Talk:Bash.org/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


For a December 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bash.org

Older talk page stuff can be found at Talk:Bash.org/Archive

Contents

Notes by blaxthos, administrator of bash.org

It should be noted that the information contained herein is factually false on several points, and was written by someone with no direct knowledge or involvement with bash.org. this guy (cxi) has decided on his own what is "correct" and what is "false" and has used his wikipedia status to override any attempts at a more objective listing of what bash.org is.

It should also be noted that he has never bothered to contact bash.org with requests for correct information. I have grown tired of trying to provide a more historically accurate viewpoint, and I have grown tired of fighting with people who are more interested in promoting their own wanna-be sites on the coattails of successful ones than they are providing a useful article with factually accurate information.

/blaxthos at bash dot org (note: posted at 15:14, 5 Jan 2005 by 64.21.53.218. --Ta bu shi da yu 06:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC))

blaxthos, what is now factually inaccurate? I went through the article with a fine tooth comb and we have sources for all our material now! If you could be more specific on the current article (and not past revisions) then I'll be happy to look at your concerns. I have no biases one way or another towards bash.org, by the way. --Ta bu shi da yu 06:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blax, I have to wonder exactly what it is you're trying to accomplish here. You've never made a contribution to the article other than deleting most of it. After your vandalism was reverted several times, you invited Josh to join the party. "Bias! Bias and factual inaccuracy!" He cried. So Ta bu and I went through the article, basically rewriting everything based on the facts (and our friends at the Wayback Machine), rather than the research I'd conducted. Notice how the mention of phrise.com disappeared? We couldn't find a citation for it, so it had to go. That's right, all the stuff in the history section is based on actual references, which you can find by clicking on the little blue numbers peppering the article.
So, congratulations. You and your friends have helped the article to improve, in one way or another. Truly the spirit of Wiki. However, I've gotta say that this malignment of the current article is, for the reasons above, pretty silly, and not really helping anyone. Also, if you could cut out things like changing section headings to "cxi's crap" and using incorrect and insulting edit summaries and comments, that'd be good. You might want to check out wikipedia's policy regarding civility.
For the record, this operates on the assumption that User:64.21.53.218 (talk|contribs) and User:Blaxthos (talk|contribs) are the same person. I've also moved pre-unprotection stuff to the archive. --CXI 14:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If this article is about "bash.org" then why is the majority of it dedicated to either criticism of bash.org, or mentioning sites that have no affiliation with bash.org? Why is the operating system and php versions of the site that DigDug ran of any significance? What does DigDug's request to "take back" bash.org after his decision to give up on it have anything to do with bash.org? Why does his fork sites (one site, gone through several names) have anything to do with bash.org? What does a disagreement between moderators and management have anything to do with this article?
It's simple, really. Digdug is pissed because we turned a halfassed project into something successful. Now he wants back on the project, but given his past performance we decided this was not in the best interests of the QDB. The rest of this nonsense is his (and his site members') attempts to gain legitimacy by being associated with bash.org.
The fact that you feel it's so important to include minute details about his site while completely leaving out the details of the real bash.org (or even attempting to discover them) only proves the point. (unsigned by 64.21.53.218 - 06:06, 12 Jan 2005).
Well, first of all criticism of bash.org is directly related to bash.org, is it not? Secondly, we often include information about related articles or related information in stories. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The fact that digdug created a new project because you would not let him "back on the project" is related, no? The disagreement between moderators also appears to be a significant part of bash.org's history, even if it was unfortunate. How is that inaccurate?
I'm still unsure what we've missed about your own site. Feel free to add those things! --Ta bu shi da yu 09:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As i've stated before, the criticism of the site is coming from people who have something to gain by tearing down bash.org. Are you going to let competitors of a particular product or service post their gripes on that product's wiki entry? If you can't see the conflict of interest, I don't know to say to make it any more clear. Digdug left for a reason, and similary, he was denied the ability to "take back" the project after he washed his hands of it and we spent our time, money, and effort in turning it into a success. We had a pretty good reason, too, but this certainly isn't the forum to air any dirty laundry. Incidentally, there's a reason the term "bashing" came about -- not "qdb.us'ing or geekissuing".
Similarly, you spend as much or more space talking about what the non-bash.org sites do/run/think than you do explaining what we do or how we do it. You post links of competing sites in our wiki entry (from which they have something to gain!). Perhaps most telling of all, no one has bothered to ask the official owners of bash.org ANYTHING regarding the site, yet you're willing to post everything about sites that are completely unconnected to bash.org.`
I feel it is pointless to even continue trying to point out what is plainly obvious. You should rename this entry to "i wish i was bash.org".
What part of "I'm still unsure what we've missed about your own site. Feel free to add those things!" is not asking Bash.org official admins? We aren't airing dirty laundry. We are reporting well-known and widely reported facts. As you don't feel the urge to discuss this further neither do I! --Ta bu shi da yu 05:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think the point trying to be made is the information in the article is trying too hard to be all-inclusive about things that may not be important to the history of bash.org. I said a lot of this before, but I don't think anyone actually read it.
In all fairness, the original project as it was on geekissues is important, as is the fact that mods had a strike and were fired. What's not important is where the mods went after they were fired, or what DigDug was up to after he originally left the project. The article is about bash.org, not quote databases and the struggles and competition they endure. Mods were fired, the pending queue rose, and that's all that really is applicable. What the mods did as a result, where the mods went as a result, or what the mods didn't do or didn't go certainly doesn't have a place in an article about bash.org's history. Maybe the history of the mods, maybe the history of QDBs, maybe the history of QDB.us since that's where some of them went. Definitely not in the history of bash.org.
Likewise, DigDug removed himself from the project and from its history whenever he first handed it off. Why, in an article about bash.org, would we keep tabs on his newest project, which is not bash.org and is not a part of bash.org's history or current status? This article should be about what bash.org originally was and what it is today. It was a site that pen started at geekissues.org/digdug.cx/etc, mods left due to a strike. Where the mods went does not affect bash.org, nor is pen's new project a part of bash.org's history. Those two items are suited for an umbrella entry on quote database websites, not bash.org.
Make an entry for all quote databases, make an entry for QDB.us, and better organize the article. The article on bash.org should be specific, not trying to hit on every possible point, inspired project and their current status, inspired open source project and how it works, what the users are up to now, whose alias is cooler, etc.
But, since I'm just a random internet user and have no pull or means to get my way, my opinion is worthless. On that note, I'll mention again how silly it is to include peoples handles. The article should be about the site and not who is affiliated with it currently. I say eliminate handles altogether. And while you're at it, you might want to remove the incredibly tasteless links to quotes, plus the text that says "nigger" just to make sure your dumb readers get the obvious punchline. -Markus Bradley
OK, I'll remove that stuff about "niggers" (it's not that important). However, you should understand that you were going well untill you said that our readers were "dumb". I would say our readers are smart. --Ta bu shi da yu 07:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thank god! Obviously the unconnected users see what's really going on. I feel quite vindicated. Thank you, Marcus, and don't worry -- the people who run bash.org's opinions are equally as worthless. This has become a forum completely manipulated by those who crave nothing more than attention, inclusion, and web hits. --Blaxthos
Also, I think you misunderstood his point, dude. And, just for shits and giggles, anyone else notice that the "Other Views and Criticism" and "History" headings are both longer and more detailed than the info about bash.org ? Just like FoxNews --> Fair & Balanced. *cough*
If you think that's an issue but you can't fix it (I can't, meself), then add a POV notice.

Unprotected

I've unprotected. There is a draft underway (I've helped with it). It's now a lot better sourced, I suggest we use this and work from there. Incidently, qdb.us seems to be related. I'd suggest that mention of it should be left in the article. --Ta bu shi da yu 16:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


QDB.us outage

Shouldn't this go under the Qdb.us article rather than the Bash.org one? --Tmbg37 06:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The only reason that Qdb.us should be mentioned is to compare it to bash.org. With this I agree with the bash.org crowd. I don't agree with removing information about it that compares it with bash.org or is in some way related to bash.org. --Ta bu shi da yu 11:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Ja Ja

I liken das Techno! Mit das duff duff ist gut, ja? Rjx - boo! --Project2501a 11:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I suppose if your tastes run that way... --maru 11:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. geekissues inside joke. You had to be there. --Project2501a 12:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


Really worthy of an article?

I find it amazing that such an article has been put together. It's inspiring, really - maybe every blogger with some modicum of notoriety should write an in-depth encyclopedia article about their pages too? --Jon Dowland

Invalid comparison, my friend- Bash.org is run by a 'blogger' in the same way Slashdot is. And judging from the votes for deletion, you are very much in a deletionist minority; carping on this talk page does little to help your case. --maru 22:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
"carping"? Seems the talk page is the most relevant place to bring this up... I didn't realise this has been discussed before. I compare bash.org with a random blog because I think both are equally inappropriate topics for articles. Regarding votes for deletion, I shall make sure to place my minority vote should the time come. --Jon Dowland 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You'll be waiting a long time then- I've been here 'bout six months now, and I ain't never seen a page go up for deletion twice, and especially not a good-sized article. --maru 15:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure what maru was trying to say is that it's not really valid to compare bash.org to a moderately notable blog. Bash.org is actually a particularly popular quote website. If you want a notability test, ask a few average internet folks if they've ever heard of it before. I've had friends who aren't even very technically oriented send me links to it. Regardless, it's survived a VFD before, and doubtless would do so again. --CXI 03:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't think of a more suitable comparison. What I meant (generalising away from blogs) is, should popular site X have an article about it, where the article has little to do with any topic, other than the site specifically? I know what bash.org is, I feature in the quotes somewhere or other (to my embarrassment). I'm just still not convinced, personally, that this article really has anything of value in it. It's certainly well written, and has a reasonable density of wiki-links, but would someone outside the clique really care about with which software the site was built, the various moderator politics and april fools jokes? At present, I'd think it had enough interesting material to be a paragraph in a page about internet culture, case study about community-driven software politics, or something similar. --Jon Dowland 12:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
moved trolling to my user talk page. -- Jon Dowland 20:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
added comprehensive reply to Dowland's talk page. --maru 04:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
added more italic sentences to this talk page. CXI 14:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Down for some weeks now, why?

Down for some weeks now, why? --137.120.211.227 12:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I second this question. What's going on? It seems the server vanished, leaving behind its DNS entry, right around the time a quote that I submitted should have been approved or rejected. ;) --65.184.26.220 01:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah does anyone know this?--62.251.90.73 14:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I have the same question. --Zeno McDohl 00:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Same here. Damn that is an entertaining site; I named myself after them. --Bash 03:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
And not after the shell? *sigh*. --Maru (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Note that bash.org is also the first result when searching for bash :) --137.120.211.227 21:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Maru sighs again. --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I notice QDB.us has put a new news update on their site. It doesn't explain what has happened to Bash.org, but it welcomes "bash.org refugees". --WindFish 09:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The site is back up; explanation on frontpage. --Casius 01:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Phew, thought I was the only one that had this problem, saw no mention of downtime. I thought my ISP might have blocked them or something. Glad to see 'em back up, its my sanity saver when I'm stuck on dial-up :) --Fragrag 20:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
In the mean time, I discovered QDB.us and decided that I prefer it. Go figure. [And my quote was apparently rejected heh.] --65.184.26.220 02:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Neologism?

The article states that 'bashing' is a neologism. I'd argue against this; my impression was that neologism referred to entirely new words, whereas this is just a semantic change in an existing word. Thoughts? --Psyk0 11:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

For reference, look at the Neologism article. It gives the impression that a neologism occurs by actually altering an existing word; conversely, 'bashing' hasn't been altered, although its meaning has broadened. --Psyk0 11:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Legacy

Considering this (specifically: No bash.org references! Every once in a while a quote with a bash.org reference is acceptable, but not if the last line is similar to "OMFG SUBMITTED TO BASH LOLZOR".) it seems that the "Legacy" section is contradictory. I've not read the whole quote database, so I can't say if this is true or not. Delete? Judetlk 09:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with a deletion, if only because the information is largely unverifiable and not very encyclopedic at that. Even as a fan of bash.org, I think that section should go. – Mipadi 15:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I've deleted the majority of the section, but left "Bashed" has developed an Internet meaning, and users frequently use it to refer to their qutoes being accepted into bash.org. as I've come across this usage myself. I think this could be reworded and moved to another section, or perhaps the section could be expanded. Judetlk 06:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Site Details"

In this section, "Quotes that are racist, in bad taste, recycled, or simply not funny often find themselves with very low ratings," is quite wrong. A great number of racist/"bad taste" quotes have very high ratings. The recycled and not funny jokes have low ratings, but stating that racist jokes have low ratings is false. -Chewbacca 06:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed "racist, in bad taste" from the section. Jude(talk,contribs) 07:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

External links

The "External links" is getting kind of ridiculous. Do we really need all those links to clone sites? Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. – Mipadi 20:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Clone sites wouldn't be so bad- I question the practice of linking foreign language sites. This is an English Wikipedia. What good does it do our readers to have handy link to a Russian Bash clone? --maru (talk) contribs 23:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

External Links

According to wiki policy:

Links to normally avoid
  1. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)
  2. In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.
  3. Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming.

This appears to be exactly what has occured at the bottom of the bash.org article... anyone disagree?

Blaxthos 13:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, this issue is being discussed at the other External links section on this page. ;) – Mipadi 15:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/s/Talk%7EBash.org_Archive_2_447f.html"