Talk:MetaFilter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Blogging WikiProject, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MetaFilter article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] logo

Could a member (I'm not) ask Matt permession to use a logo? (Or the logo itself) Céçaquiéça 20:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done on MeTa, though that story's now off the front page. --rbrwr± 23:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I e-mailed Matt. My understanding was that he intended to move to Creative Commons licensing, but at this point there's still a copyright notice, so we'll still need explicit permission. I doubt he'll have a problem with it, though. --Dhartung 23:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

Changes to Politics

  • Clarify MeFi is not a politics board, although like anywhere else the topic comes up.
  • Clarify that for those users who choose to participate in political discussions, they tend to the left (can't paint all of MeFi).
  • Remove "reputation" (which can have negative connotations) and replace with more NPOV.

[edit] Color

Would it be appros to mention that MeFi is blue, but this is unrelated to the Blue of Democrats? I do think some see the blue and see it as a statement, more than just a background color, it is a meme of MeFi and could use clarification on its origin and purpose (or, non-purpose). --Stbalbach 05:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the mention of the blue, I can't imagine that anyone would ever see a blue website and assume it had anything to do with "Blue State". I see you have restored it, but you are only conjecturing that people might think the site is blue because of "blue state" and, unless I'm mistaken, have no evidence that anyone has ever thought that. Of course, I have no evidence to the contrary but I err on the side of not including hypothoses. --Metrofeed

Well, if you want, I'll post something to talk.metafilter.com and see how other people on mefi see it. I'm sure there are other people who have noticed this coincidence. -- Stbalbach 23:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, do it, I am very curious to see the result. That's a good way to approach it, I think-- let the community being written about decide. --Metrofeed 19:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
See http://metatalk.metafilter.com/mefi/11804 -- Stbalbach 21:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and deleted it again based on the link you provided above, and also because someone added something silly to the text. If you want to put it back in some edited form, or work it into the mention of the site's overall political character, I have no objection but I think the matter of it having a separate paragraph is closed (for now!).--Metrofeed 00:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I originally added it because of Stbalbach's suggestion, but have no particular objection to it being deleted. Jerry Kindall 01:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for update to info on MetaFilter-like software

In the MetaFilter entry, section titled Inspired Sites, last sentence:

  • The link to MetaPhilter is broken
  • FreeFilter is obsolete (follow the link for details)

It would be helpful if some knowledgeable person could update this section with pointers to currently available software for implementing MetaFilter-like sites. Is Phpilfer still the first choice? What alternatives are there?

[edit] Color straw poll

This is a straw poll to determine if the article should (continue to) contain the following paragraph, or something like it:

Despite the overall political tenor of the site, the use of the color blue in MetaFilter's design is not an allusion to the Democratic Party -- Matt Haughey simply liked the color. (In the United States, the color blue is frequently associated with the Democratic Party as a result of a convention established among the major American television networks in 2000 to use red to color states George W. Bush had won and blue to color states Al Gore had won. Since then, the term blue state has referred to a state in which the majority are Democrats.)

Note that this paragraph has been in place for over 6 months, and one user (see "color" section above this page) raised a question that is was inappropriate for reasons cited above.

[edit] Yes

There should be some sort of discussion about the color blue in the "Politics" section of the article. Perhaps the above, or some other version.

  • Agree. -- Stbalbach 21:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, but text should be shortened dramatically. It's a possible (given MF's political demographic), although perhaps unlikely, misperception. — goethean ॐ 17:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No

There should be no mention at all of the color blue in the politics section of the article.

  • Disagree. -- While true, this is not an issue that I've ever heard discussed anywhere before. If we use that meterstick, we may as well add a paragraph saying that, although there are 10 letters in Metafilter and 10 letters in Democratic, the name Metafilter was not chosen based on this. That is also an equally true but pointless statement.--bugbread 22:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. -- You've got to be kidding. --y6y6y6 22:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. -- that's idiotic. Of course it should not contain that mention. First, why should wikipedia articles contain all the facts that are not true about an entry? Should I go edit the George W Bush page and put that he is a not, in fact, a mushroom ('Portabella' or otherwise?) And then go through and list every other eukaryote other then human and list what he's not? No, that would be stupid, as stupid as this entry. Secondly no one has ever even brought that up, so why answer it? -- Chad Okere
  • Disagree. -- I've never heard any mention of a political component to the MetaFilter blue.--Timeistight 23:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. -- The Politics section is nearly devoid of objective content, but this reference is so pointless as to almost seem satire. Voden 23:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree with the stupid theory. If any notable source of discussion on this issue (MeTa posts or the like (besides the one about this vote)) can be brought up, I'd support keeping it as-is, though. If it was a common misconception, then the paragraph would be fine, if a little cumbersome. -- Plutor 10:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. -- It's unnecessary. Acetylene 15:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. -- MetaFilter's use of blue as its background color predateds popular media use of the so-called "Red/Blue States" and has no significance other than the aesthetic. — Linnwood 17:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. -- I originally added it because of stbalbach's suggestion, but agree that it is unnecessary and have no particular objection to it being deleted. So, I guess that makes me a no. Jerry Kindall 17:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. -- What y6y6y6 said. --Nthdegx 13:12, 14 Sep 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

  • Some of the above comments, like Linnwood's (hi steve), seem to miss the point that the text under discussion informs readers that there is no connection between the democrat blue and the metafilter blue.
  • No one thinks there is a connection between the democrat blue and the metafilter blue. No one. There is no reason to correct a misconception if that misconception doesn't exist. --y6y6y6 19:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Should text be placed in the article that informs the reader that the choice of background color has nothing to do with Blue laws either? I agree with y6y6y6 that there is no reason to explain a miconception that does not exist. — Linnwood 02:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It wasn't a random thought.. According to our article here: Although MetaFilter is not a political site per se, the majority of users who participate in political discussions tend to express left-leaning views.. etc etc .. thus the blue disclaimer. -- Stbalbach 03:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to monkeyfilter

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MonkeyFilter it is clear that the site fails WP's inclusion guideline for websites, WP:WEB. If this site ever becomes notable, this can be turned to an internal link. This could be a potential infinite wait. As such leaving a red link right now encourages contributors to recreate this article. See also WP:RED: "The link is broken and no longer leads to an article (perhaps because the underlying article was deleted). In such a case, the link needs to removed or renamed to point to an existing article." WP:RED is not a policy or guideline in the technical sense, but it is supported by WP:CONTEXT: "Subsidiary topics that result in red links (links that go nowhere) to articles that will never be created, such as the names of book chapters." An article on a subject that fails the inclusion guidelines is an article that should not be created, and one hopes will not be. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear at all. Unless you make the mistake of taking the arguments in the AfD for truth, it qualifies for a red link under WP:RED #1. I'm not going to bother with it any more at the moment, though. dcandeto 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia operates on the principle of verifiability, not truth; moreover, there was a clear consensus to delete that article. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
An eight-person sample does not indicate a clear consensus—anywhere, Wikipedia included. dcandeto 08:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
If you dispute the deletion, you should take it to WP:DRV, or even recreate the article by providing the evidence for why it meets WP:WEB. For the purposes of discussions such as AfD, a "clear" consensus is when all (or a supermajority of) participants in the discussion agree on a single course of action. There currently does not exist any means of sampling the opinion of all Wikipedia users on any topic, as all discussion is voluntary. Even if such a process existed, AfD is (at least theoretically) not a vote; rather, it is a place to build consensus on a proposed editorial action. You may disagree both with the consensus to delete and the deletion process, but creating red links to deleted articles does not amount to a challenge to either. Challenge incorrect consensus with solid arguments in the appropriate venue, not sullen actions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your last sentence, please read WP:CIVIL. There weren't solid arguments for deleting the article, anyway. dcandeto 20:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Explain why the arguments weren't solid, or accept the decision. Glib responses are useless. Civility indeed! — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 01:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to repeat the arguments against deletion in the deletion proposal; they explain it. You're not one to lecture on civility. dcandeto 04:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I read your response as an admission that you have nothing to back your claims up. Specifically, you have no argument for why the deleted article meets WP:WEB, as the AfD certainly didn't provide one that you can cite by reference. Feel free to flail around some more with protestations of incivility: it will surely impress those who have nothing else to say. I have been wasting my time. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Your pomposity does not cover up the fact that your claims are baseless. Putting blatantly false statements in your edit summaries is also against Wikipedia guidelines. dcandeto 23:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

I can't find a post or comment in the MeFi archives that even comes close to outing Kaycee Nicole. I can see various suspicions shared, but no one discovered very much before the hoaxer outed themselves. Hence dubious. --88.109.224.119 16:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are some examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] dcandeto 17:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, those are all people positing things, but I can't see anything that backs up the claim in the article. A reword should fix it.
I've removed your links as links to primary info are not valid cites. You need to cite someone reputable making the same claim (ie That Metafilter outed Kaycee) as the article makes, not to raw info that may or may not. --88.109.224.119 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I re-added the removed links, as primary sources "can be used within Wikipedia." dcandeto 00:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I've modified slightly so it is not so strongly worded as MeFi "outing" her (we would need a secondary source for that interpretation), but rather MeFi found evidence she was a fake, a factual statement and not one of interpretation, which is supported with a primary source. -- Stbalbach 16:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is in part that MetaFilter crashed from the traffic attracted there by the hoax thread, and the reloading of that thread. I put up a temporary Yahoo Group and some of the investigation took place in messages on the group, and also in a Yahoo Chat. It was MetaFilter community, but it didn't all take place on MetaFilter. --Dhartung | Talk 22:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
That is interesting, although maybe too much detail for the purposes of this article, it is probably worthwhile to be mentioned in the Kaycee Nicole article, even link to the Yahoo group if it still exists or on archive.org -- Stbalbach 05:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't think it needed to be in this article (if anything, it needed trimming; it's ancient history for site purposes). I was inspired to throw several links at the Kaycee Nicole article, though! --Dhartung | Talk 19:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Social Bookmarking

Is Metafilter a social bookmarking site (in addition to being a blog)? I was suprised not see a reference to social bookmarking and surprised not to see Metafilter listed in the wikipedia Social_bookmarking entry. 202.73.206.161 01:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Users may tag favorite posts or comments, but they cannot tag or favorite individual bookmarks (URLs) within posts. --Dhartung | Talk 03:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politics section

re: this section:

As in any discussion forum, the topic of politics often comes up. Although MetaFilter is not a political site per se, the majority of users who participate in political discussions tend to express left-leaning views. An informal survey of (self-selected) MeFi members in February 2003 found a clear tendency to the left on economic issues and to liberalism on social issues (see this MetaTalk thread). Many members do not fit these categories, of course (otherwise, the discussions would be shorter and generally less interesting), and disagreements often fuel heated discussions in the comments. Over the years, a few conservative members have felt unwelcome in this climate and have subsequently left the site.

I agree with its removal. Its so generalized its POV. There is no way to say what the politics of the members of MeFi are, nor should we even comment on it. MeFi is not a politics blog, people don't join for partisan reasons - it simply reflects the demographics of the user base - which is mostly 40 and under, a demographic that can swing inconsistently across issues. In any case what is a "left leaning view" (it links to left-wing politics which is a highly POV article), it's a meaningless phrase and can be derogatory in todays climate. A few conservatives leaving the site, are they now on Wikipedia? Seriously, this reads like an angry ex-user trying to pigeonhole MeFi as a bastion of rabid liberals who kick out "conservatives" who disagrees with "left leaning views". And the fact this section was written by a known MeFi'er who uses MeFi to express political views makes it even more problematic. Finally, fact-tags are not an excuse for leaving in unreferenced material (original research).-- Stbalbach 19:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I'd be interested in a section that criticizes the site, moderation in particular. I am not an unbiased party, so perhaps someone else could take this on. Bluehole (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What part of criticism of the site moderation do you think is encyclopedia? Jessamyn (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jessamyn, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Bluehole (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Unbiased party here. I don't know of any widespread commonly held criticisms of the site, moderation in particular, but if I catch wind of any I'll be sure to put it under a "criticism" section. -CitrusFreak12 (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Citrus. I see them on MetaTalk frequently. Are you following that section? Bluehole (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that any comments posted on MetaTalk by members of MetaFilter are acceptable to be used in this article, you're incorrect. That's a discussion forum, self-published, and most emphatically not a reliable source. Any interpretation of the postings (e.g., "several members have said") is a violation of the policy against original writings and synthesizing of information. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
What John said, much more eloquently than I could have put it. CitrusFreak12 (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah sorry I meant to say encylopediC. In short, just because people complain internally about the site, it doesn't mean that level of microdetail is suitable for an encyclopedia. If criticism makes its way to notability either via media mention or something outside the site itself, then it's wikiable, generally speaking. Jessamyn (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)