Talk:The Inquirer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the The Inquirer article.
  • Please do not use it as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
  • Sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~).
  • Place new comments after existing ones (but within topic sections).
  • Separate topic sections with a ==Descriptive header==.
Archive
Archives

Archive 1


Contents

[edit] The Rydermark and photoshop scandal

Does Rydermark even exist? Rydermark was first mentioned on a May 18, 2006 The Inquirer article in which it is claimed that the benchmark would be released in a couple of weeks. [1] Obviously the benchmark has not been released. Why is it that the creators of the Rydermark benchmark only communicate with The Inquirer?

Also, the screenshots are obvious fakes, not "potential fakes". [2] [3] [4] [5] Dionyseus 19:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not leave the assertions of "potential" and "obvious" to the sources that make them? The first sentence in that paragraph needs to be changed. Dancter 19:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Well the sources claim that the photos are obvious fakes. Here's a quote from the dailytech article: "It turns out the images "proving" NVIDIA’s wrongdoings were nothing more than poorly done Photoshopped images" Dionyseus 19:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Then the first sentence should say that the sources claim that, just like the sentences that follow it. If it is disputed (even by the publication in question), we can't state as fact that they're obvious fakes. The notions of being "embroiled", "scandal", and "amateurish" were not directly expressed in any of the sources, and along with the wording of "perhaps" seems to indicate an interpretation of the references to push a particular point of view. Dancter 19:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Where can you find definitive evidence that the images were faked? Not just some message boards and one site that says they think it was faked? I'm not here to argue whether or not the Inq's pictures were photoshopped (I'm quite sure they're not legit pictures), but I just don't think the current wording is very neutral.--Phranq 19:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually two sites say the photos are obviously fake, dailytech and Behardware.com. I'll change the wording of the paragraph to have both statements together rather than seperated. Dionyseus 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yah, I think that sounds a lot better, clarifying that the obvious fakes statement belongs to thost sites instead of Wikipedia itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phranq (talk • contribs) 12:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of this section! Why is there a section called Criticism which is all criticism sourced from Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be based on citations from other sources. If there is criticism of the Inquirer it should not be sourced from Wikipedia, but instead Wikipedia should cite criticism. Can we change this so it is the case? Riscy 06:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about. The criticisms are not sourced by Wikipedia as you claim. Dionyseus 13:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
If we included every time a newspaper or other form of media got something wrong we would have to have an entire wiki based on that one topic. A simple paragraph that has notable cases of worthy criticism. I just think this section shouldn't be a list of articles that are considered wrong or proved wrong. If it did it will continue to get longer and longer and become a list, and Wikipedia shouldn't become just a source of lists. Riscy 02:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The Rydermark section is very POV, embroiled (emotive), scandal (where was it regarded as a scandal), perhaps fictional (supposition), obvious fakes (opinion), obvious photoshopped fake (opinion). This should be edited to let the cited articles speak for themselves. Wikipedia should only contain undisputable facts. Riscy 02:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ho ho ho, Candella Software have now officially announced Rydermark in press releases to various sites. At last the fanbois denouncing it can be seen for what they are... --Amaccormack 13:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

They said it would be launched "this [2006] holiday season" but it's still not here. It could be delayed, but after all the controversy I must say that I am very sceptical of its existence.--213.46.128.161 10:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
See latest article at The Inq: [6]
Is there something like a Wikipedia "eat your shorts" equivalent for the behavior exposed by Dionyseus? 83.135.97.168 18:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
83.135.97.169 not sure what you mean or even which side you're on! Anyway, PC Perspective have an article about Rydermark and a demo video. As for 213.46.128.161's comments that a late product means that it doesn't exist, I wonder if he doubted that Windows Vista (originally planned for release in 2003) existed. Late software? Never! --Amaccormack 10:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd hardly call that an article... A few short sentences about a video, noting the amount of press the benchmark has gotten. --Ratwar 07:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I just read this article for the first time and think the "Scoops" section is totally inappropriate - the Dell Battery article is the only one worth mentioning, the rest are extremely pedantic and irrelevant. There are many thousands or articles published, pointing out a few which have had claims disputed or inconsistencies just rings of malice. Especially agree with Riscy's point above. By the way, changing the heading from "Criticism" to "Scoops" doesn't make the spitefulness less blatant. --150.202.8.1 22:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

All the RyderMark edits seem to be done by Inquirer employees to point that Dailytech (their rival) conspired to show Rydermark as fake. Not only is this irrelvent, but untrue. 71.228.5.126 18:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I edited it and I work for a US software company... --Amaccormack 10:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article (June 17 edit) says 'RyderMark developer Ajith Ram denied ever sending the Inquirer NVIDIA cheating allegations.' This is NOT correct. What he actually said was 'We never made any public statement about image quality or any GPU manufacturer.' There's a BIG difference between these two statements. For the same reason, the title of the referenced Daily Tech article is also a false statement. In fact, Ajith Ram does not provide a straight out 'Yes or No' answer to any of Kubicki's questions about this affair. (I think Kris Kubicki was so desperate to find something to make his earlier claims about the 'fake' Rydermark look less embarrassing, that he just didn't realize Ram had evaded his questions. At least one of the commenters did notice and has one (possible) theory about it).

[edit] Comparison to The Sun

Anyone who has actually read the Sun, with its naked women on page 3 and its crossword for those with a reading age of 8, will know that the Inquirer, albeit opinionated and occasaionally wrong is nothing like it. I suggest that to move towards being NPOV, that this comparison is removed. I'd do it myself, but it would just get reverted by the great Dionyseus... --Amaccormack 13:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Since there was no response to the above, I have made the change. --Amaccormack 13:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately you were beaten by the anti-"vandalism" bot, no edit escapes its omnipotent powers! Riscy 11:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I did not insert the Sun reference into the article. Having never read the Sun I cannot say whether or not Amaccormack is correct about them being incomparable, I just found it suspicious that you are a new user whose only edits have been in this and the Register's article. I would prefer if you did not mention my name in your edit summaries, you are taking a combative stance. Dionyseus 13:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree does Wikipedia list everytime that other magazines get things wrong? If a magazine has been running for as long as the INQ it is bound to get something wrong. Highlighting it only shows Dionyseus' bias against the magazine. The whole section should be chopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.3.59 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 10 August 2006
Dionyseus, since you ignored the request to talk about this at the time and just reverted it, I thought putting your name in the history was the only way to get your attention. I see that your request for arbitration cites Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers violations. Suspicious that I am a new member? What about all your plaintive cries for "Good Faith". Take the log out of your won eye before you look for specks in mine, please. Also, I see you sneakily removed the "ironic" from the top of the artcile. Funny how its not mentioned in any of your change notes. You seem to quite often combine useful changes, liek spelling etc with controversial ones. Please log them seperately. Of course, if you have trouble appreciating irony, I understand... --Amaccormack 08:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm no regular Sun reader, but I haven't noticed any similarity. I'm not making the change because I can't be sure, of course. fel64 15:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I am, after a fashion and I can state quite certainly that there's no qualitative similarity between the two publications. One is a low-down dirty story-faking editorialising rag with no consideration for the truth and the other is The Sun. Ehh, kidding... the truh is the sun generally panders to the lowest common denominator, whilst the inq at least tries to be an investigative news source. And succeeds, in this writer's opinion. I suppose that would make me biased. :) Archonix 12:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Emphasis on "trying" with Archonix's remark about Inquirer editors' investigative skills. I would say that the Sun's editors have much better writing skills though. They're both sensationalist, yes, but as bad as the Sun is in my opinion, they won't print news based on mere hearsay, spark rumours and hope to be proven correct later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.148.115 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 September 2006

[edit] Comparison to Private Eye

The publication, Private Eye, is likely the inspiration for the style The INQUIRER uses with comments from the editor, where the word 'editor' is abbreviated simply as Ed.

I think that's a ridiculous claim; Private Eye is by no means the only publication to use 'Ed.' (PC Gamer is the first to come to mind), and even if it was inspired by Private Eye, who cares? It's in no way relevant to the Inquirer if it writes Editor or Ed. and where that comes from.
Some of the Inquirer writers are English, just like the Private Eye writers; it's even mentioned that the Inquirer uses English slang occasionally. Citing the fact that Private Eye does the same isn't really of merit.
If the writing style of the Inquirer was similar to that of Private Eye, or the way it talked about public figures or whatever, that would be of interest. But superficial similarities are irrelevant. Since Private Eye is a joky, satirical publication and the reference is irrelevant, I can only assume that it's trying to suggest that the Inquirer is of a similar vein (joky, satirical) to Private Eye. While it may make jokes and satirical comments, almost all the articles are about serious matters, which is very different. I reckon drawing the parallel to Private Eye is NPOV.
I am therefore going to take out the reference to Private Eye.
fel64 16:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Almost all of the Eye's articles are about serious subjects. You can write a satirical article about a serious sbject and still get all the points across. Often humour is the best way to get a serious point across, as it can slip in between the jokes and make people think long after the laughter has died away. I do vaguely recall asking one of the Inq's editors if he worked for the Eye and getting an affirmative, but that may well be alcohol-induced bad memory so I guess it's not authoritative. Archonix 12:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV and Source Tags

I removed the unsourced tag after I realised that all the fact requirements had been filled, however I forgot that this probably should be discussed first. Any comments? I also read the section again looking for comments that were not NPOV and couldn't find any. However the Criticism section is pretty bad. Compared to other Wikipedia entries for websites or publications there seems to be a lot of focus on negatives, although I notice the NY Times is almost 90% criticism. Maybe just removing the section altogether may be the best option. Thoughts, comments? Riscy 11:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose removing the criticism section, that would make the article POV. Besides, the criticism section is only four short paragraphs, about the same size as most of the other sections in the article. Also, you yourself pointed out the fact that the NY Times article is mostly criticism. If the newspaper is controversial, some controversies need to be included in the article. The more controversial a newspaper, the larger the cricitism section should be. Dionyseus 11:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Obviously controversy is something that can be interpreted a number of different ways. I think that the size of the criticism section is probably not proportional to the reliability of the publication (which I think is probably the main thing we have been disagreeing on) but more related to the amount of interest and emotive feeling towards the publication that exists in the community. Perhaps this has a good correlation to controversy (actually I just reminded myself to check the definition of controversy [7]) I guess I just want to prevent the article becoming a list, at the moment there is some good general information on TheINQ with basically a list of some recent goofs and a list of some funny names they use, both sections are not really encylopedic. But I feel we are making progress with the article :) Riscy 12:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] PS3 Graphics card

I thought that Borislav.dopudja's comments on why he removed the comment about the PS3 graphic card were quite valid. That statement wasn't shown to be wrong only that Nvidia made a statement that apparently clarified the statement they had made. I don't think it can be counted as something that has been proven to be wrong and therefore not erroneous. My opinion is that the statement should be removed as per Borislav.dopudja's edit. Riscy 03:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think Nvidia knows more about their products than Borislav does. Dionyseus 04:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thing is, Nvidia know more about their products that Borislav or anyone outside the circle knows. The only little thing in the matter is that Nvidia is not allowed to say what developers are saying. But do not trust me or anyone else on the wikipedia on that one. Just check the number of cancelled PS3 titles.
Of course, I guess this *user* thinks that both AMD and ATi were telling everyone that they're merging, right? Very shallow. --Tvalich 23:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
But the orginal statement in the Inq article is still correct, it was just that Nvidia added further details to the quote that was in the Inq article Riscy 05:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That's incorrect. The Inq article claimed the PS3 gpu is inferior to the GeForce 7800. [8] Nvidia put a quick stop to that rumor by providing the actual paragraph which states that the PS3 gpu is actually more powerful than the GeForce 7800. [9] Dionyseus 05:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The Inq used the exact same quote as nVidia later provided. The difference is the the place The Inq found the qoute,[10] the people posting there misinterpreted it and thought it meant the other way around. That is probably the reason the article by The Inq was saying that it was slower. Text is being misinterpreted all the time and I don't see any reason The Inq should be blamed because of a mistake that everyone probably makes atleast once in life. Uzza 20:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yawn. Pseudo-penis guy again. I really wonder what will happen on November 17th, when PS3 performance and the platform follow the route of Dodo birds, since the performance on 128-bit bound GPU will be sufficient only for upscale rendering. Nice to see that it isn't only game developers and journalists taking note, but some other users as well. All threats made to myself aside, it's nice to see that the user found some time to add really important information on Wikipedia, such as pages about characters in fictional novel. Interesting to see that fictional characters for a 23-yr old are more important than adding information about characters from movies or god forbid, actual people?
Too bad your Mike Magee nomination didn't went through. Sad.
Note: Title Editor is given if an user deserves it. --Tvalich 23:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I wonder why a whole section [11]was removed by Dionyseus. Maybe that's a symptom of Adminitis, or maybe he's taking advantage of the fact that the author of that section is banned and can't undo the deletion - again. He would probably answer that was not relevant or something, but for me he's just manipulating in favor of his [dirty] image, as he always do. Or maybe the adminitis will force him to delete this very comment too. Can he judge by himself what people can or want to read? 201.31.11.62 17:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Although Wikpedia is a great resource, and most of the admins are really OK guys, here and there some admins are biased. On the other hand, Wikipedia is a completely open resource. All we have to do for some problem to be solved is to wait a little bit. --Borislav Dopudja 16:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Alas, a single full-time adminitis victim can edit many more pages than an army of full-time working-people with actual knowledge. Hence the steep downhill trend of Wikipedia article quality on every non-technical articles. 82.229.207.75 07:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dell Battery Recall

I added information to the criticism section about the Inquirer's reporting on the Dell exploding notebook battery mess. This got incredible attention from the mainstream media, and was clearly the start of the process which made Dell and Apple recall about six million batteries, and Sony, which made the batteries, lost 200 million dollars paying for them. So this is an example of extremely sucessful reporting by the Inquirer to provide some balance with all that ridiculous nitpicking criticism. - I also have put in some information from a BusinessWeek article which explains how the Inquirer got the Dell battery information, because I think that helps explain how the Inquirer works, which is actually one of the main purposes of Wikipedia, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.137.153.18 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 2 September 2006

Very good point and I agree the Dell battery article proved to be a very important article for the Inq. Worldwide coverage and linkage from mainstread media Riscy 01:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, as far as my information go (also published in mainstream media), the price of the recall for Dell alone is around 403 million quids, which ammounts to a little over 600 million US dollars. Figures for Apple were not available at press time, but expect a hayride of around 200-250 million US$.--Tvalich 23:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

For gods sake folks, think before you edit. Parts of this article were VERY badly written. I think I've fixed most of the issues, going to take another look in a couple of days. UrbanTerrorist 02:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's grammar.--213.46.128.161 11:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
And it was 3:00 AM :) UrbanTerrorist 18:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought someone was talking about Kelsey Grammer... ;) --Tvalich 08:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Whether it's 3 a.m. or not, people should still edit their writing carefully to lend credibility to what they're writing. -- YooperSue 01:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
When I see posts like that at 3AM, I assume that they were posted by ignorant forgieners who don't know any better. I have fixed the spelling in the title, and added an anchor below it so that any links to the section still work, in order to correct the error, as per WP:BOLD
Them darned "forgieners", eh? XD --Amaccormack 15:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everywhere Girl/Wikipedia controversy

The controversy over the exposure of the Everywhere Girl's identity and the deletion of the Everywhere Girl article is worth including in this article. I dug up a few INQ articles if someone wants to take a stab at it:

Also see:

--Lethargy 23:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that this has been added, I realize that we have approached this in the wrong way. What we need to do is have an Everywhere Girl section, and include this information in that section. Currently we are giving too much weight to the deletion controversy and not enough to the Everywhere Girl herself, which has been written about much longer than the WP deletion stuff. --Lethargy 02:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly why wikipedia is worthless and has been banned by so many schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.173.207 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 30 January 2007

So this is all the discussion we have on a subject this controversial? And the actual article is only a single sentence long? This smacks of censorship from arrogant people with an intense dislike for The Inq. Should these people really be dictating article policy for Wikipedia? Sure there should be some discussion as to whether or not it is an eloborate marketing campaign but it is ridiculous to limit the article to a single sentence that doesn't even properly cover the topic. It's about time this issue was sorted out as it only damages the credibility of the site. Theyarecomingforyou 10:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bloat

This article is swollen beyond recognition: The fact that almost all the refernces are from the inquirere itself should ring some alarm bells. I've removed a few itmes already, but I'm going to continue to take out anything unsourced or wildly trivial. Regarding sourcing from the subject of the article itself, primary sources are only allowed for items that are not "self serving."
brenneman 00:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverted your edits. Removing large portions of the article without any discussion is vandalism. If you think that they were unsourced/irrelevant/not pleasing you, then we have certain etiquette for dealing with these - for example, there are templates that ask for sources. Also, I don't think you should edit this article or anything else related to the Inquirer, as you cannot stay to NPOV. DLX 06:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I've rolled back your blind reversion... re-adding under "see also" a redirect to this article, with a link to the deletion review? That's simply astounding. Add back in sections (with sources, of course) that you think are relevent. - brenneman 06:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Restored and cleaned "Writers" and "Nicknames and terminology" sections. Both are relevant, second one has a good source as well. Cleaned up, wikified, reordered etc. DLX 07:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of editors

I've removed a section that purported to list all the Inquirer editors. While I hate to admit it, I have to agree with brenneman that the section is completely worthless. Apart from Mike Magee, none of the editors are notable enough to have their own Wiki page. Plus, what is the added value of having a list that shows all the people that work for an online publication? Not only that, but how are we even sure that this list of editors is complete and accurate? (I just noticed, for example, that Nebojsa is not on the list.)

Moreover, as I added before, but was removed because it was unsourced (I was afraid of that, sadly it is impossible for me to give a reliable source for the claim), many of the supposed editors are simply pseudonyms. "Cher Price" is a play on "share price" and is used when writing about the stock market. "Eva Glass" is an anagram of "Las Vegas" and is supposedly used by Mike Magee when he is writing from there. The whole "relationship" with Adamson Rust is all part of an in-joke between the editors. And if you think "Jock McFrock the bekilted engineer" is a real person...--213.46.128.161 15:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after consideration, I must agree with you - this section as it is now is not worth keeping. I undid your removal mostly because I wanted the pseudonyms to be in the article (btw, Adamson Rust is an anagram of Nostradamus). I wish we could find a acceptable source for the pseudonyms - but I don't think there is one.
Perhaps we should delete the "Writers" section, but add clarifying sentence or few to the "Writing style" section - along the lines "Some authors writing for the Inquirer are pseudonyms of Mike Magee, namely "Cher Price" (play on "share price", used when writing about the stock market), "Eva Glass" (an anagram of Las Vegas) and Adamson Rust (an anagram of Nostradamus)." Not that exact sentence, but something like that. DLX 20:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting about Adamson Rust, I never realized that one was a pseudonym too! I did some looking around on the Inquirer's website, and found the following information on the About Us page:

Journalists and Contributors
Mike Magee, Editor. Mike founded both the Register and the INQUIRER.

Paul Hales, News Editor.
Andrew Thomas, Fuad Abazovic (graphics), Tony Dennis (telecomms and PDAs), Nebosja Novakovic (Asia Pacific), Charlie Demerjian, Arron Rouse.

This is a good page we could use as a source, although it doesn't mention a lot of other editors. Looking at articles from even the last few days: Martin Veitch, Nick Farrell, David Evans, Ian Williams, Theo Valich... those are all missing, and they're pretty regular contributors. We could only include a subset of the editors, but then we'd have to make a judgement call on who contributes "enough" to the Inquirer, and what would we base that on?
Perhaps we should simply state that the Inquirer has a diverse staff from many different countries that is "led" by editor Mike Magee and news editor Paul Hales? Along with that, we could link to some pages on the Inq that show part of the group of editors, as in this article, this one and this one. I think we should at least not wikify any of the names apart from Mike Magee as, per notability guidelines, it's clear that as it is, none of the editors besides MM would qualify for a page on WP.
Also, Eva Glass is an enigma: she's supposedly pictured in the first photo on the first article linked, as well as in the second photo of the third linked article, and also in this article. But she looks pretty different in each. I always figured she was made up and Adam Rust was real, but with him not appearing in any pictures I think I might have had things backwards. Either that or both are made up.--213.46.128.161 23:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everywhere Girl again

Should the Everywhere Girl section be placed so high in the article, and should two Wikipedians be mentioned? Should there even be an Everywhere Girl section?

The first issue: I do not believe the Everywhere Girl is so important as to be placed so high in the article, I believe it would be more appropiate to place it in the lower section of the article.

The second issue: I believe it is highly inappropiate to mention two Wikipedians in the article by name, including links to their userpages. As one of the two Wikipedians to be named in the article, I am highly offended and want my name removed. The other named Wikipedian is equally offended.

The third issue: Should there even be an Everywhere Girl section in the article? The Everywhere Girl article was deleted due to the subject not meeting the criteria of WP:BIO, and the deletion was supported twice in DRV, most recently in the end of January 2007. Certainly The inquirer has tried to promote the Everywhere Girl, but when you think of The Inquirer you think of them as a tech tabloid, you don't think of Everywhere Girl. Dionyseus 00:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this RFC, Dionyseus - just to clarify my own position, I wouldn't describe myself quite as "offended" by inclusion of our names. What I am concerned about is by inclusion of our names
1) it potentially acts as a vandal magnet for our user pages (I've suffered user paged vandalism during the EG afd and I'm sure Dionyseus did too)
and more importantly:
2) it sets a bad precedent for participation in afds e.g. in such a situation as: if wikipedian is a major arguer for delete in whatever meme/fad/gimmick by some tabloid style website or other kind of publication which does have its own valid wikipedia article. The fad article is deleted and then the tabloid writes an angry article complaining about the wikipedian, and the wikipedian is subsequently included in the new fad section in the the wikipedia article on the tabloid website or publication as a complained-about person (this is not only potentially encouraging vandals but also possibly acting to discourage wikipedians from arguing for delete in afds... perhaps especially those whose identities are public or traceable).
I have no opinion here on whether an EG section belongs in the Inquirer article and I am merely concerned here about the inclusion of our usernames and would prefer to focus on this issue. Bwithh 03:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
To respond to your specific concerns Bwithh - While I agree it can be an unfortunate situation, I do not think it is a 'bad precedent.' The actions of editors are not beyond reproach or record - and if they rise to a certain "critical mass," they can even merit inclusion in the encyclopedia itself. The fact that this AFD/DRV was a particularly contentious one, and that there seemed to be a vocal few who proceeded with the deletion repeatedly (as opposed to broad-support from many editors) creates a situation where editors have put themselves in a precarious position - where they become a part of the history they are charged with documenting. I think it is important that editor's actions be subject to this level of scrutiny, else what assurance do we have that the decisions of said editors are done out of anything but a personal vendetta against the subject? Sahrin 03:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I think your notion of media coverage "critical mass" is set very low. This is nothing close to the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy (and neither Dionyseus nor I have done anything against Wikipedian policy here as the user in that case did). And let me remind you that the consensus was reached for deletion in the afd and endorsed in deletion review (more than once I believe). And where is the stuff about "having a personal vendetta" and "scrutiny" coming from? Bwithh 03:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
My intent wasn't to imply that the consensus or original decision regarding specifically EG was incorrect, the AFD/DRV's were flawed or improper, or that the situation reached any critical mass. I was responding to your comment (and more broadly, Dionyseus's) regarding the inclusion of editor handles (let us be honest, a screen name is a name in the same way that a photograph is a name). I feel that, given the right circumstances and a 'significant disproportionate influence' ("critical mass" is quite pedestrian) on the part of a small group of editors - inclusion can and in fact should be merited. The debate about whether yours or dionyseus's handles should be included in the article itself is tertiary - first it must be established that it is not improper (for it even to be considered), I was arguing for its propriety (not in this case, but in general, given the criteria mentioned). With respect to a supposed assertion that you (or anyone else) bears a personal vendetta, again, I was arguing the broad concept of propriety of the inclusion of editor names, not this specific section (see my comments below for more detail on that topic). Thanks for your comments. Sahrin 03:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to say here Bwithh 03:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
At some point your holy crusade against the Everywhere Girl needs to stop - because as much as you might believe it doesn't merit inclusion into the encyclopedia at large, it is a large part of Inquirer lore. The links that reference Wikipedia editors are placed because there are demonstrable links between the effort to delete, re-delete and uphold the deletion of the Everywhere Girl article and those two editors; that is, they played a crucial role in the deletion, and then continued to play a crucial role. Perhaps you believe it is highly inappropriate to mention editors by name - that is your right, however, as Mike Magee, or 'inquirisms' are an important part of understanding the mythos of The Inquirer, so is including Everywhere Girl information, and information about the war against the articles inclusion, led by a small group of editors and admins who worked against the very ethos of the encyclopedia and removed the article (and locked the URL).
To respond to your issues in a more concise manner - placement within the article is determined partially by relevancy and partially by stlistic choices of the authors - in this case, the pertinent information 'that the Inquirer is a tech tabloid,' is placed above the section in question. Below that, are merely "Inquirer factoids" if you will. If the encyclopedia made changes based on what the subject matter would like to have happen, it wouldn't be much of an encyclopedia. Perhaps had you not created such a unilateral movement against the article in question, your inclusion would have no merit. Unfortuantely, your actions tie you to the controversy more clearly that arguably any other editor, and for that reason you are named. And Finally, I can't believe, as I said, that your seemingly pretentious attitude towards the Inquirer in general and this article in particular run so deep that you could honestly and ethically state that the Everywhere Girl does not merit inclusion in the Inquirer at all. The fact that your actions against the article's inclusion were met with such strenuous protest should be indication enough that it does have merit, if only in the scope of this article.
And finally, I find it a delicious irony that you, an accused Champion of Censorship, refer to the Everywhere Girl as a proper name - despite your insistance of its insignificance. Your own words betray what is to some a self-evident truth. (Disclaimer - I do not work for the Inquirer, though one time I posted a link on a music forum to a cartoon they drew.) Sahrin 03:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the storyline is "The Inquirer pushes Everywhere Girl story". So did any independent outlet pick this up and discuss it in an editorial manner, or is the Inquirer used as a primary source? It looks like a primary source to me. ~ trialsanderrors 03:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Sahrin. I think your thoughts provide interesting insights into the thinking behind inclusion of our names in the article. I find myself having though to repeat again that I have no opinion here on whether EG stays in the article or not. Bwithh 03:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As a first thing, I would like to remind everyone of WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:AGF and especially WP:LIVING. All of those have been violated in these discussions, repeatedly. And unfortunately, I must remind that Wikipedia administrators are not exempt of following those rules as well. I must agree with both Bwithh and Sahrin. While including their names to the section increases probability of userpage vandalism, they have become a part of "Everywhere Girl" story - and in my opinion, should be therefore included. As for the sources, last DRV had several independent sources that were acceptable by WP:BIO standards - and to be honest, the decision came as a big surprise to me. We had proven notability, sources and interest - and while DRV is not a vote, majority of commenters supported full restoration of the article. Whether or not the section should be so high in the article? I think that as of now it should - at least while interest in this topic is extremely high. Perhaps in a few years it should be moved downwards - but now everyone comes to see that particular topic. As for the section itself - it needs to be both expanded and rewritten. Perhaps a reasonable size would be 15..20 lines - briefly outlining all discovery, name and Wikipedia conflict. DLX 07:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Bwithh said above "This is nothing close to the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy (and neither Dionyseus nor I have done anything against Wikipedian policy here as the user in that case did)." (Sorry to interject here, but the revealing of the Everywhere Girl's real identity by Bwithh and Dionyseus was actually very much against Wikipedia policy. What a delightful irony, in light of the subject of this discussion) 59.115.132.126 09:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware it wasn't against Wikipedia policy, she's not a Wikipedian. Dionyseus 10:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that you Wikipedians are entitled to privacy, but other people are not!? Is Wikipedia's policy really so elitist? 59.115.132.126 13:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Think about who you're talking to. Though I think Dionyseus's point here may have merit. It is not that Wikipedians are entitled to privacy rights denied others, it is that within the realm of the "dancing monkeys" behind the encyclopedia, anonymity of editors can be a useful asset. Sahrin 13:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Everywhere Girl section stays. This has been discussed to death now and bringing up this question again sounds like you pushing an agenda. Everywhere girl was set to redirect to The Inquirer for a reason.

Placement: your desire to have it placed lower sounds like WP:COI (your interest seemingly being a crusade against The Inquirer/Everywhere girl, likely because The Inquirer has mentioned you by name in their articles). On the basis of stylistic choices, I believe the section could be placed below 'Scoops' or above it (as it is now).

On the inclusion of names: they can be taken out. These WP users are not important enough to warrant inclusion in any article.

As an aside, I'm sick and tired of this discussion being brought up. I'm getting really pissed off here. Add something meaningful and relevant to the article or otherwise fix it up as I have done, rather than hammering on this particular issue each and every time.

If you've never done a good-faith edit to The Inquirer article, stay out of it and go spend time in a useful manner on different articles. There's enough stuff that needs work, but one thing we DON'T need is constant bickering about the same goddamn topic day in day out.

Note: this comment is aimed at EVERYONE involved in this discussion, not just Dionyseus. (Although he is the worst offender).--213.46.128.161 18:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I was invited to comment here, so here's my piece. I'll keep this fairly short, as I don't have the patience to get into a protracted dispute anymore (you'll notice that I've barely edited in the last two weeks, and I somewhat regret getting involved at all in this dispute). My main reason for reverting Dionyseus' edit was because of the conflict of interest due to a figure named in the article removing information that concerns himself. I don't really care what part of the article the EG section is in. I'm not entirely sure on whether to include the names of the involved editors, but I'm leaning towards including them. However, the cross-namespace links to userpages are blatantly unencyclopedic, and do not belong. And I think it's obvious that I feel this section should be kept in the article--the AfD just resulted in her not getting her own article. That doesn't preclude a mention in broader-scope articles. jgpTC 07:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe there was any COI, apparently most of the editors here agree with me that it was inappropiate to include the name and links of the Wikipedia editors in the article. As for placement, I don't see how it can be COI to believe that the subject is not as notable as the other subjects, I believe it is simply a content matter, I don't think The Inquirer is most known for Everywhere Girl, and thus should be placed below the Scoops section. Dionyseus 23:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demand for too many sources

Some people have demanded way more sources than are necessary for this article. For example, the request for a secondary source for the fact that The Inquirer has criticized the publication of EG's real name. This is utter rubbish. From WP:NOR:

An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.

The section in question states: "The Inquirer has criticized this deletion[8] as well as the revelation of the model's real name during the deletion discussions by Wikipedia users (the model's name and identity had been kept confidential by The Inquirer).[9]"

We comply with (1): the claim is only descriptive (it reproduces what the Inq stated in their article) and is EASILY verifiable. The information is also not interpreted, thus we also comply with (2). As such, I'm removing the redundant second source.


Further, I recently added a citation for Mike Magee's quote from BusinessWeek. Again, I am removing this. The quote appears in the earlier reference to the same BusinessWeek article, and citations are allowed to span multiple sentences.--213.46.128.161 22:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rydermark

This secttion appears to be something to do with graphics cards and perhaps benchmarks(??). Other than that I can't make head nor tail of it. Perhaps it can be expanded for the casual reader who doesn't follow the site - SimonLyall (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It was one story that has pretty much turned out to be vapourware. I don't think it's significant, really, and should probably just be expunged. It was probably first added when a bunch of people were having there hate campaign against the Inquirer becuase they criticised Wikipedia. No doubt my whole city's IP range will now be banned, a la Judd Bagley...

[edit] Everywhere Girl again (2008 discussion)

Entering a search for 'Everywhere Girl' on Wikipedia still re-directs to 'The Inquirer'. I am familiar with the history of the debate and why this happened, but am wondering if it no longer appropriate to associate her purely with 'The Inquirer'. Consider this page: http://blog.ideeinc.com/2008/01/22/everywhere-girl-the-book/ which has nothing to do with 'The Inquirer' and shows literally dozens of books with cover photos of 'The Everywhere Girl'.

Surely now this phenomenon either belongs in a stock photography article? Or, maybe having its own entry should be re-considered? 82.44.221.140 (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)