Talk:Digg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Digg article.
Article policies
Archive
Archives
*Archive 01


Contents

[edit] The events of Digg's HD-DVD Night

I was watching it unfold in real time, so this is my take on it, I am not that great a writer so I will leave the actual article editing to someone who understands the wiki edit-quitte better than I.

February 11th, 2007

The Doom9 forum had a post in which a user details the procedure they followed to retrieve the AACS key used to decrypt an HD-DVD and rip the contents for viewing on unauthorized boxes(such as Linux). This is out in the wild on the net and no one makes a fuss over it as it is relatively unknown at the time it is published. http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=952968#post952968


Sometime in April, 2007

Websites around the net begin to hear word about a cease and desist letter issued to a blog that prints the HD-DVD key in it, this story is picked up on Digg and the inklings of what is to come begins to rear it's head.


May 1st, 2007

A user on Digg submits a story named "Spread this number" and it is promptly erased upon reaching the front page, no explanation is given and no action is taken against the user. The same user then posts the story "Spread this number again" and once again it reaches the front page, only this time it has gets massive amounts of diggs(votes for it int he positive), over 15,000, pretty much setting it up to become one of Digg's most popular stories ever, the previous record holder having about 22,000 or so. This story all of a sudden just vanishes, and word gets around that the user is also I.P. banned from registering at the site again.

Soon more users try to get the story on to the front page and all stories are erased, and the users banned. Even stories mentioning the efforts of the Digg staff, with no mention at all of the HD-DVD key are being erased and those users also banned. This gets the community into an uproar, how can a site based on the philosophy that the user controls what content makes it to the front page be so against that very belief. Almost organically they idea to flood the Digg front page with stories of nothing but stories about the key while burying everything else as "Wrong topic" seems to take shape in the minds of all Digg users. Soon hundreds of stories an hours get submitted to the site and thousands of diggs a minute force the stories onto the front page almost as quickly as they are made. At one point in the revolt the entire front page, along with pages 2 and 3, were nothing but stories about the key, or just blatantly containing the key in the story title or description.



Jay Adelson blog post trying to explain why the story article were removed from Digg:

"What’s Happening with HD-DVD Stories? by Jay Adelson at 1pm PST, May 1st, 2007 in Digg Website

Hey all,

I just wanted to explain what some of you have been noticing around some stories that have been submitted to Digg on the HD DVD encryption key being cracked.

This has all come up in the past 24 hours, mostly connected to the HD-DVD hack that has been circulating online, having been posted to Digg as well as numerous other popular news and information websites. We’ve been notified by the owners of this intellectual property that they believe the posting of the encryption key infringes their intellectual property rights. In order to respect these rights and to comply with the law, we have removed postings of the key that have been brought to our attention.

Whether you agree or disagree with the policies of the intellectual property holders and consortiums, in order for Digg to survive, it must abide by the law. Digg’s Terms of Use, and the terms of use of most popular sites, are required by law to include policies against the infringement of intellectual property. This helps protect Digg from claims of infringement and being shut down due to the posting of infringing material by others.

Our goal is always to maintain a purely democratic system for the submission and sharing of information - and we want Digg to continue to be a great resource for finding the best content. However, in order for that to happen, we all need to work together to protect Digg from exposure to lawsuits that could very quickly shut us down.

Thanks for your understanding,

Jay " http://blog.digg.com/?p=73

This post seemed to only add gasoline to the fire, as word also began to spread that HD-DVD was a sponsor of the show Diggnation, it seemed more a blog trying to bow down to the money rather than the users the very site is built upon. Madness spreads to all facets of Digg, and the mods on Digg try to fight back, but at this point it is a losing battle. They try erasing stories, but 10 replace those erased. They try banning people, but at this point they lost respect for the site and didn't care if they were banned. They tried to covertly promote stories to the front page with fake diggs, but people soon notice the action and take screenshots of this and this also gets spread around the net. They try to reset diggs on stories already on the front page, but the stories get diggs so fast that it makes very little difference. They try taking down the submit page, but this only made the revolter focus on digging the stories which were already on the front page. The page is promptly brought back up. At this point the mod staff goes quiet all of a sudden and they seemed to give up trying to rein int he site, which they had clearly lost to the overwhelming power and number of users. At one point Digg is actually taken offline, not by the staff but because of the sheer number of digging and submitting the server was handling. They site returned but the site was acting strangely the rest of the night.



Kevin Rose explaining to the Digg community that they have reversed their stance on the HD-DVD matter:

"Digg This: (Followed by Key sequence, censored by Wikipedia)

by Kevin Rose at 9pm PST, May 1st, 2007 in Digg Website

Today was an insane day. And as the founder of Digg, I just wanted to post my thoughts…

In building and shaping the site I’ve always tried to stay as hands on as possible. We’ve always given site moderation (digging/burying) power to the community. Occasionally we step in to remove stories that violate our terms of use (eg. linking to pornography, illegal downloads, racial hate sites, etc.). So today was a difficult day for us. We had to decide whether to remove stories containing a single code based on a cease and desist declaration. We had to make a call, and in our desire to avoid a scenario where Digg would be interrupted or shut down, we decided to comply and remove the stories with the code.

But now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you’ve made it clear. You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won’t delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.

If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying.

Digg on,

Kevin" http://blog.digg.com/?p=74

At which point the site is site is taken offline (the standard Digg maintenance page is shown), and then brought back online with a new story submitted by Kevin Rose linking to the previously mentioned blog post.

So it seems that the community has shown the Digg staff that the site can not survive if they have no users on it using it. Everything slowly returns to normal, and life goes on. But Digg needs to realize this had very little to do with the HD-DVD key itself, that was just a way to get the point across, and more to do with internal censorship of articles posted by the users. Why is it ok to post hacks for the PSP (Dark_Alex custom firmware) but then turn around and say we can't post some numbers(by a corporation also sponsoring Diggnation). They need to reform and refine their post deletion policy, if it is truly for spam, porn and etc, then do just that, but do not choose to censor because that is what the money tells you to do.

NOTE: I may have left out a thing or two, but this is more or less what happened on the site. DCJoeDog 17:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[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)

The paragraph in the Functionality section about "David Cann's" independently designed iPhone-friendly version of the site seems highly irrelevant. It's random, and non-notable, especially in light of digg's own iPhone formatted service.--Thatgirlismine 09:07, 11 July 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)
Ajax is just javascript, and the server-side part of it is powered by PHP (presumably), so just LAMP. :P --—JeremyBanks Talk 01:42, 2 May 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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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.
tho looking at WP:OR, i see you do not understand my argument. synthesis is when you draw conclusions that are not supported by facts. i have not done that. it's like that one editor i quoted earlier said - Multiplication is not original research. neither is this.
do you think Modus ponens constitutes synthesis? if you assume "If P, then Q" and if you assume "P", do you think it is synthesis when someone says "Q"? it's not. its an undeniable truth. deny it all you like, but you will still be just as wrong as creationists who deny the undeniable - who deny the scientific method.

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)

[edit] Some of the subsections in the Functionality section probably should be removed

I don't see why the 'Problem reporting', 'Friends Activity', 'Media previews', 'Comment rating', or 'Top users' subsections exists. These sections don't qualify under wikipedia's definition of notability. The contents of these sections are described previously in the article. If anyone has a reason why some or all of these sections are notable please add it back with references to back up the notability. --Dr. WTF 01:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


Most Wikipedia "posters" (aka those who live on here 24/7 and are either politically or ideologically driven, seem to be under the impression that restroom graffiti is a "source". The argument goes that, "Hey, I referenced it, therefore it can stay".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.218.235 (talk • contribs)

nice ad hominem. ironically, your "post" also qualifies as restroom graffiti. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.123.206 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Digg Down?

It down for anyone else? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.177.67.8 (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, hope it's back up soon. 151.201.223.97 02:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digg bias

As anyone going to add a section to the "criticism" part that talks about the disproportionate number of left-leaning articles that are on Digg? There are at least 4 rawstory, think progress, and crooksandliars articles that float to the top a day, and it's something you definitely start to notice after a while. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.88.140.206 (talk • contribs).

You'd have to have some hard evidence of left-wing bias to add this Lurker 18:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Digg's failings have been discussed in places like the WSJ and the evidence is right in front of anyone who cares to glance at its front page. Stuff like Gore's mansion and Sen. William Jefferson never seem to see the light of day while Bush will make the frontpage everytime he picks his nose. There is literally a constant stream of antiadministration articles making it to the front page every day. Many sites have a noticable overall bias but I can't see how anyone could argue for this supposed politically neutral Digg. Digg is still partially a techsite but it is also a leftwing political/religious blog/soapbox, a forum, and a geewhiz look at me linkpage. Jarwulf 19:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles which criticize excessive government control and Bush admin are indeed popular on Digg but it's also a fact that the majority of US citizens, let alone the global population which Digg serves, are not too happy about the Bush admin. Furthermore, positive news pieces about Ron Paul, who is hardly "left leaning", are among the most digged articles. IMO digg population leans more towards libertarian.

But I am not exactly sure what's so biased about Digg itself because Digg's voting system is neutral in that it does not add additional weight to left, right, central, MAC, PC, XBOX, Wii or any particular group's postings. All that matters on Digg is popularity of the topic itself, so if there were enough conservative Diggers out there you will certainly see articles of conservative leanings getting on the Digg front page. The fact that some popular conservative blogs are discouraging their reader from participating on Digg would ensure the self-fulfilling prophecy that "Digg is biased towards the left".Hzzz 19:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, there does need to be a section about Digg's biases. Digg has an incredible amount of extremely obvious biases. Ron Paul is idolized on Digg, Everybody hates George Bush, and there are about 50 Linux/Freeware articles a day. it doesn't matter what your opinion is, these need to be mentioned somewhere. Wikilost 20:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apparent vandalism (just search for the word "ferret")

There appears to be a line inserted into this article that should not be there. I would fix it but I don't have the rights. To find it just search for "ferret" or the HD-DVD key. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcbarron (talk • contribs) 02:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Site Picture

Someone has changed the site photo to a screenshot of the numbers. It may be a good idea to remove it. Bappt 02:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted photo to old version. You may want to protect it as well. Bappt 02:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digg and HD DVD Connection Nonexistant

I believe that the HD DVD group signed a deal with Revision3 Corporation's hit show Diggnation but is in no way linked to Digg, except the fact that some of the ownership of Digg runs Rev3.

If I am however wrong please post it here and correct me for future reference.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TSSaloic (talk • contribs) 02:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Digg Shuts Down Story Submissions

They're down right now, it seems they want to get things under control (I have no idea how) before they open it up again. --—JeremyBanks Talk 02:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. They are just acting according to their own Terms of Use, which allows them to remove any Content and Digg accounts due to contribute any Content that is infringing, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, abusive, offensive or otherwise violates any law or right of any third party; or for any illegal or unauthorized purpose. If you are an international user, you agree to comply with all local laws regarding online conduct and acceptable content; and to violate any laws in your jurisdiction (including but not limited to copyright laws); Some sites are reactive: would not remove stories until getting a DMCA takedown notice, others like Digg prefer to avoid paying lawyers and getting notices. -- ReyBrujo 03:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
the problem is that they tried to censor the distribution of a hex number. It's not moral and right in my view (and probably on many other's views aparently) to have a copyright, patent or any kind of restriction on a number. Simple, and in my view, vital, for the asurrance that our liberties are not infringed upon.

[edit] Article Semi-protected?

Why is the article semi-protected? Also why doesn't it have the appropriate tag for protection? --Android Mouse 03:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Article has been fully protected because too many people are angry at Digg for removing their posts. I have added the protection tag. -- ReyBrujo 03:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation and adding the tag, I wasn't sure what was going on. --Android Mouse 03:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Can we have someone with mod powers give this situation its own title and section? Might calm down some of the masses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ytoabn (talk • contribs) 03:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
That would not be suitable, because casual readers would not be able to edit it. Please, use this talk page to write a paragraph (with references, of course), and if everyone agrees, use the {{editprotected}} tag so that an admin will come and apply the changes on the main page. Note that unless it is covered by sources other than blogs or personal sites, it will have little chance of making into the article itself. -- ReyBrujo 04:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Social networking revolt 2007? I think so. This could get scary. I think the article needs protection --x1987x(talk) 04:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is already fully protected. I see this is spreading to other articles, though. Until covered by notable media, it is just a bunch of individuals mad at Digg for applying their terms of use (those nobody ever read when installing a game or subscribing to a site). -- ReyBrujo 04:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Notable news articles about this event from Wired News, InfoNews, and many other news sites, or even blogs: http://news.google.ca/news?q=digg&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn
as ReyBrujo noted, diggers revolting isn't notable. if a notable site cites this non-notable event, the only notable thing that'll happen is that that sites credibility is seriously called into question.
Like the front page of the New York Times online? It certainly is notable: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/the-day-the-digg-users-revolted/ Zensufi 15:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

http://weblog.infoworld.com/railsback/archives/2007/05/digg_losing_con.html "The folks at Digg.com have let the social news genie out of the bottle, and now they can't control it. Since the HD-DVD encryption code was discovered ..." I find it very odd that this is not even mentioned in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.245.173.200 (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Digg bows down to users!

[text copied from http://blog.digg.com/?p=74 deleted. —tregoweth (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)] 151.201.240.204 05:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[7]Source An admin should stick something in about the initial deletions, user response, and Digg policy change.Tyro 05:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HD-DVD DRM Key Controversy

{{editprotected}} (already added--Cerejota 04:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

This controversy must be mentioned. The online and technology media (not just blogs) having following this since early afternoon May First, and Digg is as of right now (May 2, 155am EDT) offline because of the sheer amount of critical posts. We are doing a diservice to our readers if we do not at least mention this controversy that is impacting this site and will become a noted part of its history.

I propose the following:

(As sub-header of criticism section?)

HD-DVD DRM Key Controversy <---sub-section header?

 This section documents a current event.
Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

Unknown person(s)were able to crack the encryption key for the DRM protection for HD-DVD. As a result of a series of Cease and Desist letters on the part of the Advanced Access Content System consortium, a number of sites removed all references to the specific key. Digg initially followed the cease and desist letter.

However this action has led to a revolt on the part of Digg users, who have flooded the site with posts decrying a perceived exercise of censorship on the part of Digg. Some users have defended Digg's action, citing its Terms of Use and the ongoing controversies around illegal primes.[6][7][8]

Digg has apparently reversed their position, and now are allowing the postings to continue.[citation needed][9]


I think this is both balanced, sufficiently sourced, and a good started to set the tone. As more sources emerge we can added, and we can extend the text. But we must err here on the side of getting the info out at least in minimal form. This controversy cannot be ignored. --Cerejota 05:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also add comment on the post on the Digg blog by the founder:
Something like:
"The founder of the site commented in their blog that "bla bla bla"[citation needed]
--Cerejota 05:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Removing the request for now. Remove the digg.com reference, which will be completely different in a couple of days, remove the "narrative" stuff ("Digg is not the exception." -> We are not writing a novel), and try to find an extra reference to a reliable site. TG Daily, I have no problems with that, but other than that we have a weblog of infoworld and nothing more. See if you can find one more to consolidate the end (that stories won't be deleted anymore) but not citing Digg's own blog (which is primary source). CNET will be picking the story in no time, I bet. -- ReyBrujo 06:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Good comments. Off to work on getting you those links ;)
I do dispute that their letter on their blog is a primary source as defined by wikipedia: they are not claiming anything, but exposing corporate policy: as such it is relevant and reliable. I still sustain it might be a good idea to at least mention the fact that they have reversed policy.--Cerejota 06:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Reinstating and editing to fit recommendations by ReyBrujo. I feel the snippet is now ready. I re-state: we must at least reference the controversy immediately. We cna latter extend the contribution. Thats what the {{Current-section}} is for. --Cerejota 07:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

At some point this fiasco should be included in the article and sources should be cited. For prominent, reliable sources (deemed notable enough to merit their own articles) see TechCrunch here, LAist here, Gizmodo here, Valleywag here, Wired here and here, The Daily Telegraph here, GigaOM here, PC World here, CNet here, Slashdot here, The Inquirer here, and PC Magazine here. LEKI (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Another site from what looks like CNET or News.com Australia here
Argumentum ad verecundiam. Just because all those sites choose to violate WP:NOR does not mean Wikipedia should, as well.
Seriously? Um, they're news sites. As secondary sources, they are expected to do original research. --Maxamegalon2000 14:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
if a news site can't cite a verifiable site, they have no business making that citation in the first place. see rathergate.
So we can neither do original research nor cite anyone who does original research. What's left? Even the New York Times online is reporting on this. It's on their front page right now. Zensufi 15:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
if everyone jumps off a cliff, are you going to jump off the cliff, as well?

[edit] Wikipedia response the controversy: lock the article, supress free speech

I know the DMCA is somewhat behind all this talk, but it's such a shame that Wikipedia is the LAST source to report on this. What a pox on Wikipedia's reputation as a collection of breaking news and information...compare this to the Virginia Tech page, for example. What a shame. Already countless contributors have been turned away because this page is PROTECTED and no one can even mention the controversy on it.

(I will edit out the duplicate comment I made before, I want this as a new heading and discussion)

I like this Slashdot post, I'm posting it in full but it's short enough that I hope Mr. sabre86 won't mind. It really sums up my feelings on this. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233031&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=18946143

"Wikipedia article on the number is down too. When I read this slashdot post, the first thing I thought was "I bet there's a wikipedia article on it!" Sure enough, either somebody has posted one and it's been deleted and protected, or the editors went ahead and jumped on it and protected it [wikipedia.org]. (I haven't checked yet, though there are "additional information links. Nor have I check it in other bases.)

Guess I should look into postng this to one of the "anti-censorship on wikipeida" sites.

For what it's worth, this is utter crap, but it shows a severe weakness in copyright law. Anything that can be represented with data, anything at all, can be encoded/encrpyted on anything else, given an arbitrary coding mechanism. For instance, let us create "sabre86's stanard coding scheme": add 1 to any number. After encoding we have [deleted]. Look, it's a different number! I guess it isn't a circumvention. Or is it?

You can extend this logic arbitarily to anything, so that not only can any string represent any other string (and thus be a "copy"), any string can be the key to an encoding scheme, meaning that posting any string is "circumvention" if I see fit to describe my encryption process such that it encrypts/encodes a copyrighted work using that string as a "key."

So all strings are copyrighted because they can derived from other copyrighted strings through an arbitrary encoding scheme and all strings are potentially circumventions of DRM/CRAP because they are both a representation of a known key in a different encoding and the key for some other arbitrary encryption algorithm that "circumvents the copyright protections."

Bullshit

--sabre86"

Has any one read WP:SOAPBOX? There are a bazillion places for these rants. Here, however, we are trying to write an encyclopedia. If you got nothing constructive to add, please go and spam Digg.--Cerejota 06:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. This is a big story http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/02/0235228 and digg has reportedly gone into spasms over it. I came to Wiki for a concise summary of the story, but the Wikipedia article is locked without even a mention, adjoined by a pretty nasty flame. Frondfall 06:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, again, this is an encyclopedia, not a news site. —tregoweth (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ditto Frondfall. Tregoweth, et al, your actions are incorrect and your justification is wrong. We have WP:Office for stuff like this. Otherwise, open it back up and allow people to post sourced info. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 08:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If you read my other postings, you will see that I am trying to get the page edited. However, in wikipedia we have a tradition of debating stuff before just putting it up. I too find it amazing we are not mentioning the biggest thing to happen to Digg in recent memory. However, I am also much chagrined at people who vandalize pages, drive quality down, and are too lazy to get reliable sources. Not only that, as my hard-earned barnstar show, I freaking learned the hard way, and with a much less trivial topic, that wikipedia is not a freaking soapbox. Do you people understand: its NOT a soapbox. Click not soapbox.--Cerejota 06:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"Um, again, this is an encyclopedia, not a news site. —tregoweth (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)" -- I disagree. When Katrina hit people were updating that page left and right. Where were you then? Why didn't admins protect the Katrina article then? --68.94.10.35 07:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur with the others, Wikipedia most definitely can include news. This is obviously a major event in Digg's history and has resulted in numerous front page Digg posts, an official response from the Digg owners, a major Slashdot post and undoubtedly many blog posts. To ignore this would be unencyclopedic. I'm not going to do it myself since I don't have all of the information, but I suggest that you go ahead and be WP:BOLD and just insert it, minus the code itself (because it may be illegal). Nathan J. Yoder 07:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The Katrina analogy is so off-mark is not funny. I continue to agree response has been slugish, but had a number of pea-brained vandals had not started, protection would have been unnecesary. Wikipeadia has censored no one. Wikipedia, however, is not a democracy. We rule by consensus, and place a premium on a neutral point of view. That was impossible during the long hours the vandals launched their attacks.--Cerejota 08:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
SHAME ON YOU ADMINS! SHAME ON YOU! This is ridiculous, one cannot even update the page with Kevin Rose's comments... so I will place them here (and I will quote the entire post, Eventhough I had to change a number because of wikipedia's censorship!!! What, are we living in CHINA now???):
Digg This: [deleted]
by Kevin Rose at 9pm, May 1st, 2007 in Digg Website
Today was an insane day. And as the founder of Digg, I just wanted to post my thoughts…
In building and shaping the site I’ve always tried to stay as hands on as possible. We’ve always given site moderation (digging/burying) power to the community. Occasionally we step in to remove stories that violate our terms of use (eg. linking to pornography, illegal downloads, racial hate sites, etc.). So today was a difficult day for us. We had to decide whether to remove stories containing a single code based on a cease and desist declaration. We had to make a call, and in our desire to avoid a scenario where Digg would be interrupted or shut down, we decided to comply and remove the stories with the code.
But now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you’ve made it clear. You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won’t delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.
If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying.
Digg on,
Kevin
That's the post - Fosnez 07:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I should add that Google has 27,000 hits for this code. It is 100% encyclopedic. Shame on the admins here--it is against both the policy and a spirit of wikipedia to use protection to win an edit war. Take the protection off immediately. The ONLY valid argument that can be made here is to not include the code itself, but it is absurd at this point to exclude information on the event completely when there are literally tens of thousands of hits coming up in just the past few days on it. -Nathan J. Yoder 07:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
you don't know what encyclopedia means. see WP:NOR. google searches are not encyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.209.214.5 (talk • contribs).

The aim of protecting this article is not to censor this information; it is merely a practical matter to control vandalism. Keep in mind that this is a uniquely difficult situation. Digg is a massively popular community driven site that undoubtedly shares a huge portion of its userbase with Wikipedia, so naturally a controversy about Digg is going to draw lots of unconstructive edits from Digg users. Making things worse is the whole movement to "spread" the DRM key, which naturally encourages people to "spread" it all over Wikipedia, with the Digg article being a high-profile target.

Don't worry, I assure you after a couple weeks when this all blows over this article will have a well-written, well-sourced paragraph about this incident. There's no hurry, Wikipedia has no deadline. Krimpet (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with the no deadline principle, but tonight Wikipedia was useless to me as a source of information in a way that it has been highly useful in the past. I emphatically disagree with the way my fellow admins are choosing to handle this. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 08:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I third that notion. 60.242.25.74 08:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I think it's a tough tradeoff. As an admin myself, I understand that protection should be used as sparingly as possible, as after all we are "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit," but the huge scope and legal nature of the vandalism unfortunately necessitates protection. Krimpet (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Glad this was finally allowed. There's always a tradeoff, but in this case I don't see what was gained not reporting it. It may be "news", but its also been a major event in Digg's history. At one point Digg shut their site down and this may well be taught in Commerce textbooks alongside the Pentium_FDIV_bug. Wiki may have no deadline, but if we waited three weeks before allowing it to be mentioned, anyone who comes to Wiki to research Digg in the meantime would walk away completely ignorant. Wiki isn't a news site, but keeping articles deliberately out of date for no other reason than not reporting news doesn't make sense. It certainly wasn't vandalism in any sense of the word. Frondfall 04:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Can it be more clear?--Cerejota 08:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following from "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" to "Wikipedia should not give me a comprehensive overview of significant events in the history of a website deemed notable enough for inclusion." Perhaps you can fill in the blanks for me.
I'm not looking for the evil numbers to be posted; I'm not looking for a bunch of activism; I just want to know what the big deal is with Digg and this event. Encyclopedically. Right now I can't get that because of a bunch of hair trigger censors here. Many of those hair trigger censors probably run around bragging that Wikipedia is not censored for minors. If I want boobies, I can go get in bed with my wife or go Googling. Right now I want an overview of what's significant about Digg. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 08:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


If you scroll up a bit, you would see my proposal for a sustantive seed edit on the controversy. That is the way to do it. Just soapboaxing time and again and then some on how evil the admins are, - while ignoring the fact that the protection itself would have been unnecesary had there not been a huge outbreak of vandalism- is quaint.
I'll say it again: this is not a soapbox. If you notice, of all of the people here soapboxing about how evil censors wikipedians are, I am the only one who actually follow the methods set forth to edit the page under protection. This isn't a democracy, either, and there are policies in place.
Don't like it?
Build a blog and soapbox about it. Just keep it out of here.--Cerejota 08:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
i agree. people need to remember WP:NOR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.209.214.5 (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] It's over at Digg

I suggest that since the chaos is over at Digg the influx of vandals will have dropped to a state that can easily be handled while allowing editing of the article. Why not unprotect, give it a chance, and let this article get updated so in the morning (U.S.) people seeing this in the news who come here to figure out what's going on can actually find out? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 08:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I support sprotect, but I do not trust full unprotection.--Cerejota 08:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Either way, full protection is too much. This uprising could be an important event in the history of user-generated content. (Or it might not be. Only time will tell.) If it is, this page should talk about it. I suspect unprotecting (or just protecting) this page will cause a discussion of the events of May 1–2 to appear. —Ben FrantzDale 11:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
i support full protection. until wikipedia knows the difference between WP:NOR and WP:OR, wikipedia should not edit article.

The rebellion has now been mentioned on BBC [8]. Either way you look at it, this has to be mentioned in detail on the page, as this is probably the most significant event in the site's history. You don't have to give the hex number, but it should at least get a mention. Bueller 007 11:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Volume_license_key#FCKGW there's at least a note about the XP Pro leaked key, so why cant there be something listed about a HD-DVD leaked key?--x1987x(talk) 12:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
see WP:NOR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.209.214.5 (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
I took a stab at writing a concise, referenced paragraph on the debacle in the History section; if anyone wants to expand or revise it, you can propose your changes here or at WP:RFPP and I or another admin can make them for you. However, for the reasons I explained above and at RFPP, unprotection is inappropriate at this time. Krimpet (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
you'd think an admin would know not to violate WP:NOR. blogs and news sites whose chief source of information are blogs are non-notable sources. please delete your additions for the credibility of wikipedia. thank you.
in other news, the BBC has really hurt their credibility, today, by writing a story about something that wikipedia has deemed to be non-notable. wikipedia does not validate soapboxes and i think there's a valuable lesson in that for the BBC. boycott the BBC! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.209.214.5 (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
Yeah, it does seem like it's over. Last night was good for full protection as that really was havoc on the internet for a while; but it seems like the Digg community has finally gained its composure —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.156.7.58 (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Why don't we see how things fare with just semi-protection? --Pmsyyz 13:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What disturbs me is not the protection but Cerejota's conduct. Apparently, everyone who wants to report on this issue is a spammer or wants to use wikipedia as a soapbox. Is it possible that at least some of the people who want this incident mentioned wish to do so because they think it is notable? Instead we just have Cerejota making statements that border on personal attacks. Lurker09 .F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 14:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
diggers did that to themselves by vandalizing this article, adding those numbers every where they could. their gripe is with digg, yet they took it out on wikipedia.
plus, u people seem not to understand WP:NOR, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOT, and WP:RS
This whole thing of using hyperlinks as a substitute for discussion is getting to me. And, yes, I've done so in the past, too. Lurker09 .F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 14:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
see WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:IGNORE, and WP:UCS. also, WP:AND.

[edit] Semiprotection

I've changed this to semi-protection. If a problem occurs, reversing my decision is cheap.

I note that Wikipedia:Protection policy places "Preventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option, such as a high rate of vandalism from a wide range of anonymous IP addresses" (this situation) under "temporary semi-protection," not "temporary protection." IMO this would've solved the problem in the first place by controlling the vandalism and limiting edits to confirmed known Wikipedians (who presumably would not have engaged in vandalizing the article, although that's correctable as well). Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 14:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the material Cerejota proposed above to the article Lurker 14:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thank you, Lurker, for doing your part to make Wikipedia as unreliable as Digg.


Lurker, thanks for that, and anonymous: please try to understand how different Wikipedia is in function and content from other sources before gettign sarcastic with us. Even non-admins like myself hold significant power to change how this work, and rarely would admins not take into acocunt us. ANd when they do, it doesn't last.--Cerejota 02:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

Much of the criticism section has been sourced from blog posts and similar sources, and looks like original research. Needs to be cleaned up. utcursch | talk 15:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

looks a lot like the HD-DVD DRM Key Controversy section, doesnt it?

[edit] Minor Clarity Issue

I have attempted to rewrite the HD-DVD issue so that an outside reader would be able to read the article and understand what was being said. One of my primary sticking points is what specifically the "AACS consortium" is. Wikipedia does not define AACS consortium. The AACS page has a few of the developers of AACS listed. HD-DVD lists a bunch of supporters for it. It is not clear to an uninformed reader who is sending cease and desist letters. If somebody could clarify that in the article...Sentineneve 16:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The consortium is a reference to the AACS LA Founders odds are we should find a better way of writing that or just state the letters are from the AACS watchdog organization or the like. --Darkstar949 17:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HD-DVD Key in source title

Further information: WP:AN#What to do when the key is used in references

Point of discussion - Kevin Rose uses the HD-DVD in his blog entry on the receding of the HD-DVD policy so the question is how should we link to the article? Are we going to make a point of avoiding using the hex code or properly cite the entry as per normal full title conventions? --Darkstar949 17:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with Wikipedia censoring the key in their citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.59.19 (talk • contribs) 2 May 2007

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to use to advance your own agenda of pissing the HD-DVD consortia off —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.214.5 (talk • contribs) 2 May 2007
Actually, this is not an issue of randomly inserting and disseminating the key indiscriminately throughout the article, but is concerning what we should do when the key is present in the title of a reference. This article uses a blog post by Digg's founder Kevin Rose, in which he includes the key in the title. In the cite web template, the title field currently reads "Digg This: [key redacted by Wikipedia]".
It is important to note that Wikipedia is not censored. Therefore, relevant content that complies with policies and the laws of the State of Florida is allowed to remain. One policy that would seem to be relevant is Copyright. However, the key itself is not subject to copyright so there seems to be no internal policy against the key. We must, however, consider the laws of the State of Florida.
From what I understand, the reason Wikipedia is not allowing the key to be included (besides to stop indiscriminate vandalism) is that admins have speculated that including the sequence in any way would result in a DMCA takedown notice or threat of legal action (as the DMCA is applicable in Florida). The DMCA allows entities to protect, not only copyrighted materials themselves, but also techniques that may facilitate circumvention or assist in future copyright infringement. However, the key by itself is only a series of numbers. Conde Nast has published the string via Wired using this argument (as have thousands all over the internet) and I think Wikipedia should not be afraid to include it in this context. --LEKI (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't wikipedia include the key, seeing how the AACS can, and will, change it and is now out in the public, as in public knowledge DCJoeDog 21:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You can always quote an article that quotes Digg's blog. We have no obligation of using a determined sources, and if this one would be controversial because it may provoke an edit war, we can quote a reliable source quoting the blog itself. -- ReyBrujo 21:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
But isn't it kinda the point to locate as much as possible to the original source of all information, and we know that the digg blog is the source of this comment, why have a gateway link of sorts?DCJoeDog 21:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Not really. The journalists need primary sources for their work. We, editors of an encyclopedia, need secondary sources, usually the news generated by journalists. This way, we leave the verification process to journalists, which leaves us with verified facts. Primary sources can be used when there are no secondary sources, when the primary source is considered reliable, and when the event is "breaking" (in example, if an army bombs another country, it is possible to use blogs from people from the attacked country as sources to update the article, at least until reliable secondary sources appear). -- ReyBrujo 02:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
that is absurd. blog.digg.com is the most authoritative source of information on digg and you propose we replace citations to it with less authoritative ones? 65.254.54.98
It is the most authoritative source for a journalist, not for encyclopedia editors. Learning the difference is one of the first thing editors should learn when contributing to Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 17:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Original documents are aways preferable for direct quotes; however, summaries of information should come from secondary sources.--Darkstar949 17:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, i see what you mean, use sources that are verified and this way all the crap/me too sources get filtered out. Am I close?--DCJoeDog 02:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper):

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

So, basically yes. Whatever is worth will have been picked by news services. -- ReyBrujo 03:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The key sequence has already been changed and the currently known one can no longer be used to circumvent copy protection. Yahoo News I think it may finally be safe to use it --DCJoeDog 04:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why can't I post the key?

Is Wikipedia attempting some kind of censorship? This code is used in the title of many news stories around the Internet and is even a web domain. Stop censoring Wikipedia and remember that Wikipedia is not censored. Xanucia 22:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please let it go. Information about the key and ensuing controversy may be encyclopedia worthy, but the key itself certainly isn't. Rm999

And now it seems my comments about censorship on this article and the posting of the code have been removed. This is a complete joke Wikipedia. Xanucia 22:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

i agree. there are multiple people who are very close to violating WP:3RR. i'll send out a few warnings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.214.5 (talk • contribs) 2 May 2007
The warnings (Uw-3rr) left for Android Mouse and myself are ridiculous. Both Xanucia and 209.209.214.5, you need to stop using this talk page (for discussion about Digg.com) as some sort of rant against Wikipedia about censorship. Please stay on topic. --LEKI (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


As note, the number is not forbidden in talk pages, over which Wikipedia has some legal immunity but only on the main articles, until WP:OFFICE give clearence. This is far from censorship.--Cerejota 02:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Another note, please sign your comments 209.209.214.5 and also read up on the talk page guidelines. --Android Mouse 06:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Illegal_prime Wikipedia has already posted "illegal numbers" and even has a page dedicated to them. By the sheer magnitude of the response the number is now an historical artifact and there is no reason for it not to be included. A google search for the number results in over 500,000 hits. If wikipedia is served with a DMCA take down notice then it has to take it down, it will not hold an liability, once it does so. In short the number is historically significant and there is no risk to posting it. --Dave1g 07:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


From Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines "Don't infringe copyrights. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Submitting work which infringes copyrights threatens our objective to build a truly free encyclopedia that anyone can redistribute, and could lead to legal problems." There seems to be a struggle from those who want to fight the "man." I respect differing opinions, but make sure you guys are actually convinced that it belongs in an encyclopedia and that you aren't doing it to piss off the MPAA or whatever. I see no reason why replacing the actual hex key with something along the lines of "the key" would hurt the quality of wikipedia. At the same time, including the key could be legally construed as a copyright infringement, which will create all sorts of trouble for administrators. Rm999

As I understand it, WP:OFFICE doesn't have an issue with the number being posted. As for it being "not encyclopedic", this is a reference work. how can we say the number 09-f9... is causing a stir? An encyclopedia should be no-nonsense and state what number is problematic. As it is Wikipedia is witholding a key fact (if a trivial fact) from readers. How do readers know it isn't the number 09-f9-02-9d-74-d8-e3-11-5b-41-56-56-c5-63-88-c0? (It isn't.) —Ben FrantzDale 17:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No mentions of HD-DVD sponsorship of Diggnation, and relation to the controversy?

I think that should be in the article since it was an article that may have ended up deleted as well, on Digg. The only problem would be finding a "media" source that details this, because there are several blog posts about it on the internet.

The problem is the deleted articles, Eg., this article on digg is now deleted, but can be found on Google cache: http://digg.com/linux_unix/Detailed_Account_of_How_the_HD_DVD_proccessing_key_was_found

(I hope this edit goes through, because someone else posted at the same time I did which put theirs in instead of mine)

Here's a blog so you at least know what I'm referring to: http://texyt.com/Digg+founders+took+HD-DVD+sponsorship+00071

The probable reason there are no WP:RS commenting on this is because this is sheer loony conspiracy theory. --Cerejota 02:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out that it's not something that came out of thin air, episode #76 of the Diggnation podcast is one example. Video stream of episode --DCJoeDog 02:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I do not deny the sponsorship. I do think it is a stretch to think this influenced the desicion. If it had, they would still be blocking the thing. This was a legal, not business, desicion, however misguided we might find it. However, WP:SOAPBOX :P --Cerejota 04:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "HD-DVD DRM Key Controversy" or "Digg Riot"

There seems to be a growing number of articles that are referring to the events as the "Digg Riot" perhaps we should change the title of the section to reflect that, or put some more detail in to HD DVD Night and get the article renamed. --Darkstar949 02:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

But a Digg riot can happen again, at least this name distinguishes it from any other that may occur--DCJoeDog 02:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
So we call the next one if/when it happens the "Second Digg Riot" and this would will then be called the "First Digg Riot" --Darkstar949 02:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I proposed the sub-title originally. I do actually want to change it to conform to the HD DVD encryption key controversy name. I will be bold and just do it.

However, I do not agree with calling the subsection "Digg Riot". To begin with, we would have to call it "Riot" to fit WP:STYLE!!!

Seriously, since a number of reliable sources are calling it all kinds of different names, it would be original research for us to pick and choose one. So the neutral sounding "HD-DVD encryption key controversy" would be a better fit.

We can always, within the text mention the various names (ie "Digg Riot", "digital Boston Tea Party", "HD DVD Night" etc.) In fact, we already mention "HD DVD Night"!.

Besides WP:NOR, I think we might also violate WP:NPOV, because all of these descriptors support a non-neutral POV, whereas "HD-DVD encryption key controversy" is completely neutral and descriptive title.--Cerejota 03:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THE CODE

who has the guts to post the CODE here? Let me have the CODE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.226.162.113 (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

What is exactly the the encryption key for the digital rights management protection of HD DVD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.162.113 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 4 May 2007

Wikipedia is not a good source for this.
However, this article does links to sites that publish the code. Jimbo Wales, speaking in individual role as a leading admin, 'crat and editor, has suggested the following in his talk page:
Yes, my own view is that people should basically relax a little bit. There is no hurry here. People who think the key should be in the article for editorial reasons have a point. People who think the key should NOT be in the article for editorial reasons have a point. People who are concerned about legal risks to the project have a point. People who think the risks are small have a point. So, what do we do? Take it slow, see how things are going, don't get weird ideas about either side oppressing you, try not to get nervous and depressed about strings of sekrit numbers. :)
To my knowledge, the foundation has not been served with a cease-and-desist order, and neither has the Foundation expressed any opinion on this matter. Speaking in my individual capacity in my traditional role in Wikipedia, I am simply advising everyone to stay relaxed and focussed on the big picture goals of Wikipedia, and understand that people who disagree with you on this point are also human beings who love freedom of information.--Jimbo Wales 19:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This is currently enforced by blacklisting of all combinations of the number key.
If the links provided here do not satisfy your knowledge, I also suggest you do a web search using Google or a similar Web search engine, where nearly a million pages carry the number.
I am certain, that as the controversy cools down, the code would be published either in the AACS encryption key controversy page, or on some other similary relevant page.
I am also confident that it will not be mentioned in this page, as this is a page about Digg, and this is but one bit of its history. In any case, there is no reason to have it be mentioned here, and it would actually lower the quality of the article to have such a large string that is irrelevant to the general purpose of this page.
If you are interested, you can also study how is it that wikipedia works, what are our cornerstone values, how do we try to resolve differences of opinion, how we try to treat each other and just as importantly what we are not. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Posting the decryption code... why remove it?

Why do you people remove such things, it's just a 16 digital hexadecimal code. They did not copyright the code, we can distribute the code in any way we feel like, its not like we're telling people how to use the code (which would be criminal... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.96.15.80 (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

It is not relevant to this article. Digg.com did not make the code. Period. -Unloud 14:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the top of the talk page. Also, posting it with so many comments that it is not relevant to the article may be considered a violation to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. -- ReyBrujo 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:KEYSPAM --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive.org

If you go to archive.org and type in digg.com, it will show up results prior to 2004. Does anyone know if Rose purchased digg.com from someone else? If so, how much for? This would be a good addition to the article I think. 82.163.38.88 10:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{09F9-notice}} TfD

Someone put the template {{09F9-notice}} up for deletion... please comment...--Cerejota 01:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slashdot Effect

YO. digg's "cluttering of google results" is NOT a slashdot effect. I'd fix this myself, but the page is locked... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.71.210.133 (talk • contribs).

it's locked for anonymous users. the solution is to get an account :) Misterdiscreet 02:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xuvious ban

I've reverted my previous contribution back into this article. The reasons the person who removed it gave were that it is not important and that it it needs more references. I think it would clearly be important if Digg were banning members because they support Ron Paul's presidential campaign or because they're posting articles critical of the Council on Foreign Relations. If Digg is banning users because of difference of opinion with its management, that is clearly important since Digg promotes itself as being an unbiased news aggregate. As for the claim about it not having enough references, I think its pretty obvious that the one reference is sufficient. Feel free to improve the text or the references. Life, Liberty, Property 03:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As I explained in your talk page, we need more than one reference, especially when the site has been created exactly a month ago and does not qualify as a reliable source. If you can find a BBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC or any other important coverage, then it may be worth a note. If not a single reliable site find the information newsworthy, nor we. -- ReyBrujo 03:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming?

I'v removed the global warming part from "which often leads to expungement of criticism of hotbed topics like global warming that does not mesh with the prevailing view of the community" since it doesnt appear to have a reference(or agree with my and other ppls experiance of digg). Mite need a different example if there is one but global warming isnt the right one. John.n-irl 14:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate Information?

67.180.60.2 03:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC): The article states, 'Digg started out as an experiment in November 2004 by Kevin Rose, Owen Byrne, Ron Gorodetzky, and Jay Adelson'. I believe this is inaccurate. I believe Jay Adelson had nothing to do with the creation of digg, he was brought on later as the CEO after the site became popular.

[edit] Microsoft Advertising

Should the recent takeover by Microsoft of Digg's advertising be mentioned in the article?

Spikeyone 11:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


I think the Advertising agreement with Microsoft should definitely be mentioned here. I am a new user and this is a semi-protected article so someone else would have to do it. This article from Reuters explains this partnership in more detail http://www.reuters.com/article/technology-media-telco-SP/idUSN2536671020070725

Hzzz 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Criticism Section

I think this template should be added there:

 The neutrality or factuality of this article or section may be compromised by unattributed statements.
You can help Wikipedia by removing weasel worded statements.

206.47.141.21 16:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the section importance tag to it. There should be a criticism section but its now about half the article's length. It looks unbalanced and overly critical of a website that millions of people use happily.Operating 17:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
"millions of people use happily" is OR. i think OR is perfectly acceptable, but not all wikipedians do. just fyi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.214.5 (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
It'd be OR if i'd made that comment in the main article space. I didn't. I made it here on a talk page signed with my name, so it's my personal opinion. Just fyi. Operating 14:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shoutwire

The article for shoutwire has been deleted, I assume the same thing will happen to the digg article since, well lets face it, they are pretty much the same thing and I don't a war over biases is a good thing. Toxic Ninja 01:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference #3 points a non existent article

Reference #3 points a non existent article 128.211.238.144 20:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goatse

Whay the hell does my GOATSE section keep getting deleted?? I know lots of digg users are wikipedias, but denying facts doesn't make them not real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilost (talk • contribs) 23:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free Speech?

I don't know if this should go in the article, but what really bugs me about Digg is that there are always so many damned comments on the thing written in a panic about how our free speech liberties are being quashed by (insert scapegoat here) and when you go there and post anything that even so much as slightly disagrees with the majority mindset it's "buried." I grew up understanding that it's unpopular speech that needs the most protection, and I think it's stupid and misleading that this site is held up as a bastion of free speech when the first thing they do is push a button that makes things they don't agree with disappear from the screens of future visitors. This isn't necessarily an issue of a left-leaning-bias (as has been alleged) as the same thing would happen with any sort of bias. But I wish that there was a way to make a note of this in the article, that the practices to which they subscribe are pretty much 180-degrees opposed to what they claim they are. Matzoball1982 13:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You've barely scratched the surface on the extent of the site's censorship. During the AACS key controversy, Kevin Rose authorized that all public dissenters, only questioning why the key posters were censored, to be banned themselves. After the fiasco was over, those who posted the key were unbanned. Those who publicly stood up for the AACS key posters were never unbanned. Rose never admitted to this in his white flag post that garnered 30000+ diggs, and anyone that brought this up in the comments section were immediately shouted down, buried, and in some cases, banned.
Digg is not a place for free speech. Kevin Rose saw to that. Lying through omission is still lying. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] interwiki

Because the page is protected from editing, I can't add interwiki to the Hebrew Wikipedia, so just add [[he:digg]]. thanks, Netanel h (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Site maintenance

The site seems to be completely offline right now. As many of you probably know, it's been undergoing a lot of work lately, and there's been quite a few bugs. I just figured I'd put up something so people would see it, should they check Wiki.

So, does anybody have any information as to what's going on at the moment? -D14BL0 (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why Digg works

I found an interesting article that explains why digg works (http://www.managingio.com/2008/03/29/why-digg-works-and-where-it-fails/) but i cannot link to it because the site is protected... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinger123 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please revert

Ronjohn's edit (07:35, 19 April 2008) replaces the summary here with the exact text from digg.com/about/ which isn't appropriate here.

What are you talking about and next time quote your stuff retardRon John (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is such an ad for Digg...

So, huge swaths of this article are lifted directly from Digg itself. That's generally inappropriate, as I understand it, so I'm gonna attempt to rewrite those parts. Howa0082 (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Much of the content seems to have been copied from their site. I've removed the obvious copyright violations and unsourced criticism. Nakon 15:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Or... yeah, you could just delete it all. That was fast. Wow. Howa0082 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] links and stories

It would be helpful to know the difference between these, as well as what stories are. Are they news webpages or something else that's narrative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Digg algorithm

The Google PageRank article describes the PageRank algorithm, so why not describe the secret sauce for choosing popular articles at Digg? AndrewHZ (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source for that? If you do let us know... -- man with one red shoe (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)