Talk:Pajamas Media

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, yes. Footnotes that cite arguments made by the subject of the article. But no, "encyclopedias" that any idiot can write and edit are really just great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.214.13 (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)



Contents

[edit] Defunct? XM?

I'll be straight, I don't know a heck of a lot about these guys, and it's late so I just want to say that they've got some sort of show on around 1700-1800 Eastern United States time on the XM Radio channel 'POTUS.' To be even more vague, I don't know the channel number. -.- \ They talk about the presidential election mostly, and they explain the origins of the company's name every show I've heard. So, I'm not really sure what the whole 'defunct' thing is, especially when the reference kind of doesn't point to anything telling as far as I can see. Clopnaz (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name Change

Since Pajamas Media has been renamed as Open Source Media, should a new topic be created and this information transwikied to the new one? Jtmichcock 21:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd imagine a simple move would suffice. Right now, Open Source Media is a redirect here, that should probably be reversed. --badlydrawnjeff 20:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, so the proper name is not. I'm going to make the move, then, and fix the double redirects. --badlydrawnjeff 20:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
There's a link here from the Plurn page - I see this becoming a problem since "open source" already meant something when they named their company this. Suggestions? Dragula 00:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyone notice that every single "New Media Coverage" link is to a negative review? Perhaps someone had a grudge. I didn't take the time to put in balance (though someone ought to) but I did reorder the sections. It used to lead off with the highly negative "Flame Wars" section, and the OSM site itself was buried at the end under "Other". I just reversed the section order. --Alex 11:45pm 11/17/05

The link sections had been alphebetical (F, N, O, O) but I agree they make more sense in this order. I googled for positive "New Media" coverage and was able to find 4 reports by launch party attendees. Not 50/50 yet by any means but I will keep looking. Dragula 22:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: OSM was a Top 10 search this week on Technorati. FWIW, coverage seem to range from confused to critical. Dragula 23:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Another update: Looks like they're going back to Pajamas Media. I'm persoanlly going to wait until the name change becomes official and branded before moving again, unless someone feels the need to move it before I do. --badlydrawnjeff 16:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Dammit, this is WHY we check the talk page. Mea maxima culpa. All the same, the damage has been done, and I think the edits I made are appropriate for the time-being. Tom Lillis 17:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Okay, I'm not looking to slap a tag on this yet, but is anyone else concerned that we're being a bit heavy handed about OSM so far? Right now, we have one section of criticism that's larger than the other two combined, 3 paragraphs about OSM, and 4 paragraphs labeled "missteps." Also, we have a TON of links, many of which are probably unnecessary and could probably be cut back to more notable blogs as opposed to any sort of posting under the sun.

It's probable that OSM will become a bit of a lightning rod, and it would be nice to nip the POV issues in the bud without edit warring early before it gets too unweildly. Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff 15:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, although I hesitate to start the effort myself. Edit wars give me indigestion. Tom Lillis 17:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I did the following: 1) reworded a few sections to make them a little more readable, 2) Eliminated duplication in a couple areas, mostly within the OSM/Radio Open Source Media flap, 3) Re-worded the criticism area to eliminate the overabundance of quoting and make it more streamlined and readable, 4) Eliminated about half of the "New Media Links" to limit it to more notable and relevant blogs. With the #4, I fully expect some may accuse me of a POV elimination, but I promise my intent was to only cut down on the links, and I did so without any real care as to POV of the links. If people feel the need to add some back, by all means, do so, but try to keep it to notable/relevant blogs if possible. --badlydrawnjeff 16:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If you do a search on technorati for OSM the coverage is almost uniformly negative; OSM/PJMedia has not been well-received by the "blogosphere." The following was a typical story on the topic:

"Monk Mojo: Let’s fix OSM / Pajama Media Monk Mojo has a link round-up of ideas about how to fix Pajamas Media. My idea: Let’s abort this cluster-fuck while it’s still in the first trimester.

FWIW there are also many articles holding up PJMedia as an example of how not to start a blog network, numerous parody sites and even a deadpool.

That being the case, we might consider removing the "New Media Coverage" all together. Ordinarily how bloggers react to a blog network would be an important part of the story but in this case no coverage at all might be better than a selection of negative stories. Dragula 03:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Connection to "Government Propaganda"

Forgetting for a moment the inherently POV section title that sat there, a reading of the actual article that was being noted in the non-notable blog link[1] (article available here) notes that the article writer was not attempting to create a link between "government propaganda" and PJM, simply that the links between NC4 as a funding source and PJM has prompted "some bloggers" (without sourcing) to mumble falsely that PJM is a government operation, a note the article author gives the impression of dismissing. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to say that. android79 21:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead links

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--maru (talk) contribs 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--maru (talk) contribs 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--maru (talk) contribs 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted these dead links in September 2006 (see below) and I've now refactored these messages. CWC 05:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I've just removed a bunch of External links that were either broken (see the bot messages above), went to defunct blogs, violated WP:EL or were irrelevant (dennisthepeasant.typepad.com; if anyone has links to relevant posts on this blog, please put them in).

Remaining problems:

  1. I'm not sure the description of http://pyjamasmedia.com/blog/ is accurate — they seem to be a regular blog (and quite a good one) as well as a spoof (I liked their advisory board page). Also, it would be better to supply a link for that claim about being a true open source blog
  2. All the links in the "Feuds & Flamewars" section relate to one Feud/Flamewar, so we should probably change the section title or find some more Feuds and/or Flamewars.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 15:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Update, March 2007:
  1. That spoof site (http://pyjamasmedia.com/blog/) is gone.
  2. The link to Matt Welch's blog post "A Media Entrepreneur of Taste" is broken, so I've replaced it with an Internet Archive link.
  3. I've changed the last subheading from "===Feuds and flamewars===" to "===2005 Flamewar===" (which is lame, I know; if you can do better, please fix my work).
Cheers, CWC 06:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Paul dropped from polls

User Cornince (talk · contribs) recently added the following. I've moved it here for discussion.

[2] criticizes the site's mock presidential election for dropping Ron Paul and declaring him unelectable, despite his receiving more than 40% of the vote in one election.

The linked article came from WorldNetDaily (see here), and is by "Vox Day". Here's my rewrite of the paragraph:

A columnist who supports Ron Paul has criticized Pajamas Media for dropping Paul from the site's presidential straw polls and declaring him unelectable, despite his receiving more than 40% of the vote in a February poll.

My questions:
(1) Is this incident significant enough that the article should mention it?
(2) Is that WND article worth using as an External Link?

(BTW, my guess is that Pajamas Media decided that Paul's supporters had stacked their poll.)

Cheers, CWC 07:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Concur with the above revision as much more transparent.

(1) The incident seems significant in that web site's proprietors out of hand declared actual results invalid. The question of the media intentionally ignoring third party or "outsider" candidates (whether or not proven) warrants this as a data point.

Sullly 02:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sullly. By sheer chance, I saw your version of the article with the link to http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods63.html, which is by someone with a Wikipedia article, Thomas Woods. For that reason, I think it's a much better source than the WorldNetDaily article. Here's what I'd put in the article:
Thomas E. Woods, Jr. has criticized Pajamas Media for dropping Ron Paul from the site's presidential straw polls and declaring him unelectable, despite his receiving more than 40% of the vote in their 19 February 2007 poll.[3]
What do you think? Cheers, CWC 02:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
PM put Mr Paul back in their last poll, and he got 29% of the overall vote, but they note that "the vast majority of his votes in our poll (1331 of 1725) were placed right here on the portal site, suggesting a determined effort by his supporters to “bomb” this poll." I've updated the article. However, I suspect that the link I used will break in a week. Bah.
I also switched the link for Vox Day's article to WND instead of the copy; I still think Thomas Wood's article is a better source. Cheers, CWC 08:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
And now they've posted a "Special Message to Supporters of Ron Paul" asking them to stop stacking the poll. CWC 13:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll-stacking

The attempt to promote Ron Paul's candidacy extends to lots of on-line polls, not just PM's poll. I've found one WP:RS for this, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3147940. I also found several non-citeable sources ([4], [5], [6], [7]) and a source of unknown reliability, http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2529. (Capitol Hill Blue has been used as a source in other articles, for whatever that's worth.)

I've tried to edit the article accordingly. (Because Pajamas Media has no permalinks on their $@*@#! poll pages, we can't cite or quote them, which is extremely annoying.)

BTW, there are some indications that the stacking is coming from outside Ron Paul's campaign. Cheers, CWC 17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

June 19: Roger L. Simon blogged about the poll-stacking. (A permalink! Finally!) I've used that post as a cite. CWC 18:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pajamas Media logo.gif

Image:Pajamas Media logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Case (talk · contribs) has fixed this problem by adding a fair-use rationale. Thanks, Daniel. CWC 16:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Open Source Media logo.gif

Image:Open Source Media logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] disproportionate weight / ron paul

The Ron Paul stuff is disproportionate right now, and frankly appears aimed at the reader interested in Ron Paul rather than the reader interested in Pajamas Media. --Lquilter (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)