Talk:Digg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Digg article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Archives: 01.

Contents

[edit] Large amounts of unnotable information in the article

The article at this time has large amounts of unnotable, irrelevant and unneeded information. In addition the article is rather lengthy as it is. Anyone else feel it is in need of a clean up in order to remove other unncecessary and unnotable information? --Dr. WTF 03:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Top users

Maybe we should add a "Top Users" section to the article, as they have been a major part some of the controversies surrounding digg. If you just do a quick Google Search for "digg top users", it comes up with many results. Tanman627 02:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really, we don't need that kind of advertisement. -- ReyBrujo 03:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
A user from ip address 82.35.213.70 just added a top digg users section. Would it be inappropriate to remove it? Yavoh 02:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Please remove some of the useless information in the 'Top Users' section. Some of the text is irrelevant, not within the context of the subject, or both. The only user worth mentioning, it seems, is digitalgopher since this user had the the highest amount of front page stories. 12.33.41.254 14:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point of view

How come the critiscism portion is much larger than the praises section. To keep it neutral shouldnt they be about equal?Miles32 03:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

maybe artificially depicting public perception isnt neutral —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.38.196.212 (talk • contribs).
Why is there a 'praise' section at all? Shouldn't it be labelled something like 'noteworthy incidients'? The criticism section isn't meant as a counterpoint to the praise section, but rather as a counterpoint to the rest of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.243.11.30 (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

I added a part defending the Bury Brigade as there was one against to make the POV more neutral and not get into politics too much. Please do not remove either--just edit the language.RaY 04:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a WikiMapia entry for Digg's Headquarters?

Anyone think adding the location of Digg's headquarters is a good idea? The link is http://wikimapia.org/1455799/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Virtualnick (talk • contribs) 06:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Content removed from Vigilantism section

The following was removed in an edit from the Vigilantism section. I thought that perhaps this info should best be preserved on the talk page instead. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 13:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Examples of this include:

  • On December 27, 2006, a story linking to www.godhatesfags.com, a prominent website of the Kansas-based hate group Westboro Baptist Church, was used as a means to run up the site's bandwidth and crash their servers. [1] Within 48 hours the story mysteriously vanished from the web site, going against the Digg philosophy of free and uncensored media.[citation needed]
  • When one user posted a story about the business practices of an online camera store, some Digg users responded by placing simultaneous phone calls to the store and crapflooding its website, impairing the company's ability to function.[2] Many users encouraged this activity, and some posted comments instructing others how to participate in such an attack.
  • Digg users reacted when copycat site Shoutwire launched in late 2005. A battle between the users of both sites ensued, resulting in both sites adding each other to their respective banned URL submission filters.
  • Digg was seen as an important generator of traffic and interest in the website Stolensidekick.com, which described how a girl acquired a lost T-Mobile Sidekick and refused to return it. After the post on Digg, the girl was identified. Consequently, she was harassed on her MySpace page and in real life. [3]
  • On April 15, 2006 a company trading as BlueHippo was allegedly DDoS attacked by Digg users after it was revealed that the company was selling cheap computers at high-end prices to unsuspecting low-income neighborhoods. CBS Marketwatch referred to the company and its products as "Stupid Investment of the Week"[4].
  • When Netscape redesigned its portal site to a style similar to that of digg, a digg user used a flaw in the site's coding to put a pro-Digg pop-up message on the site and redirected the visitor to the digg homepage [5]
is the one sentence the Vigilantism section now has enough to justify having a Vigilantism section, at all? the sentence makes generalizations about the above incidents, thereby violating WP:NOR
I don't really think the section is justified with or without the information above. What a few people do who happen to read digg isn't really notable IMHO. There is also no way to actually prove the said acts occured because of digg and not some other news site. --Dr. WTF 02:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "What language is Digg written in?"

I came to this Wikipedia article in the hopes of answering the question, "What language is Digg written in?" I seem to recall that it uses Ruby on Rails, but I wasn't sure and wanted to confirm. I think that could be an interesting addition to the article. Digg uses a lot of interesting technologies (dare I use the word "Ajax"?), and information on what powers Digg would be a nice addition. – Mipadi 22:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick Google suggests it's coded in PHP. Rufous 13:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I knew I was wrong! – Mipadi 16:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Basically, it's LAMP plus ajax. 24.21.192.220 03:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diggit

Fearne Cotton redirects here, when it should go to an article about the UK childrens TV Show, Diggit!. Unfortunatly, I do not know enough about the show to even create a stub article. 81.137.159.61 17:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That is because someone redirected Diggit here. I will create an article later, and fix that redirect. There seems to be some information and the show appears to have been notable enough, as it was broadcasted for 8 years and there is enough information for it at tv.com. -- ReyBrujo 13:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Stub article and redirect are now in place: Diggit (TV show). - Fayenatic london (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Comments on blogs or digg posts are noty reliable sources." my ass

every so often, someone will edit the digg article, suggesting that most people who digg stories do so to bookmark them. these edits are then reverted by people who believe that digg comments are not reliable sources [1] [2]. i think that's a very naive and ignorant attitude.

i think it goes without saying that diggers know themselves better then some "reputable" third party does. if one digger makes a comment and that comment is dugg 56 times, that basically means that there were 56 more people who agreed with that comment then there were who disagreed with it. it's basically a poll, where all you see is the difference between the number of people who agreed and the number of people who disagreed. yet that's not a reputable source? it's an indisputable fact. 56 more people did agree with that comment. how the hell do you propose you find a more reputable source? if kevin rose posted on blog.digg.com that "most people digg stories to bookmark them" would you people find that reputable? because kevin rose said it and it must be true? what if kevin rose said the opposite? what does that make all the people who dugg the comment to the contrary? liars? because kevin rose said so? there's a word for that. fancruft.

what's worse is that you people have multiple sources documenting this and even then you people dismiss it as unreputable. there's [3], [4], and [5]. all unreputable, according to you. the digg comments because their digg comments (ad hominem, anyone?). and the nickallain.com blog entry because what - it's a blog, as well? it violates WP:NOR? do you people not even make a distinction between research and common sense? Multiplication is not original research and neither is this. there's only one conclusion that anyone can draw from that and it's the same conclusion that blog author drew. and you people say that constitutes research? if i say digg's theme is bluer then slashdot.org's, does that violate WP:NOR, as well? do i have to find a reputable citation for that?

if there are no objections, i'll add the sources back to the criticism section in a few days. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.123.206 (talk • contribs).

That is considered original research. I can throw a comment, and everyone can agree with my reasoning, but if it is not in a reliable source, it is not worth an inclusion. Do you have any idea how many comments have been made by John Generic Bob's around the world exist? That many agree with the comment does not make it a truth. We are an encyclopedia, and base our data in reliable sources. Accepting that a comment some people agree is enough to include is a mistake. If you consider a million unique visitors check Digg per day, one can say that 56 agreements out of 1,000,000 is insignificant. Even if all 1,000,000 agree, unless it is published in a reliable source, it still is original research. -- ReyBrujo 20:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
bullshit. 56 agreements out of 1,000,000 is the wrong way to look at it. what you have are 56 people who agree and 999,944 who don't have enough of an opinion to digg it up or down. the only thing stopping these 999,944 people from digging it is indifference. so if you think that it's original research to say that most diggers digg to bookmark, what about saying "of those that have an opinion, a majority digg to bookmark"? it's a convoluted way of saying the same thing, don't you think?
i think you're bias is clear with your "even if all 1,000,000 agree" comment. if everyone who used digg said, themselves, that they digg stories to bookmark them, how the hell could you get any more authoritative then that? am i not the authoritative person in the world on how i think? are you not the authoritative person in the world on how you think? are diggers not the authoritative authority on how diggers think?
i'm not saying heavily dugg comments should be used to decide truth - i'm saying that they should be used to document the general atmosphere at digg.
if every story ever dugg was titled "wikipedia sucks", it would not be unreasonable to state that digg was hostile to wikipedia. that doesn't mean that diggers are right - it just means that that's what they think.
i think that you're being ignorant. that's my opinion and when describing my opinion it is relevant. that doesn't, as i'm sure you would agree, doesn't make it true. there is a difference.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.123.206 (talk • contribs) 21:38, March 28, 2007.
Well, I know you need to tone down your rhetoric.
It's already been explained to you why reader or user submitted comments, whether they're on digg, a blog, or an article on the web site of a major newspaper, are not reliable sources. Using them in the way you want to is original research. -- Vary | Talk 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
i'm not saying wikipedia should look at the comments - i'm saying wikipedia should look at the number of times they've been dugg. this number shows that it's a popular and widely held opinion, much as a poll does. that is not original research. that is fact. and yet you seem to have a problem with fact being added.
if my teacher asks me to do research and all i do is quote wikipedia, does that really count as research? no. so why does it count when you do the same thing for comments on digg and the number of times that they've been dugg?
you say "it's been explained to me". no, it hasn't. if it was explained to me, why would i be posting this? i wouldn't have anything to question if it had been explained to me. further, you're not addressing my points - you're just rehashing the same old tired line. are you capable of being anything other than a sheeple? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.123.206 (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
another point. the slashdot.org article cites a poll conducted on slashdot.org [6]. it says, as a caveat, that online polls maybe unreliable. never mind the fact that i think that's bogus (how can you say anything more definitive about the general users of slashdot other then by doing a poll?), what about doing what they did? saying "although it may be an unreliable metric, heavily dugg comments suggest that a majority of digg users digg stories as a way of bookmarking them". if it's ok for the slashdot.org article, surely it has to be ok for this one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.123.206 (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
What you're suggesting is synthesis. Synthesis is considered original research. Online polls, comments, etc are unreliable because it's trivial for a sufficiently motivated person to make their point of view appear to have wider support than it does them using multiple accounts and/or IP addresses.
I'm not going to engage with you any further until you stop the personal attacks. Go and read WP:RS and WP:OR and then come back here and try making your case without the ad hominem arguments. -- Vary | Talk 23:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
ad hominem's are when you say that because someone is an idiot, they're wrong. i may have, in so many words, called you an idiot, but i did not say that you were wrong because of it. indeed, if i believed that, why would i have made multiple paragraphs discussing other points?
as for your point about online polls being trivially easy to fake - i cannot find fault with that. based on my own personal experience, i don't think it's very easy, but i am willing to concede that there likely are people for whom it is an easy task.
thank you for engaging me as long as you have.

I have stayed quiet in this debate, so far, but have been following it, none-the-less. I agree with the anon's supposition about why people, in general, digg stories. I think it's the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from frequently dugg frontpage stories for which no mirrors exist and yet still continue to get dugg. Also, I think it's silly to think that people might be engaging in a concerted attempt to misrepresent the members of digg on such a trivial issue. Misterdiscreet 23:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/i/g/Talk%7EDigg_2863.html"