Talk:Slashdot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on December 12, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

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

This article is within the scope of the Internet culture WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Internet related culture. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
NA This article has not yet been rated on the Project's quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Moderation

I edited the max total number of mod points under the moderation section, I have had six and can prove it if need be.

TheShadowZero 22:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are saying - you can go down to -1 and then accumulate points to +5 - and thereby get six positive moderation points. But that's only because you aren't counting the initial -1 moderation point you automatically got for whatever reason. If you are going to count positives but not negatives, your score and go up and down all day long - so you can accumulate hundreds of positive points - providing you get enough negatives. Rather than be difficult and controversial - I've change the sentence to say that the maximum total score you can get is +5. SteveBaker 05:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think what TheShadowZero (and the article) is saying is that you are given 6 points with which to moderate other posts. It is not stating the maximum score for a given post (that is in the next para). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Testla (talk • contribs).
How can you get negative mod points? Your points can be used to neg a post or to make it positive. TheShadowZero 21:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slashdot is down?!

Today, Sept. 13 2006, http://slashdot.org returns "503 Service Unavailable". Was this a planned shutdown, or has Slashdot been Slashdotted? Sure seems wierd.--Sboots 15:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

129.81.108.179 here, confirming Slashdot is indeed down with a "503 Service Unavailable" error. AFAIK it was up before 9AM CST this morning. UPDATE: Seems to be back up now. (15:50 UTC)--129.81.108.179 15:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 01:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)01:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)~~

Slashdot is often down for short periods, usually returning a 503 error. It is sometimes the butt of a few jokes. I would assume this is when they change the code. It doesn't happen often, but it happened semi-regularly for years. It used to be a joke that Slashdot must have " linked to itself", which is, of course an absurd reference to being /.ed . Pharmboy 00:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

The criticism section is much too short so I lengthened. I'll put some more down as I find them. --Rotten 05:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subculture and other deletions

Why was the Slashdot Subculture page removed and redirecting to the main Slashdot page? There was a lot of good information on that page, nearly all of which is now gone. Perhaps Slashdot has a lot of content on Wikipedia, but that doesn't inherently mean that the entire subject needs to be watered down to the mediocre content on this page. What's the problem with having more "specialized" topics? Slashdot is a significant player on the web, so it makes sense there is a lot of information about it. The comparison between the Slashdot and Social Security articles (from Archive1) is asinine.

Along with the Subculture page, many other pages were removed. When considering the amount of time and effort that went into those pages, and the fact they were removed on a whim of a few users, it's not surprising that people are becoming disenchanted with Wikipedia. I'm no wiki-expert, but from what I can tell there was no real discussion about deleting the articles, it was just done because somebody wanted to do it. --Nick, 71.195.213.70 06:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with this. I think the pruning was rather OTT. Feel free to dig bits out of the page history and discuss them here. Chris Cunningham 08:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I added back some of the subculture areas that I had previously written Pharmboy 23:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that even though they deleted those pages, they didn't remove any of the links to those pages. 24.89.87.41 02:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It is further interesting that the discussion of the subculture deletion was so obviously controlled to the point where it is worth talking about the possibility (likelihood?) that the discussion and deletion was rigged. Every Wikipedia user who dared challenge the (pre-ordained?) decision to delete the article with a Keep vote was called out and challenged; it is pretty clear from reading the discussion page that every keep vote was going to be challenged, adding bias to the discussion and vote. The bias would have been on two fronts; users who viewed the vote in progress were going to see the challenges of the keep votes and been more inclined to vote against or would have avoided voting altogether to avoid being challenged by experienced editors (thus undercounting the tree keep votes). I am greatly disappointed in this capricious, arbitrary, tyranny of the vocal minority that took place in this vote. Everyone involved in the creation and promotion of this bias should be ashamed of themselves. SkydiveMike 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the removal of those pages, and the information they contained, is reprehensible. There was no reason they needed to be removed. Sometimes I think some folks here on Wikipedia are of the impression that Wikipedia has to be constantly edited down to a particular number of pages, like a paper encyclopedia. This is just not true; one of the strengths of Wikipedia is that it can have pages on lots of topics, even somewhat esoteric ones. It's the breadth, as well as the depth, of WP's articles that makes it useful. The deletion seems to be mostly the continuation of an ongoing Wikipedia/Slashdot pissing contest, where members of each try to denigrate the other, rather than any realistic attempt at self-improvement. --Kadin2048 05:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I referenced the Slashdot Subculture article in particular on a regular basis. I was quite surprised to find it had suddenly been deleted. Is there any chance of getting it to come back from the dead? Who would I need to contact to at least try? I haven't given up on Wikipedia yet. :) --Dlugar 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Slashdot

Should a link to the slashdot website in japan be inserted? From what I read at the us slashdot page the japanese slashdot is run by it's own people.

Slashdot says as much here: http://slashdot.org/faq/editorial.shtml#ed860 If you were to make a section of slashdot versions in the different languages, I think you would have to make it VERY clear that they were not owned or managed by the same company that owns the US /. Pharmboy 21:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subculture deletion?

Can anyone point to any AFD discussion for the Slashdot subculture page? All I can find is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slashdot subculture, but it survived that nomination. --Saforrest 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

These are links that I posted to the AFD discussion:

These should be integrated as needed for specific claims and as general references. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hans Reiser

Should Hans Reiser still be mentioned in the "celebrity" slashdot users? I have a feeling he won't be posting his view for a while... ;) (check Hans Reiser) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knutsi (talk • contribs) 20:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Slashdot vs. Slashdot.org

Why is the article not at Slashdot.org, like Fark.com? If no one has any particular reason, I'll be requesting a move. - JNighthawk 02:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is called Slashdot because the website is called Slashdot. I don't know why the other article is called Fark.com - maybe people usually call the site by that name, you'd have to ask on Talk:Fark.com. But Slashdot is Slashdot. Gronky 09:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This is why we have redirects. You can enter either 'slashdot' or 'slashdot.org' and end up here - and you can enter either 'fark' or 'fark.com' and get there - so all that's really at stake is the title that's displayed once you get here. It's not really a huge deal. SteveBaker 14:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The other article is called Fark.com because the website it discusses is called Fark.com. You can tell by looking at the logo and title. The Fark.com logo says "Fark.com", and the page title at www.fark.com is "Drew Curtis' FARK.com". The Slashdot logo says just "Slashdot", and the page title at slashdot.org is "Slashdot: ...". Therefore, the Wikipedia page for Fark.com has a ".com" in it, just as it should; and the Wikipedia page for Slashdot does not have a .org in it, which is also correct. 81.86.133.45 23:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How can it be misuse if everyone agrees?

This paragraph, dealing with "misuse" of the moderation and meta-moderation system is absolutely nonsensical:

The meta-moderation process is designed to counter this problem, but in practice fails to do so, probably because this form of misuse is so widespread that the meta-moderators themselves agree with the mis-used "troll" and "flamebait" categorizations and so the original moderator does not have his moderation points award frequency reduced.

The paragraph admits that the way things are moderated is generally agreed upon by both the moderators and their watchdogs. How then can this be labelled "misuse"? This is a case where the writer of this article doesn't agree with something, and is applying his or her own opinions to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.149.196.244 (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

It is a subjective topic whether moderation system works or not. I think it does, section author thinks it doesn't. Ideally it should be out of the article altogether. I tagged it "Speculation for now".

[edit] Come on people

I removed these two "facts" from the page:

  • It appears to be impossible to delete a Slashdot account, or indeed, to actually contact anyone involved with Slashdot to ask any questions, administrative or otherwise.
  • With a mostly male readership, Slashdot and its users has been accused of being sexist or hostile towards women. [1]

The first part of the first note is addressed in the FAQ. THe rest of this appears to be added by someone pissed off that Slashdot wont answer their email. This is an encyclopedia to provide information. Not a place to bitch at some admins from a site. meshach 20:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Groupthink at Slashdot.

Slashdot has the worst mindless groupthink culture I've ever seen on the internet and I absolutely think that this should be mentioned.--Rotten 20:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the citation, as it is a user homepage, and not a reliable source. I'm sure there must be one, am looking through google to spot any. --h2g2bob 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article shortcomings

The article is IMHO currently particularly deficient in establishing the noteability of slashdot and putting it in a wider context. I made a comment in another talkpage, as an editor was considering using this article as a model but I felt that was a bad idea after reading this article.

I've taken a look at slashdot and it appears to me to be a good example of what NOT to follow. While there are some good things and it's probably in a better state then this article, it seems to be especially bad at establishing it's noteability. For example, there are very few inline citations or citations of any sort to sources outside of slashdot. The 'slashdot effect' does establish it's noteability, as does the notable contributors and the number of comments etc. A fair amount of stuff which helps estabish it's noteability is not in the article. For example it's wom multiple? webby awards but the only way you will know is from the external links. Similarly slashdot has obviously been referred to a lot by external reliable sources. There doesn't appear to be any real mention of this, apart from a link to a paper which mentions slashdot in the citations (but there is no use or mention of this reference in the article from what I can tell) and several external links with external sources which mention slashdot, like CNN.

Hopefully it'll be useful in improving this article as well. Nil Einne 14:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/l/a/Talk%7ESlashdot_c156.html"