Talk:Slashdot/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Archival

I have archived the old discussion page. You can find it at /Archive1. Isopropyl 16:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


"Slashdot as a trend setter" section unreferenced

I added the tag to this section noting it is unreferenced. It certainly makes sense but it shouldn't be in the article unless verified by references. I'll leave it here for a while but if no references are forthcoming I'll delete the section. --ElKevbo 14:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Probably should be deleted. I've known of Slashdot for probably 6 or 7 years and never heard this or got that impression until seeing it on WP. I don't think Slashdot's audience is mainstream enough to be any kind of trendsetter. Dbchip 16:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I deleted the section. --ElKevbo 01:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

looks like "advertisement"

not that slashdot would be doing any promo..but having the slashdot banner above other links on the right hand side of the page makes it look like this wikipedia page is hosted by them or something. It looks like "here's how you can get to know us" rather than "this is some information on slashdot" ... the latter more desirable of course. 69.249.57.34 01:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Seenonslash

Removed the external link to seenonslash dot com, a site which simply copies comments off slashdot and shows advertisments with them. Good idea for making a profit but it doesn't really add anything.

I disagree, it is no different than Slashdot itself, just replace comments with articles. I believe they both provide a valuable service, it could turn out to be the bash.org equivalent just for Slashdot comments. Plus it almost always links back to the original author (and once the comments are automaticly fetched, it most likely always will), if anything it is one big advertisement for Slashdot itself. I vote for putting the link back in, it is relevant to the topic and it shows that comments play an important part in Slashdot. --Bruce 06:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe that my initial reaction (see above) could be classified as a knee-jerk reaction. After having thought about it some more, I have decided that I completely support your decision to remove the link from the main article. I noticed the link is featured in Slashdot_subculture, I believe this is where it rightfully belongs. --Bruce 23:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm the owner of SeenOnSlash.com. My goal is to emphasize the slashdot subculture by highlighting great comments that are eventually forgotton on Slashdot. I'm working on adding a voting system. We'll eventually have pages showing the greatest comments of all time as voted by users. Bruce makes an excellent point that the site is really more about the subculture than Slashdot proper. So far I've only gotten very positive feedback from the slashdot community. Since I'm obviously biassed I'll leave it to others to decide if the link should be placed on this page. (Regarding profit I'm trying to cover the cost of hosting, but it's not even close. Knowing how slashdotters love advertising I didn't build seenonslash expecting profit.) --Matt 20 April 2006

Christdot

I removed the link because I disagree with you on it's relevance.

Here's my take on the site:
1. Bits of news are posted
2. It's got comments
3. It's based on slashcode

While those points are indeed shared with /., 1 and 2 also fit most news sites and blogs, and 3 fits a lot of them too.

And while the other sites listed are somewhat tech-related or has some connection with /., christdot is totally unrelated except for the pun on the name.

So to conclude; I see it as non-relevant and non-notable.

The list of relevant similar sites seems to me to be just big enough to be doing it's purpose without listing every site under the sun.

Also, are you the owner of the site? If so, are you adding the link simply to increase your readership? --Nnp 20:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I see it's a php-nuke site, my bad. My point still stands though. --Nnp 20:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not the owner; I'd never heard of it until someone added it to this article. I just wanted to make sure this wasn't a knee jerk anti-Christian reaction. Your points are excellent ones and based on them I agree with the removal of this site. Thanks! --ElKevbo 01:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Woudldn't that be a knee-jerk pro-christian reaction? :) --Nnp 14:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, it's been suggested that Christdot be merged into this article. --Nnp 08:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Similar sites

Are there any objections to pruning down this section? It's pointlessly huge. // Nnp 22:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the section should be removed completely. Similar sites are worth a sentence of mention at most. PrettyMuchBryce 04:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

yes objection; this has to do with the encyclopedia as opposed to dictionary role of wiki; broadening ones horizons is good. The very superior quality of formatting (/. is pleasing to the eye) while a matter of opinion, should be noted

Criticism & the header

It doesn't make any sense for there to be a paragraph in the middle of this article's header devoted to random annoyances people have with the site, especially when those annoyances are again listed later on in the article. I deleted the portion of the top section, the criticism section is still there in all it's glory. --relaxathon 17:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just an odd question I can't find the answer to.

Why did Slashdot change its UI? And how do I change it back to the old form? I can't find any announcements on the Slashdot page itself about this. --Zemylat 23:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Odd question? This is the wiki article on /. afterall ;) There were several discussions on the layout change. Your question about using the old layout came up in the comments, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't think a true switch is simple because the old layout used a lot of tables (even the CSS version of the old layout), whereas the new layout uses div tags. Thus, the old layout would have to be converted to the new markup. Might be worth adding to the Slashdot firefox extension, though. --Vector4F 21:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is a link to the discussion about the winning design. meshach 18:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Tags

Not being a regular editor at this article i thought it'd be best to post a content request here instead of editing the main article and probably screwing it up ;) Can we please go into the criticism regarding the 'tags' system and how horribly some articles have been tagged. It might only be me but when i see articles (particually non-100% US based) tagged 'whocares' or some other smartassed remark it makes me very angry, and i think it should deserve at least a small section in the criticism section. Other tags are the 'yes','no','maybe' tags (These are article tags, not opinion polls!), 'stupid', 'haha' and 'pwned' tags (How do these serve any purpose except as a way for users to make a biased and generally unuseful personal opinion?). I'd really appreciate if someone could take the time to give it a mention, i understand the tags system has yet to be fully implementated but it can annoy me, and i'ma assuming others, to no end (particually the US-Centric opinions and spelling). Thanks a lot -Benbread 10:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Original criticism isn't useful to the encyclopedia. That the tagging is useless at best and stupid at worst is a fair point, but there are better things that could be added to this article. Chris Cunningham 22:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

April Fools Day

I was just wondering why there isn't a April Fools section or similar in this article. Slashdot generally partakes with funny snippets of news from the opposite realm of geekdom on April 1st, and having a screenshot of the Pink April 1st Slashdot from this year would greatly add to this articles value. I found one and uploaded: slashdot.org April 1, 2006 Would a new section be prudent? I am already aware of April 1, 2006 (Complete List) where this information was originally linked. --Solarisworld 07:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Find an excuse to put it in somewhere. Might want to cut the image in half or something (a bit long). --Vector4F 14:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Quill E. Coyote's deletion

Regarding [1]: please don't nitpick. I think the Slashdot FAQ would be a reliable source for the site's namesake. Isopropyl 06:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet that only covers part of 'my' deletion, and the whole paragraph is nonetheless completely unverifiable. Please read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:3RR. Quill E. Coyote 06:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
What part of the paragraph do you object to? Isopropyl 06:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I object to the complete paragraph, though for different reasons for different parts. The first sentence is referenced, but by Slashdot's own website and not an independent secondary source, which is what is required for reliability. The second sentence, on the other hand, seems to be pure speculation and original research.
I'd also like to remind you that any editor is welcome to remove any information on Wikipedia that is not reliably sourced, and if you want to revert them, it is incumbant upon you to provide proper sources. Quill E. Coyote 06:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you object to the fact that slash dot may refer to Unix root? -- tasc wordsdeeds 07:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I hold no opinion on the matter. However, since it is not reliably sourced, and reeks of inappropriate synthesis of material at the very least, it is original research and not eligible to be included. Quill E. Coyote 07:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
What a lot of abject nonsense. The most absolutely reliable source for something like the reason for naming something is the person who named it. The second part might just be speculation, but the first is properly sourced. Talk about applying rules without thinking about it. Chris Cunningham 09:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Weasel words

The neutrality of this article has been compromised by the use of weasel words. The use of "#<section>" is where the offending material appears in the article. Below is a list of some of them:

  • "Although in the past some have considered" - Lead.
  • "This reinforces the perception of some readers of a Linux bias on the site." #Article sections; current tagged with {{fact}}.
  • "People that post comments designed to get more karma, for example mirroring a linked article, are sometimes referred to as karma whores." #Moderation; para. 1.
  • "and in some cases entire threads of comments have been arked down to −1." #Moderations; para. 2.
  • "As of July 2006, there is some of evidence to suggest that Slashdot's audience is shrinking not only in relation to other sites, but in absolute terms as well." #Decline; first sentence.

Iolakana•T 18:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)