. You just chose to be the one to do it so that people would think you were the enemy of Wikitruth. You're not likely to slip up. Its just a pity that you've got the likes of User:Grace Note and User:Snowspinner in there, who are somewhat more careless, and they've implicated you with their slip ups. I mean, at a bare minimum, Grace Note should change his user page. It practically says who is in there. And we all remember your little discussions with Grace Note about starting this. Back then it was going to be called Wikipedia Report. But you made sure that you were in charge, since Grace Note is too careless. 203.122.231.195 18:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ok, thanks for clearing that up. So there's no evidence linking wikitruth to me, which proves it has to be me, because I'm "not likely to slip up". Raul654 19:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You know, for a second there I was tempted to hop on the conspiracy theorizing bandwagon and guess this 203.122.231.195 person was someone from wikitruth trying to provide cover for his own actions... but he's not half as amusing. -- noosphere 19:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Who are the parties that threatening to sue Wikimedia Foundation because of Wikitruth? Has the Foundation received such a lawsuit notification already?! Pcb21 Pete 19:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I said that (given their reposting policy) lawsuits are inevitable, not pending. When those lawsuits do happen, the more we can dissociate ourselves from Wikitruth, the better. Blacklisting them is a good way of furthering this goal. However, as I said, I'm going to leave the blacklisting decision in the lawyers' hands. Raul654 19:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good idea. I think that a better idea is restricting admin access to deleted revisions - maybe a libel flag on revisions may help here. Also, I would like to see a view log on deleted revisions so we can see which admins are viewing the revisions. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it would help to be more transparent about why you are censoring articles, Mark. Instead of being secretive, which is very antiwiki, perhaps a notice that explained why an article had been censored would be a good idea. It seems quite clear that Wikitruth criticises the secrecy of unexplained actions rather than the necessity to avoid legal action. This whole discussion has been framed as "you have to trust Danny" but it is not a lack of trust in Danny that drives a call for transparency. There would be no need to be specific about what is considered defamatory by the Foundation's lawyers, if this is why an article has been censored: a notice could simply state that that is why the article has been pulled. The belief lingers that the reason no reason is given is that in many cases it's "they threatened to sue" rather than "there was something actionable". Grace Note 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I thought I'm being perfectly clear -- the foundation is not under suit, has nor has it been notified of any suit. However, I/we (at least Doc Glasgow and I) predict that someone will inevitably sue wikitruth (for reposting deleted content), and possibly us, and in such an event, it would be best to dissociate ourselves as much as possible. To that end, blacklisting wikitruth would be prudent. I don't know how much more plainly I can say it than that. Raul654 01:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Then black listing is not necessary in this case. To disassociate ourselves from Wikitruth the WMF could always issue a statement to this effect. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for my mis-understanding of what you wrote. We wait to hear the opinion of the legal team now that they you have asked them. I hope you are being over-pessismistic! Pcb21 Pete 06:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me, Mark. I'm not suggesting that anyone has acted against Wikipedia. I'm suggesting that if articles have been pulled for legal reasons, we could be told that. As for blacklisting, I think it's an option that should be seriously considered if the legal team feel action against Wikitruth would involve us but I hope you won't consider it necessary if they do not. I feel uncomfortable with using the blacklist to prevent people from passing from here to critics, which is how it looks if there is not very good cause for blacklisting them, however distasteful you or I might find them. The usual considerations for links should of course apply though. Grace Note 10:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Brad Patrick (Foundation attorney) has notified me that, after reading m:Talk:Spam blacklist (and, I suspect, Prodego's comment in particular), he has decided that Wikitruth constitutes a legal risk and has recommended it be blacklisted. I have done so. As far as "pulling article" for legal reasons, that's Danny's department. I have my own thoughts on that, but I'm keeping them to myself. Raul654 20:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be extremely helpful if Brad's comments were public to the every extent possible. Pcb21 Pete 21:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Talk to him at User talk:BradPatrick, if need be. It wouldn't be prudent to post an e-mail from Brad without Brad's explicit permission, so I suspect Raul654 just summarized it. Ral315 (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The current black-list entry[6] appears to have an error; all other entries have back-slashes before the dots. But as others have noted, once this black-list is in place, there will be little else to do but to delete the entire wikitruth.info article, since no direct references will be possible. Whatever. I'll only make one comment and then retire to my cameras and tape recorders: the whole business of "no linking for legal reasons" is a "locking the barn door after the horses have left" situation. It accomplishes a big, fat, zero in the grand scheme of things, since (as wikitruth.info demonstrates), the potentially actionable information is leaking out of wikipedia through another channel that wikimedia has failed to control in any way. So while you admins and the rest are running around in a panic about links and blacklists and generally making yourselves look more foolish than you probably are, you ignore the real threat to your Foundation: failure to secure your internal networks, enforce rational policies, lack of monitoring your admins, etc. Ironically, this is exactly the message of wikitruth.info, if only you could open your eyes and read it. mdf 00:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the ignorant question, but what does "blacklisting" mean in this context? -- noosphere 03:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It means add the website url to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist , so no one can edit the Wikitruth web site's url into any wikipedia or wikimedia web pages. Foo bar 03:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I thought the intended purpose of the blacklist was for spam? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it is. I haven't seen Wikitruth spammed around the site. Well, outside of the discussion that invariably followed it's creation. Even if it's getting spammed, block the spammers first, and if it becomes too widespread, then use the blacklist. Blacklist shouldn't be the first choice.--Toffile 05:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Though if it's getting added to the blacklist for legal reasons, perhaps we need another blacklist. I'm concerned that adding a site to a blacklist for legal reasons may cause troubles on other wikis. Just because the Foundation says we can't link to it, doesn't mean that non-Foundation wiki's can't...I may be wrong, but unless it's configured, the spam blacklist on MediaWiki is the default for anyone who takes that add-on for another wiki. No need for other sites to get caught in the crossfire.--Toffile 05:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I made that very suggestion (i.e. to have a separate blacklist for "problem" sites, as opposed to spam sites) elsewhere. Of course it is another matter which sites, if any, should go on that list, but it is dubious to abuse the spam list to hide criticism/possible legal probems. Pcb21 Pete 06:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The extension does download the list from meta by default. Probably best to have seperate lists, but there are a couple of spam blacklist changes already in the works to reduce the dependence on REs. Kotepho 20:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
How will having wikitruth.info be on a blacklist affect this article? Will the wikitruth URL still be allowed to be mentioned in this article itself? It seems like it'd be relevant and appropriate to have links to that site in this article, doesn't it? -- noosphere 18:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There is already a replacement for the spam blacklist in the works (ask Tim about it), but for now we must use the same blacklist for everything. Not a huge problem; who would want to link to wikitruth anyway? silsor 20:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't think that links to wikitruth are relevant to this article? -- noosphere 20:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
No, he is saying that the will of the editors is no longer relevant, and that these desisions will henceforth be made by people who know what is best for us. - O^O 22:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually I was referring to the concern about other sites sourcing our blacklist. silsor 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiTruth.Info Has Been Added To The Spam BlackList

meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#wikitruth_again

This article is not editable unless you remove the wikitruth.info url from this article. Foo bar 22:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have repaired the article so that it is editable until this issue can be resolved through community consensus. - O^O 22:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL, nice circumvention :p 67.70.59.190 22:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Was wikitruth.info's addition to the spam blacklist a WP:OFFICE action? -- noosphere 23:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
No, merely a "the lawyer thinks this will help us not be sued"-type action. Raul654 23:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Good plan, Raul. You add them to the spam black list, and then nobody will realise that you are the person behind Wikitruth. Should I call you Seek? Or is that too obvious? And you should ask Snowspinner to change his username again. He's becoming too well known as Nibbler now, that the whole Phil Sandifer username isn't working. Ah well. Good luck with the whole usurping Jimbo thing. If its going to work, it'll work because of you. You da man! What they need is a really good expert liar like you. Raul, head of the cabal. Raul, head of Wikitruth. Now all you need is Raul, head of Wikimedia. How are you going to get Jimbo to resign though? Just pray he doesn't sue you. 203.122.231.195 18:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that what WP:OFFICE is for? -- noosphere 23:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
No, wp:Office is for (surprisingly enough) actions taken by people in the Foundation Office (read - Danny), typically in response to comments/complaints we recieve from outside. This is not that. Raul654 23:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
But the deleted pages wikitruth is hosting were, presumably, deleted in response to comments/complaints Wikipedia recieved from outside, so it appears that the listing of wikitruth on the spam blacklist is a further development of that and thus a WP:OFFICE action by proxy.
Anyway, regardless of how this action was authorized I hope you realize that the effect will be that much of this article will have to be deleted since wikitruth.info will no longer be able to be cited (without using a workaround such as tinyurl nevermind, looks like tinyurl is also on the spam blacklist). -- noosphere 23:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
A related question: is linking to the Guardian article legally acceptible? It links to wikitruth, which hosts the deleted content. -- noosphere 00:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. The whole legal argument seems spurious to me. I can't understand how the WMF Attorney would have agreed that it was necessary to add them to the blacklist. I would like to take the opportunity to point out that a judge is most likely going to ask us why we allowed content to be copied to another website in the first place, regardless of whether we have stopped allowing external links to the Wikitruth website. I might also note that the blacklist isn't really working, considering that we have had to add a hack to get around providing links to the site itself. The whole thing is clearly absurd. The only reason they should have been added to the spam blacklist was if they were, *gasp*, spamming! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The legal argument is spurious... but lawyers can get spurious things to happen sometimes. Ashibaka tock 03:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Which is why Brad Patrick must make a statement on this. For something as important as blacklisting a critic site on "legal" grounds, going through the filter of Raul (who is by no means a fan of Wikitruth) is not sufficient. Pcb21 Pete 07:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Any users who knowingly circumvent the spamblacklist will be blocked from editing. --Gmaxwell 02:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why stop there, why not just delete the article all together if the attornies really think this poses such a great threat? Silensor 03:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Shrugs. My comment wasn't related to my views on that matter.. It's just unacceptable to circumvent the spamblacklist. I fully expect that this will eventually be deleted, but not because of legal issues.. but because giving this an article of it's own is a violation of no self reference, and a shining example of systemic bias (we think it's notable enough to have it's own article only because it's about *us*, stuff about other people at this low a notability level barely gets mentioned most of the time). --Gmaxwell 03:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Not to rehash what's already been amply covered in the deletion debate, but wikitruth is notable not because it's about Wikipedia, but because it's gotten lots of attention via the Guardian, Register, and Slashdot articles.
As for your comment regarding "no self reference", WP:SELF is a guideline, not a policy. So, violating it is not grounds for deletion.
Furthermore, if you read the reasons given for avoiding self-references they are primarily, that "self-references are often considered disruptive in an encyclopedia because they distract from the topic at hand." This obviously does not apply to this article because the topic at hand is wikitruth and their criticisms of and interactions with Wikipedia. So mentioning Wikipedia would not be distracting in the least.
In fact, if you look at the examples that WP:SELF uses and their elaboration on what they mean by self-reference it's clear that they're primarily aimed at references to Wikipedia in articles that have nothing to do with Wikipedia, and for which referencing Wikipedia would simply be irrelevant... things like "do not refer to the fact that the page can be edited" and don't use ther term "click here".
The second reason given for the guideline is that "self-references limit the use of Wikipedia as an open source encyclopedia suitable for forking," obviously because referring to that page's history, or saying things like "you are reading this page on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" may be useless or misleading in a fork that either doesn't have the page history feature or isn't called Wikipedia.
Also, WP:SELF says "Put simply, this policy is about remembering that the goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, not merely to perpetuate itself, so the articles produced should be useful even outside the context of the project used to create it." Referencing Wikipedia from within the wikitruth article does not limit the usefulness of the article outside Wikipedia itself. Quite the contrary, it makes the article more usefull. For, what kind of article about wikitruth would this be if it didn't even mention the whole focus of wikitruth or what wikitruth said? It would be a mostly empty article, and therefore much less useful than this one, which thoroughly describes what wikitruth is about.
And besides, even WP:SELF itself states that "Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia." So trying to use WP:SELF as a reason to delete the wikitruth article really goes both against the spirit and the letter of that policy itself. -- noosphere 05:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Systematic bias it may be. But the answer to that is improve and increase the coverage in deficient areas not delete content in proficient ones! Noosphere is completely correct that it is bogus to invoke WP:SELF. Pcb21 Pete 07:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I highly commend the concept of pre-emptive censoring using spam tools. It's a total validation of the concept of making information freely disseminable, and really should be a charter plank in Wikipedia's basic policies and platform. Only thing is, I don't think you guys have taken the idea far enough. Really, any entity that might possibly cause legal action, no matter how tenuous a chain of thought it takes to get to that conclusion, should be placed on the spam blacklist as well. For example, we should add the *.gov domain to the blacklist; we don't want individuals accidentally linking to a top-secret website. Pass the word along to the other language Wikipedias, too, to do the same with their host countries' government. Microsoft and Apple have shown themselves to be fairly litigious; we should probably add them as well. Anyone who's sued users or sent out cease-and-desist letters over deep-linking to specific web pages within their website; well, we don't want to run the risk of that happening on Wikipedia, so let's add them. Oh, and that brings up a good point. Cease-and-desist letters. We should probably make sure Chilling Effects gets that article deleted, since they reprint cease-and-desist letters; we don't want to be linking to them. And, god, the entire Scientology series of articles really needs to go, for obvious reasons. And, frankly, I'm sure if we opened the discussion, we could think of other possible things to add to the blacklist. Really, guys, great concept, bad implemenation -- we really need to censor things much more than you initially considered. But really, though, good start! I was worried about you guys for a while. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 12:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. Rarely have I read something so cutting or so true. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Hell, why is any deletion always called 'censorship'. Hardly, it isn't exactly hard for anyone to find the damn site. As for those who disagree with the legal advice, and think it is over cautious: will they offer to sign a personal bond (backed with real cash - or a mortgage) indemnifying the Foundation for damages and legal costs in the eventuality that the legal advice is correct, and their own turns out to be wrong? Sure, lawyers are over-cautious, but it sensible to risk millions of dollars for the ability to click a link rather than type it in? Bold words of 'ignore this danger', are coming from people with nothing personally to lose.
Plus there are moral considerations, we had probable libels on our site, we have removed material we believe to be libelous, now we should take all resonable steps within our power to limmit the publication and further dissemmination of that material. Some people were adding direct links to libelous content into wikipedia - to fail to take all reasonable steps to prevent that could well be negligent.--Doc ask? 12:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Doc, the problem here is that we aren't securing our deleted revisions. They surely shouldn't publish them, but then, neither should we give them a chance to publish them. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. But given that they have published them, and we have indirectly enabled them to do so, we should now take all possible steps to limmit the damage of that publication. But, my legal training is very rusty, so if you think I'm wrong take it up with the lawyer, there is little point in us arguing here. --Doc ask? 13:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Doc, naturally people can find the wikitruth site themselves. They can also find all the rest of the websites Wikipedia has articles on. Does that mean every Wikipedia article about a website should be deleted? The same reasoning would lead you to delete every other article about which information can be found independently of Wikipedia.
I normally wouldn't stress this point, as it should be self evident to most every editor of Wikipedia, but having articles even on topics that people can research themselves is useful... a Wikipedia article can consolidate and structure information, and present it in a NPOV way that may be not available when going to the primary sources themselves. So yes, I would call deletion of useful information that otherwise complies with Wikipedia policies censorship. -- noosphere 23:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
WCityMike, that was an inspired illustration of just how absurd this line of thinking is. Quite funny too.  :) Thank you. -- noosphere 23:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article should be merged

THis article shoudl be merged and redirected to Criticism of wikipedia. We don't do self-referential articles, and particularly one on such a non-notable website. Merge this to two sentences on the Criticism article. We are now gettign to the ridiculous level of writing an article's content based on a post here, and a spam blacklisting there. --Doc ask? 14:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"NON NOTABLE" -- THE COVERALL EXCUSE FOR ALL DELETION! NICE 1 Doc Glasgow

www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Doublespeak#Yes.2C_We_know_it_is_impossible_to_read --Seoul Jjang 15:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Propose it for AfD, then, with your vote being for merge and redirect. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 14:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
NO, because I don't want it delted (that's what the 'D' in AfD means). Decisions to merge are made by talkpage discussion, that's what I'm insigating here. --Doc ask? 14:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I suggest a merge is not necessary. There is plenty of verifiable content for this to remain standalone.
It is of course fine to have this conversation again, but may I remind you that such a redirect was discussed at a very recent point (on the AfD page) and most editors didn't like the idea. Not much has changed since then.
It is also mildly amusing that you suggest that we shouldn't do self-referential articles, yet in the same breath suggest expanding just such an article :-). Pcb21 Pete 14:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Can't see why the merge is necessary, personally. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Really, Doc? The 'D' in AfD stands for 'delted'? Good to know. Thanks for clarifying that for me. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 14:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The incivility isn't required. --Gmaxwell 15:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
His initial condescension wasn't required, either. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge discussion is at Talk:Criticism_of_wikipedia as per the notice. --Gmaxwell 15:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait. Why was this straw poll unilaterally deleted from this talk page? You do realise that the people interested in wikitruth are more likely to look at the talk page for the wikitruth article than they are at the Criticisms of Wikipedia article, don't you? -- noosphere 22:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semiprotected

No links to the wikitruth site are permitted on the article, on legal advice by the Foundation's attorney. Please respect this and do not try to circumvent it by use of intermediate sites. I have semiprotected this article following a number of attempts to circumvent this bar. --Tony Sidaway 14:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As I stated further up the page, it would be extremely helpful to get more detail than a hidden email from Raul to Brad, and then a pronouncement from Raul. Otherwise we will have to put up with childish behaviour from people creating workaround links and all the encompassing hassle (semiprotecting, banning people etc) that comes with it. How much time should we allow for such detail to be provided? Pcb21 Pete 14:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

They will never provide detail, it is forget.

"Tony is hostile towards others and abuses his position as an administrator to push his own POV" Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway_2 + Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway_1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seoul Jjang (talk • contribs).

I believe that User:dannyisme speaks for the foundation. If this is a foundation made decision, it will be trivial for him to make the edit clarifying that and end this squabbling and speculation. - O^O
Stop trolling. Please, Tony Sidaway and Raul are trusted members of this community, they are not liars. Please assume good faith, and less of the ad hominem and personal attacks. --Doc ask? 16:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Just for clarification, Dr. Glasgow, the "Tony is hostile..." text was added by Seoul Jjang, not O^O, as can be evidenced by the differing skills in the English language. However, I would respectfully counter that referring to citations to Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures does not qualify as trolling, and, indeed, calling an editor a troll is in and of itself, I would suggest, a violation of both WP:AGF and WP:NPA. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, in this edit, O^O implicitely called me a liar (by saying that there's no evidence the lawyers have said what I have said that they said.) Raul654 16:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I have asked User:dannyisme to comment here. Hopefully he will also clarify whether individuals other than he can speak as to Wikimedia Foundation counsel opinions. Considering that violating such counsel opinions is an insta-ban/insta-block, I think it's important to know when people are speaking with The Voice of WikiGod. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 16:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


Numerous questions come from your post:
1:Where is it documented that violating a counsel opinion is ground for a block? Counsel has a duty to express opinion to the foundation, but it is up to the foundation to choose whether to act on those opinions.
2:Clearly, any user can claim they are acting on behalf of the foundation. To eliminate confusion, the User:dannyisme account was created in order to specifically act on behalf of the foundation. Is someone now proposing that we have an entire class of users who are to be presumed to have foundation authority?
This is a fact: Neither the foundation, nor any known authorized agent of the foundation, has publically approved using the spam blocklist in this manner. Neither the foundation, nor any known authorized agent of the foundation, has publically approved banning users who act to override this unauthorized use of the spam blocklist. - O^O

Hi. I am looking into the precise details before I or make a statement. Please bear with me. Thanks. :-) Danny 16:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Danny; as you are the only user chartered to act as the voice of the foundation, you are probably the only person who can confirm that counsel has advised using the blocklist in this manner and the foundation has decided to follow counsel's advise. - O^O
I don't know why people are trying to reframe the debate. Nobody has claimed this was a foundation action, and (in fact) I have already, on this very page, explicitely stated that this is not. I did say, however, that the Foundation's attorney thinks blacklisting wikitruth would be a good idea, and that people should probably not undo it unless they have a darned good reason.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to express my strong belief that the whole "insta-block" mentality (mentioned by WCityMike) is inherently bad. People should have the good sense to realize that when something says "the foundation's attorney says to leave it like this" they probably shouldn't undo it; by the same token, if someone does undo it, but supplies a prima-facea reason why, it should not result in an instant ban (although edit warring probably should). Both of these mentalities go directly against the idea of the wiki-way, of civil discourse, 'etc. Raul654 16:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
My own response to your commentary, Raul: as a common editor, I have encountered no documentation, notices, or commentary anywhere that suggests that administrators even had the ability to consult, obtain, and disseminate nonbinding opinions from the Wikimedia Foundation's counsel. If this is the case, this needs to be wiki-clarified for the Wiki-public at Wiki-large. Secondly, it has been drummed into our collective heads rather hard by Mr. Wales himself that violating a WP:OFFICE action is going to get your hindquarters permanently kicked off of Wikipedia. Thus, this creation of a new "class" of counsel involvement where opinions are consulted and provided but are not in and of themselves binding is ambiguous, undocumented, and in need of clarification when you are dealing with the collective of Wikipedia editors that exist. When the penalties for violating a DannyDirective are so high, you don't want to create any nebulousness when it comes to messages from the Wikimedia Foundation. Now, I'm not personally a fan of this initial setup at all. But I'm also not foolish enough to think that anyone at all can alter this new WP:OFFICE policy. So, we live with it. But we don't let the exercise of it be nebulous. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 16:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, Raul has clarified that this is not a foundation action (yet), and since this is a high-traffic article (ATM) it should only be protected in extreme cases. Therefore, I've unprotected - and curse the mediawiki software for cutting off my unprotect message :\. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 20:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
How wierd. Wikipedia's counsel is worried about a legal problem if Wikipedia links to Wikitruth? From whom? Wikitruth? They presumably want to be linked to. And court decisions favor deep linking. Even in the Ticketmaster case, the court declined to prohibit "deep linking", even though it bypassed ads. I don't think any court has ever penalized anyone for "deep linking", although there have been lawsuits. Here's an overview on decisions in linking lawsuits. [7]. --John Nagle 18:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The rationale is that if there's a good chance that wikitruth will get sued over the deleted content that they're hosting, then Wikimedia will want to pre-emptively "distance" itself from wikitruth so it doesn't also get sued (for indirectly providing access to the deleted content). That's my take on it, anyway. -- noosphere 19:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I've protected because the insertion of material continued. This isn't a game. --Tony Sidaway 17:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be waiting for Danny to respond? See above. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 17:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
No need - somebody claimed that someone made a secret decision that it should be removed. I don't know why you can't just shut up and accept that. Why do you hate freedom so much? 216.99.217.92 19:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
If it was secret, how would you know? Wikipedia is a private website/forum. We give you all the software you need to start your own, and you can even use the data from here. People have worked hard so you'd have the ability to do that... So why do you complain? --Gmaxwell 19:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the old "love it or leave it" argument. To which I counter "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." Assuming good faith, criticism of what you view to be wrong is the first step towards setting it right.
I've worked hard on Wikipedia myself, but I don't agree with everything that goes on on it. Does that mean I should just shut up or go start my own encyclopedia? That I'm not allowed to point out where I think the system falters and how it can be improved? What happened to AGF, civility, and working towards consensus? Why are editors even asked and encouraged to state their opinions if all you want to hear is some kind of party line and quash dissent by resorting "love it or leave it"-type arguments? -- noosphere 23:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
One presumes that's the royal "we", Gmaxwell, because so far as I know, you're just another editor, unless I missed your elevation to God-Prince. Perhaps you could consider toning down the aggression. People are concerned and puzzled. They don't need to be snapped at.Grace Note 07:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
We is me and Gmaxwell. Although I guess it's also a royal we, seeing as to my hegemonic status. --Cyde Weys 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the software was yours to give, Cyde, although if you're meaning to say that you're yet another editor who I should regret supporting for adminship, you're probably right. -- GN.

[edit] Removed from blacklist (for now)

In an effort to stave off these useless edit wars I've removed it from the blacklist for now until there is something more concrete that people can agree on. So please, please settle down until we get some definate word from the foundation or whatever the buerocracy is now. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 21:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What part of "this was cleared with the foundation attorney" do you fail to understand? In any case, it's not. I can't believe you just reverted that without discussing in advance. Why are you admined if you can't be trusted to behave responsibly? --Gmaxwell 22:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Harsh and unfair. Do you know what the Wikimedia Attorney has said? If so, please quote it to me. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
You're being too obvious, TBSDY. You have to pretend that you're not involved in Wikitruth. Best way to do that is not to comment here. What will the rest of the cabal think? You've gone and blown their cover. 203.122.231.195 18:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, the only thing I'll say here is please assume good faith. I did what I believed was right and in line with existing policy. I believe I have followed existing policy here well, including WP:1RR for admin powers and the various incarnations. Thank you for your critique although I would have preferred a lighter demeanor, as this is undully stressing. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 22:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added To BlackList Again

It has been added to spam blacklist again. AmicasCurie 22:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've protected because the reverting has gotten out of hand. Please discuss the issue on talk and let me know when you're ready to unprotect. To any admin thinking of unprotecting, I'd appreciate it if you'd discuss it with me first. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Slim. Which Wikitruth account is yours, by the way? Its difficult to figure out which one is you and which is Grace Note. Is Lane you? Or is that Grace Note? Or are you just sitting on the sides e-mailing things in? Good luck trying to take over Wikipedia, by the way. I don't think people will fall for this. You're running out of legitimate criticism to blatantly copy and pretend is the point of the site. 203.122.231.195 18:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I actually don't much mind it being added to the blacklist. What I do mind is that it will effectively censor this article, since we'll (probably sooner than later) be forced to delete all uncited claims (ie. claims which form the bulk of this article and are presently cited from the primary source, which is wikitruth.. but which we'll have to delete per the blacklist, making the claims uncited and themselves subject to deletion).
The ironic thing is that the claims themselves are clearly verifiable, as can be seen by anyone who bothers to click on the existing wikitruth citations... but because of this legalistic bs and the technicalities of WP:V we'll be forced to delete perfectly verifiable claims, which will effectively kill an otherwise perfectly good article. -- noosphere 22:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
You don't need clickable links for citations to be verifiable. You can cite books as well you know, and you can't click on those either. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
If the links were allowed to remain in their "unclickable" state, I'd have no problems with it. However, given the legal justifications we've been given for the blacklisting I can't imagine they would be allowed to remain, since Wikipedia would still be facilitating the access of the deleted information. -- noosphere 23:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Besides, people have already started deleting the blacklisted wikitruth links. Take a look at this edit for example. -- noosphere 23:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the latest wheel war

If you admins aren't careful, you'll end up verifying everything that these turkeys have been saying. Yeesh. -- Gnetwerker 23:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I think I was the only one who reverted an admin here, which I take full responsability for. Besides that I don't see a wheel war here, just a civil disagreement. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 23:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Civil disagreement, plus some trolling here and there (not RN, but the person who told me I couldn't comment because wikitruth had mentioned me). --Gmaxwell 23:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't care what you call it but it is total lulz. Kotepho 23:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... perhaps you need to read our wheel war article? 'Cause I don't see one occuring here. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's see: protects, semi-protects, unprotects, URLs being put on, taken off, and again put on the SPAM list -- I know I can't do any of that stuff. And it certainly is preventing normal people from improving and editing the article. Oh, and the lawyers (meta-wheels?) weighing in? Call it what you will. -- Gnetwerker 05:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The protection looks all in order to me. Anyone can take off or readd a URL (at least, before it was added to the Spam Blacklist), so I can't see your point there. No admin can add the links back in the article now, so URL removal is not even an admin wheel war issue now either. Adding Wikitruth.info to the Spam Blacklist is certainly disruptive, but again this is not a wheel war issue as there aren't admins adding then removing the link. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-namespace wikilinks

Please stop changing external links to wikilinks, you are making Cyde mad. Kotepho 23:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The RfD on tis article is completely unsubstantiated.

the RfD on this article is bullshit. This website has gained great traffic and notariaty since being slashdotted, and has shed some... dare i say... interesting facts on the goings on in wikipedia. It certanly is NOT a spam site. it is a watchdog group dedicated to reporting any corruption within the wikipedia ranks. what the hell is wrong with that?

This is one dragon who will be adding this article to his watch list. --NightDragon 05:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Foundation Lawyer Brad Patrick

His userpage is here ;D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BradPatrick
His e-mail adress is bpatrick@fowlerwhite.com
Dynomites 06:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

His Wikitruth userpage is here ;D www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Brad_Patrick Xsease 10:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the policies say

I can't get involved in this debate because I protected the page, but in case it helps, here are some thoughts about what policy allows. The website appears to be notable enough, because there are third-party sources available (WP:V and WP:NOR), but because it's a self-published website, and maintained by private individuals of unknown reliability, we're allowed to use the website only as a source of information on itself (WP:V and WP:RS), so long as the material we take from it is "notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources." (Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves)

We're not allowed to use it as a source of information on anyone or anything else (WP:V and WP:RS). V is clear on this point: "Self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them ... A Wikipedia article about an unreliable newspaper should not — on the grounds of needing to give examples of their published stories — repeat any claims the newspaper has made about third parties, unless the stories have been published by other credible third-party sources." (Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves)

As for how to source it if the link isn't allowed, sources don't have to be online. You can use a regular citation style, such as "Title of page," Wikitruth Info, retrieved April 28, 2006, without having to link to the site or give the URL. That might be an acceptable compromise.

I'd also like to ask that people treat each other with respect. If Raul says the lawyer expressed a certain view, then he did, so I hope the debate can move forward on that basis. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Did the attorney say this? I'm not so certain. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
That policy page section seriously needs to be reworded. The writing is so contorted! And it appears to ban things that common sense suggests would be entirely reasonable. Pcb21 Pete 07:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On wikitruth

I checked out the wikitruth website today. It has 9 example of censorship. And, for what it's worth, here are my comments:

  • 1. 1.800.vending. I agree with WT, links to gov sites should have remained
  • 2. Alan Dershowitz the WT crit is out of date
  • 3. Ashida Kim WT out of date
  • 4. Brian Chase I partially agree.
  • 5. Brian Peppers – agree WT but no big deal and I don’t know full story
  • 6. Jack Thompson WT out of date
  • 7. Justin Berry we've solved it
  • 8. Paul Barresi WT out of date
  • 9. Stephen Schwartz . WT out of date

    It gets a low 1.5 marks out of 9 on my scoring. Mccready 11:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

    But who cares about what you think? Dynomites 09:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    I can add comments only on what I know a bit about, and that is:
    3. Ashida Kim - was censored, is now uncensored, but SHOULD be censored, in my opinion at least, and a better criticism would be why isn't Wikipedia using WP:OFFICE to protect this guy from stalking.
    4. Brian Chase - was correctly censored by Wikipedia. He was notable, is no longer notable, and his privacy needs to be protected. Why are we upset at "censorship" over this? Everyone at Wikipedia knows the deal, and censoring it doesn't stop that. The issue is protecting him from more widespread long-term harassment and damage to his professional reputation.
    5. Brian Peppers - was quite correctly censored by Wikipedia. The guy had his name smeared (not to mention his physical disability) all over the internet. While this is being done on unreputable smear sites it doesn't really hurt him, but when it leaks in to Wikipedia, which is a reputable source, it is not good for him. Whether he is a sex offender or not is irrelevant. The guy is being made fun of because of a disability. This is discrimination, and should not be tolerated anywhere. Wikipedia did the right thing in deleting the article.
    8. Paul Barresi - on this case I 100% agree with Wikitruth that it should not have been censored, and Wikipedia did the wrong thing here. However, Wikipedia have since corrected this error, and it is no longer censored.
    So, of the 4 that I know a bit about, Wikitruth got it wrong 4 out of 4 times. Given that these censorship issues are the crux of the web site, I have to wonder about the overall validity of the site. I mean, let's get things straight - WP:OFFICE is imperfect, and the indef block on User:Eloquence was a fine example of why it is bad. But it is also important to have it in a lot of ways.
    As for their general criticisms of Wikipedia, they are great in a lot of ways. One problem though is that they are all things we've heard before. We've heard of them from Andrew Orlowski's columns, from User:Lir's Criticism of Wikipedia, and of course from the Wikipedia critics forum that keeps on being advertised care of the spam blacklist. Wikitruth is in many ways a spin off of Wikipedia Review, a way to do it better. And at least according to them, they have it on good authority that the person behind Wikitruth is User:Grace Note, backed up by some high profile administrators here.
    So why are we tolerating this web site or the abusive editors who are destroying Wikipedia? Does Wikitruth really help anyone? It's like a car wreck. You go along to watch the damage, you love that someone has taken photos of the wreckage. But in the end it is not helping at all really, and what is left is wreckage, something that needs to be cleaned up and sorted out. The double bluff that they used "Delete the Wikitruth" should not be something we fall for. Like Brian Chase, this article should be deleted, given a month or two, as it will very soon be very much non-notable. Depending of course on how well the court case against them goes. And please Wikipedia, I hope that you are just spending this time preparing your case against them. Don't know the identities of who is behind Wikitruth? It doesn't matter. A lawsuit will flush them out. 203.122.231.195 16:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    Once notable on the web, always notable; encyclopedias record what is past as well as what is current. Furthermore, deleting articles because the fact of their existence is "mean" is indeed a form of POV-pushing. By the way, am I correct in seeing that you're suggesting a SLAPP against Wikitruth? Because that's kind of low.
    By the way, you said it isn't helping at all. On the contrary: it has helped me to be far more vigilant on AfD and DRV, knowing how strong the deletionist tendency on Wikipedia is; it has also induced me to be far more skeptical of administrator actions, given some of the problems documented on the site with some administrators. I don't think I'm alone in this.Captainktainer 17:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    Wikitruth is not a critic site. If it was, I wouldn't be so worried. Critic sites help Wikipedia. Sites which blatantly copy information from a critic site, then claim it as their own, all so as to usurp a site, are not things to be supported. Wikitruth is run by the cabal. You know who the cabal is, don't you? Why, they are writing on this very talk page. Ask them why they started Wikitruth. Was it to criticise Wikipedia? No, it was so that they could kick Jimbo out of Wikipedia and take over control. They just want your support in doing this, so that they can pretend that they are heroes. Wikipedia fell for it by banning and censoring actual criticism. Actual critics recognise that this is not a critic site. 203.122.231.195 18:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    How is wikitruth "destroying Wikipedia"? Talk about overwrought hyperbole. -- noosphere 18:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Wikitruth: republishing libel against rape victims

    I don't want to mention the name of the victim, but if you go through their uncensored list you will see they republished libellous material about the rape victim of the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal. This is the sort of website we have here. I suspect that if they continue to publish this information they will get sued sooner or later, or, ironically, have to remove the "uncensored" content from their site.

    Wikitruth: libelling rape victims. Way to go. I'll bet they feel proud! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

    You need to prefix "rape victim" with "alleged". (This note can be removed when done). Pcb21 Pete 15:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    And? I'm not doing that. The article shouldn't be on the site at all during a rape trial. And it was created to make her look bad. That's an attempt to blame the rape victim: disgusting behaviour. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    He doesn't have to prefix it with alleged, he's not a news reporter. --Cyde Weys 01:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    Didn't realise not being a news reporter made you immune to the law! Pcb21 Pete 10:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    No, but it does restrict the number of laws that apply to you. Rape shield laws (which include provisions about labelling someone a rape victim) apply strictly to journalists. He's free to label without fear of being politically correct as he wishes, within reasonable limits. First Amendment protections apply. Captainktainer 11:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    Ok I take it back and apologise for assuming something about American law.
    It is amusing how you take the notion of presumption of innoncence until proven guilty to be "politically correct". I thought PCness was a modern thing, not dating back to the Magna Carta! Pcb21 Pete 12:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    Within the legal system, I agree that it is necessary and part of a long tradition. However, if a person believes that the evidence (even if not admissible in or appropriate forcourt) is sufficient, I think it's acceptable to make a claim. Anyway, I've gone on far too long on a topic completely tangential to writing an article about Wikitruth :-) Captainktainer 18:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Protected pages

    A reminder to all admins: while a page is protected it should not be editted. I have reverted until it is unprotected. As I'm involved, I can't unprotect. I would like to ask another uninvolved admin to unprotect this article. I'd also like to point out that Wikitruth.info is no longer on the spam black list - Ta bu shi da yu 04:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

    Uhh ... Wikitruth.info is on the Spam Blacklist upon recommendation of the Foundation's attorney. --Cyde Weys 04:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

    It is still blacklisted. You missed one of the links anyways Cyde. Kotepho 04:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)
    Well I'll get 'em all then. Soon as Tabu lets me edit :-/ Cyde Weys 04:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    WP:RFPP is over that way as I don't think たぶしだゆ is going to unprotect. Kotepho 04:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    I'll unprotect the page if everyone is agreed, but can I ask what you're all intending to do about the link? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    GMaxwell has already threatened to block anyone that circumvents the blacklist again. What more needs to be done? You can file it under "disruption" from WP:BP. Kotepho 05:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    My interest regarding this specific matter extends exclusively to the protection of the site. It's not acceptable for users to exploit security vulnerabilities in our software. As far as I know (haven't looked closely) the version tabu left did not exploit any vulnerabilities in mediawiki and thus isn't materially related to my warning. --Gmaxwell 05:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    It did actually. The link to the Hammered entry was a live link still. Kotepho 06:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    It needs to be gotten rid of, obviously. It was put on the blacklist on recommendation of the Foundation's attorney. That doesn't mean nothing. I'm unprotecting. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    CW, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't do that. I said above that I'll unprotect it so long as an agreement has been reached. Without an agreement, it'll only end up needing to be protected again. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    Well, so much for mutual respect among admins. Clyde, you're involved in the dispute. Don't protect or unprotect it again, please. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

    Ugh, somebody wants this thing protected so it looks better for their POV. Of course they're just going to deny they were these sockpuppets. --Cyde Weys 06:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Possible solution?

    Create a subpage at Wikitruth/website location and move all the links (and therefore the dispute) there. The sub-page can be nommed for deletion, re-created, or whatever, but it'll move the dispute out of the main article so people can actually write. (A silly proposal, admittedly, it's mostly to get the ball rolling.) Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 05:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

    What is currently preventing people from writing, Tlogmer? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    D'oh! Sorry, I didn't realize it'd been changed. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 09:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

    Don't do any radical shifting quite yet - Wikitruth may yet be removed from the spam list (just give it a bit of time). Raul654 16:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Created by User:Wik

    User:Andreis/wt was the first home of the Wikitruth.info article. User:Andreis is a sock puppet of User:Wik, as confirmed by CheckUser. Therefore Wikitruth was created by Wik. This is from Wikitruth's own article (on User:Woohookitty actually). They've been sloppy. They've gone ahead and implicated themselves, and now we know who at least one of their members is. We also know that that first version of Wikitruth was spam, and that it was the intention for Wikitruth to be added to the spam blacklist, because they know that that would only serve to advertise it, and promote their view of censorship. Similarly, we know that they want this article to be deleted, for the same reasons. They want to be thought of as martyrs, so that they can get away with this.

    What people need to remember is that Wikitruth isn't created by critics of Wikipedia. It is created by administrators. Sure, Wik is an administrator who is now banned, but they have proven that they are administrators there. They aren't there to complain about Wikipedia. They are there to complain that they don't have as much power as they wish they did. They are upset with WP:OFFICE because it strips them of power. Because WP:OFFICE stops the cabal. Wikitruth is there to usurp Jimbo and destroy Wikipedia. The vast majority of their criticisms are blatant copies of Wikipedia Review articles, and why they copied them is obvious: because they have been censored off of Wikipedia, and most people won't recognise the copying, and think that Wikitruth is a critic site. Its not. Wikipedia Review is. And the two sites don't like each other.

    Look for the people who tried to ban Wikipedia Review, and its members, who called them trolls and neo nazis, and you can see who is behind Wikitruth. Look at Wik, and also at User:Grace Note. Then look at the administrators who are supporting them, at the cabal. Then you will see who is in Wikitruth.

    Or if you'd prefer, you could just sue them, and their names will come out in the court case. 203.122.231.195 18:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

    Your collusion theory is simular to this wacky theory--Nick Dillinger 19:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

    Alternatively, 203.122.231.195, they might just be a bunch of cheesed-off users and administrators who are complaining about real and imagined abuse and faults. By the way, I gather from your contributions that you're a contributor to Wikipedia Review. Since I'm not allowed to register there, please advise them that they are not GFDL-compliant and that they are not permitted to copy my contributions, as I have not dual-licensed under Creative Commons Share-Alike.Captainktainer 23:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    They switched to GFDL about a week and a half ago. "Content is available under GFDL (Some photos Creative Commons)." from their mainpage.  ALKIVAR™ 04:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    Wikitruth did, yes. I'm not sure why he is ranting about Wikipedia Review though. Kotepho 04:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    I was indeed referring to Wikipedia Review, which has been copying over portions of Wikipedia content into non-GFDL pages. Somewhat ironic that they should do that and rant about how Wikitruth "stole" material from their site. I felt I should point out that they really didn't have a leg to stand on with regard to content supposedly copied from Wikipedia Review when they can't even abide by the simple terms of the GFDL. Captainktainer 06:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    Hmmm, annoying to be sure. However, if they are using your material for criticism, I think they are very safe under fair use. I'd not worry too much, personally. They are hardly a reputable site. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

    Wik is not and never was an admin. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

    On top of that obvious factual flaw, there is the logical flaw "Wik created the WT article, therefore Wik created WT" in the first two lines. D- for the author I think. Pcb21 Pete 16:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

    I'm disappointed Zordrac thinks I'm Lane. Can't I be Nibbler? He's much funnier. -- Grace Note.

    [edit] Web link

    Is there any reason why the WikiTruth website is not hyperlinked? I mean, to be NPOV, its gotta be in the article, and from there people can copy and paste it into their browser. Furthermore, treating Wikitruth any different from other webpages because of their content is POV. Wikipedia isn't perfect (far from it), so just create the link and be done with it. --Midnighttonight 05:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

    There is indeed a reason: wikitruth.info has been added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist, due to legal considerations. If you're interested in the details you might want to read the discussion earlier on this talk page. Also, I have a feeling this is going to be a FAQ, so perhaps it would be best if we add some sort of notice to the article describing the action and the reason for it. -- noosphere 06:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    Raul654 has said he's going to remove wikitruth.info from the spam black list. I'm still waiting... - Ta bu shi da yu 14:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    A redirect link could be used, or javascript. That would allow the link and at the same time hopefully avoid the spam blacklist. Anyone out there know how to do that? --Midnighttonight 04:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    Don't do that. It was put in the spam blacklist to stop it from being linked. Kotepho 04:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] footnotes

    9-12 and 6 and 2 don't have any weblinks to visit to verify them as sources. DyslexicEditor 08:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

    We can't have links; the site is blacklisted. If you want to verify it I'm sure you can figure it out. Kotepho 08:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    This sounds NPOV or something to blacklist the site from its own article. I'm assuming there's a rule somewhere stating this. Normally the footnotes system is supposed to have links? DyslexicEditor 08:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    Read up, there is lots of discussion of it being blacklisted (put in the spam blacklist, you cannot link to it, for legal reasons). Nothing says that sources have to be online though. Kotepho 08:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    The sources are online. They're on wikitruth.info, which is online. Do you mean nothing says that the citations have to be clickable? Though that is true, people have been deleting the citations outright anyway. -- noosphere 18:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    I know people like to delete references to an article and links to "clean up links", but for sites that aren't blacklisted, normally are they supposed to have some clickable link in references. Although I looked at them better and they do quote the article name so it looks decent like references. I really like the new system where everything is referenced--it's much more like an academic report with this and much less like a personal website. While I do admit articles that are stubs could still use more info (I hate reading up on something and finding it references something unexplained, like here I wikify and well no article) but any article with lots of disputes or something with controversy needs the sources like mad and it's a shame I see some controversial ones run by people who think all the sources out there are wrong, they clean up links down to a small number and everything is original research. DyslexicEditor 03:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Why?

    I'm only an occasional contributor to Wikipedia, but: why is anyone taking these guys seriously? Whatever good points they make are buried behind a confusing mission statement, pointless ad hominems, and blatant incoherence. Thunderbunny 00:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

    I think it's mostly because they're funny. And then there's the Jerry Springer factor... many people love to see a good fight. But without their biting sarcasm and satire, and the aptly named and designed site, wikitruth would have probably gone largely unnoticed.
    Fortunately for them their targets are so full of themselves that they've done half of wikitruth's work for them. If Wikipedia was a less humorless and self-important an endeavor, wikitruth would have had much more of an uphill battle to get any kind of notice. Since, as others have pointed out, many of wikitruth's criticisms have been expressed before.
    And then there're the deleted articles, which are a good hook to get people interested in the site... since many people are attracted by the forbidden. So it all adds up to good marketing and entertaining content, imo. That'll be $500.  ;) -- noosphere 01:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    Not saying they don't have valid points; they just might get a bigger audience, however, if they could convince people that their issues affect people that don't spend 1/3 of their life on Wikipedia. Thunderbunny 05:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] GNU Free Documentation License

    "The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document free in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others. [...] You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. [...] You may extract a single document from such a collection, and distribute it individually under this License, provided you insert a copy of this License into the extracted document, and follow this License in all other respects regarding verbatim copying of that document." from Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. WAS 4.250 02:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Forking

    "In software engineering, a project fork or branch happens when a developer (or a group of them) takes a copy of source code from one software package and starts to independently develop a new package. The term is also used more loosely to represent a similar branching of any work (for example, there are several forks of the English-language Wikipedia) [...] Forks are considered an expression of the freedom made available" from Fork (software development). WAS 4.250 02:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

    So like why are you posting this here? Dynomites 03:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry for not being clear. Wikitruth is, by definition, a fork of a very small subset of Wikipedia; a fork made possible, even encouraged, by Wikipedia's copyright (copyleft) license; a fork that helps actualize by supplementation Jimbo's dream : "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. (July 2004)" (from [8]). Once the data is published under the GFDL, the data is free for all mankind to reproduce; so for the "sum of all human knowledge" to be set free by the wikipedia process, it doesn't have to be currently in residence here, just passing thru is good enough if someone somewhere will host it. Wikitruth is exactly what the creators of the GFDL wanted - freedom of information. It represents a victory for freedom, regardless of whatever else it may be; in the same way that President Thomas Jefferson saw newspapers free to print evil comments about him as a victory for his cause. WAS 4.250 04:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Talk%7EWikitruth_Archive_01_49b0.html"