Talk:Wikipedia Watch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
|
 |
This article is part of the WikiProject Wikipedia, an attempt to improve and organize Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. |
Well, I thought the paragraph I added was relevant, see the previous version, any comments? PatGallacher 17:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I removed
- "Brandt also misunderstands the ethos of Wikipedia, which is not that "information wants to be free, and nothing must stand in its way". In 2005 there was a rather heated discussion (although it only got to the "Request for comment" stage) about someone's biography; it was eventually agreed that some information, although it could have been true, would be a violation of their privacy. (It is not possible to identify the person involved.)"
- I removed the paragraph b/c (1) I didn't think it belonged under a section head "Attacks on Wikipedia Watch" which details the alleged denial of service and hoax incidents; and (2) it's an unsourced and not very understandable synthesis/analysis of WP's "ethos". If you feel that something is needed to balance DB's criticism, we could add the quote from JW that's over here, but in general, I'd prefer to make this article shorter, not longer (it already has practically as much content as the WW site, itself! --FRS 18:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Don't use wikipedia as an attack platform
I thought the inclusion of the name of a wiki user was one of the worst edits I have ever seen. We should not be self-referencing, and this was a total abuse of wikipedia by using it as a platform in which to attack another user. I am disgusted, SqueakBox 04:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- How is it an attack on another user, when that user described his prank himself at great length here (Section 19)? Lots of people thought it was pretty funny, at least at the time. Someone even awarded him a "prankstar" User_talk:Callum_Derbyshire. As for avoiding self reference, the best way to do that would be to delete the whole article, as I have proposed.--FRS 22:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Votes for deletion
I'm sorry if anyone is offended by this statement*, but I feel very strongly about this and wanted to put it on the record. Whoever nominated this article for deletion and anyone who votes in favor of deletion of it should be ashamed of themseves. You and your actions are a disgrace. Do you have any idea how petty and small-minded this makes you appear? The single best thing that could happen for wikipedia is if every single person who tried to censor criticism of wikipedia (and make no mistake, that's all those people are doing) left here and NEVER came back.
- Except for the people I'm referring to in the above statement. I really couldn't care less if I offend them or not. By their actions, they have demonstrated that their opinions and the contributions are of no value.
--SpinyNorman 04:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Is it really necessary to attack people for disagreeing with you? Have you considered that those who disagree with you may not be motivated by a desire to censor, but by a sincere belief that a three page website by some random critic is not worthy of an encyclopedia article? Gamaliel 07:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- I don't normally do this - ordinarily, I go out of my way to be diplomatic and considerate of the opposing view - but in this case it is both necessary and appropriate to meet this disgraceful nonsense head-on. And to answer your question, yes have considered that those who want to delete this article might have had less petty motivation. However, in the end, there is simply no other explanation. Well, on reconsideration, there is one other possibility: that those who want to delete this article are so naive that they simply don't understand the ramifications of wikipedia censoring criticism of itself. In that case, the indivduals may not be acting maliciously but they are still dangerous and should refrain from ever editing wikipedia in the future because their judgement is clearly unsound. As for your attempts to belittle the criticism of wikipedia, the site in question is not by "some random critic" but an individual of sufficient notability that he already has a wikipedia article about him. You can't argue that the man is sufficiently noteworthy to have a writeup, but the results of his actions in the area which made him notable in the first place (i.e. his criticism of wikipedia) are not, in and of themselves, notable. --SpinyNorman 16:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- (ahem) as the person who nominated this article for deletion, I should point out that I have also advocated deletion of the article about the founder of the website, Daniel Brandt, a marginally notable non-public person who has vigorously opposed the fact that WP has an article about him. In fact, the subject of this article, Wikipedia Watch was only created by Mr. Brandt as a result of his dissatisfaction with the existence or content of the article about him. So I've been consistent, at least, in my opinion (with which you are free to disagree, of course). You might check out the lengthy talk page history on Daniel Brandt]] before charging other editors with "censoring criticism." I should also point out that this article has been improved immensely since its nomination, largely, I think as a result of the attention flowing from the AfD nomination.--FRS 17:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- I do think Brandt is notable in a minor way, but his criticism of Wikipedia is not what makes him notable. It is his history of left-wing activism and his Google watch campaign, both of which have received major media coverage. This doesn't mean every webpage he has ever dumped out deserves an encyclopedia article or is equally noteworthy. You may disagree with this, of course, but your contempt for anyone who disagrees with you and your refusal to even acknowledge another point of view besides a false dichotomy between your own view and craven censorship is quite rude and unbecoming a Wikipedia editor. Gamaliel 18:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- I don't normally do this - ordinarily, I go out of my way to be diplomatic and considerate of the opposing view - but in this case it is both necessary and appropriate to meet this disgraceful nonsense head-on. And to answer your question, yes have considered that those who want to delete this article might have had less petty motivation. However, in the end, there is simply no other explanation. Well, on reconsideration, there is one other possibility: that those who want to delete this article are so naive that they simply don't understand the ramifications of wikipedia censoring criticism of itself. In that case, the indivduals may not be acting maliciously but they are still dangerous and should refrain from ever editing wikipedia in the future because their judgement is clearly unsound. As for your attempts to belittle the criticism of wikipedia, the site in question is not by "some random critic" but an individual of sufficient notability that he already has a wikipedia article about him. You can't argue that the man is sufficiently noteworthy to have a writeup, but the results of his actions in the area which made him notable in the first place (i.e. his criticism of wikipedia) are not, in and of themselves, notable. --SpinyNorman 16:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] POV?
I am reverting a revert that claimed that my edit was POV because I believe it is not. The edit says that some wikipedia editors think it is extortion; it does not say that it is extortion. I will not revert any further reverts until this is resolved on the discussion page. 71.248.239.188 03:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I took it out again. My problems with your language include "Wikipedians succumbed to Brandt's demands to remove the page about him" (not true, because the page was never removed and anyway, at most 'some' of us thought it should be removed but not, generally, because we "succumbed" to anyone's demands); I don't know which editors are included among the "several notable Wikipedians" and anyway doubt that it is appropriate to so describe them as such in an article; 'extortion' is an emotionally word, and if someone has used it, and they are notable, they should be quoted, otherwise leave it out...--FRS 06:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] POV #2
I added a POV I know many of you disagree however wikipedia's philosophy is open and non pov right? Well as I said in my edit, This has all the shades of anti wiki watch, I mean come on I know theres alot of wikipedia fanboys and girls but POV is not allowed in articles so cut it out of it Mike 11:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- You didn't leave any specific complaint, and I don't see the problem, so I'm gonna go ahead and remove the tag. Ashibaka tock 21:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Anti Wikipedia Watch Bias, re added. Mike 10:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, you don't understand. You say there's a bias but you aren't giving any specific examples. Ashibaka tock 15:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- How about taking that wikibreak and stop removing stuff Mike 02:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Blanking Pages? Mike 04:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- That was supposed to be a joke... Ashibaka tock 06:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wow Thanks for getting back to me - Mike Beckham 11:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, you don't understand. You say there's a bias but you aren't giving any specific examples. Ashibaka tock 15:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Anti Wikipedia Watch Bias, re added. Mike 10:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] V and NOR
Hi Gamaliel, I've made the editor section invisible until we discuss it. As I see it, it's a violation of V and NOR because it's unsourced. I haven't looked at Wikipedia Watch for months so maybe there's something on there, but everything in this article has to be sourced either to third-party sources or to Wikipedia Watch: see WP:V and WP:RS. I also wonder why it matters that he has edited Wikipedia. If we added of everyone who has a WP bio that they used to edit WP but got blocked for objecting in the wrong way to their bios (e.g. by violating 3RR), we'd be adding a lot of non-notable negative material about people. We have to distinguish between the subject's criticism of WP (which is the subject of the website) and the website's owner's interactions with the people who run or edit Wikipedia, which are arguably private and definitely non-notable. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've discussed this in depth with Tbeatty on Talk:Daniel Brandt, perhaps you'd respond to my comments there. In short, I strongly believe that if someone's criticism of something is documented, then the critic's relationship with that something is directly relevant and should be documented as well. I'm not going to edit this article again unless it survives AfD (which IMO it should not for reasons I explained there) but I will be replacing this material. I've discussed what I think about using WP as a source in depth on T:DB as well, but if necessary we can rely on Hive Mind as a source for everything of importance. Gamaliel 16:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A Proposal
Copied and pasted from the deletion page, because I feel it would be a shame to make this article go to waste:
Create a brand spanking new article entitled "A List of Websites which Daniel Brandt is Affiliated With", and then merge the contents of both this article and of Google Watch, plus that of information on Yahoo! Watch, NameBase and Wikipedia Review, into the new article. Then, delete all personal information about Brandt (Age/Gender/Location is one thing, but I seriously doubt people were going in 1947: "Good Lord! A Child has been born to missionary parents in China! Let us visit him!" Equally, I seriously doubt there is anything else within his "Background" section that he is notable for. As far as I see it, he is notable only for his contributions to those 5 websites) and then merge what non-personal information there exists left from the Brandt article (including the Seigenthaler stuff) into the new article. This way, several birds are killed with one stone: We cannot complain that Brandt is over represented in his articles in Wikipedia because he will only really feature in one as this proposal details; it will end the controversy in the Criticism of Wikipedia article over the inclusion or not of Wikipedia Review because now we will have information about it; Brandt will most likely cease to complain because what he feels to be "private matters" will no longer be on Wikipedia for everyone to see; and it can stop this bitter war that exists between Brandt and Wikipedia: Brandt can be left to his own devices and Wikipedia can finally have a Brandt article free of controversy and one which they can be truly proud of.. Besides, let's remember that Wikipedia Watch is actually a very notable website because it appears that every single time Brandt's name is mentioned here, friends or foes of Brandt will mention Wikipedia Watch. Whether you agree or disagree with Brandt's politics, what cannot be denied is that people who are either pro-Wikipedia or anti-Wikipedia cannot stay away from it. Plus, Wikipedia Watch is notable because it is directly linkable from Google Watch until the title: "Google Loves Wikipedia". Jonathan 666 15:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
We cannot delete the Brandt article without an Afd, ie consensus here wouldn't do it, and it has survived 3 now, which makes your proposal impractical, SqueakBox 15:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, but the difference between the AfDs and my proposal is that previously the AfDs have asked if people wanted the entire article deleted. What I'm proposing is that what happens is a deletion of his personal information, which as I've already explained, is not something that he is notable for. With this proposal, there would still be a Daniel Brandt article, the only real difference is a name change, a deletion of personal and private information, acknowledgement that he is in fact an "accountability activist" as opposed to a "privacy activist", a merging of Wikipedia Watch and Google Watch]], plus added info on Yahoo Watch, NameBase and Wikipedia Review. I fail to understand your objection considering as how a Brandt article would still exist without over-representing him on Wikipedia. Jonathan 666 16:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
well you'd have to getr through the Afd first with that proposal. I believe Brandt is notable and it is standard practice to include dob where available on all biographies. He could equally easily be called an accountability activist in his article and I would sooner see this article and google watch deleted and all the info put into Daniel Brandt. The real question is whether it is too soon to put another afd on the Brandt article. I would say it is too soon, SqueakBox 17:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- There's no denying he's notable, certainly that is true. Notable that is for his work with the 5 above mentioned websites, and I've just remembered Public Information Research as well. Brandt's main objection appears to be his Background section of his article, which he says he is not really notable for, and I really cannot see anything in there that's worth keeping. Under the proposal, the new Brandt article would have 100% notability and would be free of controversy. Jonathan 666 06:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merged
As a result of this AFD debate, this article has been merged with Daniel Brandt. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
And until at least the current Brandt afd debate is over it should stay that way if not forever, SqueakBox 19:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hive-Mind
There should be a mention of Brandt's attempt to get his biography deleted by investigating and revealing the personal information of Wikipedia editors and administrators, and then disclosing this information on his site. —M (talk • contribs) 03:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- He took it off for a little while and then put hivemind back up. SakotGrimshine 07:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Site vs site owner
The last two sentences of this article appear to describe the actions of the site owner, not things that happened on the website.
- Brandt played a leading role in identifying Brian Chase as the person who added false information to the Wikipedia article on John Seigenthaler, Sr. during the 2005 controversy.[4][5] In addition, Brandt played a key role in the Essjay controversy by reporting Essjay's real identity as Ryan Jordan to The New Yorker author Stacy Schiff.[6]
Are these facts germane to this article about a website? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Last two sentences/paragraphs
These don't appear to be related to Wikipedia Watch, particularly the Essjay stuff. While Brandt may have it documented on his website now, the described tip-off to the reporter didn't occur from Wikipedia Watch. Even the efforts were concentrated not on Wikipedia Watch but on Wikipedia Review. Maybe these sections should be removed as off-topic; it would be inappropriate per WP:BLP to sneak in content deleted from Daniel Brandt just because that article got merged. Milto LOL pia 20:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree and have removed the info that doesn't mention the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- There paragraphs were merged from Daniel Brandt, per the AFD debate, which agreed to merge that article[1] here and elsewhere as long as no sourced information was deleted. This information belongs either here or at the current target of the Daniel Brandt redirect. -- 146.115.58.152 02:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- This information doesn't appear to directly concern Wikipedia Watch, the subject of this article. I don't see anything in the AfD closing prohibiting the deletion of sourced material. The community has decided that Brandt is not notable enough for an article. We shouldn't circumvent the community's decision by adding biographical information to other articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, deletion of sourced material seems to contradict our goal as an encyclopedia. I'll just pigeon hole this data elsewhere. -- 146.115.58.152 03:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- We routinely remove even sourced inforamtion as a result of AfDs. If the pigeon hole is on your personal computer there won't be any problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, deletion of sourced material seems to contradict our goal as an encyclopedia. I'll just pigeon hole this data elsewhere. -- 146.115.58.152 03:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- This information doesn't appear to directly concern Wikipedia Watch, the subject of this article. I don't see anything in the AfD closing prohibiting the deletion of sourced material. The community has decided that Brandt is not notable enough for an article. We shouldn't circumvent the community's decision by adding biographical information to other articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Head of Wikipedia Watch material
So what wrong with those two paragraphs, Will? The sources you've deleted both demonstrate relevance to this article:
"Veteran Wikipeida critic Daniel Brandt of wikipedia-watch.org first dug up details of Jordan's bamboozling of both Wikipedians and the New Yorker, leading to the magazine running a correction this week, admitting it had been had."[2]
and
"Mr. Brandt has been a frequent critic of Wikipedia and started an anti-Wikipedia Web site (www.wikipedia-watch.org) in September after reading what he said was a false entry about himself.
Using information in Mr. Seigenthaler's article and some online tools, Mr. Brandt traced the computer used to make the Wikipedia entry to the delivery company in Nashville."[3]
I assume you simply haven't gone back and read the sources for a long time. It's otherwise pretty absurd to pretend that these two WP:Notable acts of "wikipedia watching" somehow occurred when the guy who runs Wikipedia Watch was "off the clock." -- Kendrick7talk 06:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- This article isn't about the guy who runs Wikipedia Watch. It's about a website. What the webmaster does besides the website is off-topic. If we wanted to talk about the guy then we'd have a biography about him. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ah, you've decided to play dumb. Why don't we just start an article about Brandt, and when to I get to pet the rabbits, George? I don't suffer fools gladly, but I suppose it's enough to add these two topics back as "See Also"'s; if you delete them, I'll file an RfC. Brandt was certainly wearing his wikipedia watch hat here, and just as what the hand does is relevant to the glove it's wearing, these topics are relevant here. -- Kendrick7talk 20:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was actually able to find sources tying the site itself to the Essjay controversy, so I've put that in. -- Kendrick7talk 21:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- There was a consensus to merge this article and you undid that without seeking a new consensus to split the articles. Now you're loading it up with previously deleted material. Why? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Adding sourced material to articles is kinda what I do here. I didn't see these sources when I dug through the muck, but there's not much of a reason not to use them that I can see discussed here. As for why I reverted your merge, you were merging this based on a consensus reached more than a year and a half ago.[4] If you scroll to the top of the page, you'll notice not only the this was re-split, but that the article has been through 2 AfD's since then. In short: WP:CCC. [removed further complaint; the site is run by PIR after all and a source was provided] -- Kendrick7talk 04:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well, past consensus doens't bind current editors, but it isn't right to ignore consensus either. If there are two current editors and one disagrees, then there isn't a consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This source [5] is cited three times, but doesn't mention "Wikipedia Watch", the subject of this article. I suggest we should only use sources that talk about the subject, not other topics. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- That would be more appropriate than leaving it here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Now that I'm looking for sources, he did publish the list on this website first, see source #9. This in turn was picked up by Slashdot and eventually filtered up to the AP. I'll keep digging for enough sources to have this topic stand on its own, but it would be pointless to simply split and merge back otherwise. -- Kendrick7talk 21:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] "Wikipedia Critic Finds Copied Passages"
- In November 2006, the Associated Press reported Brandt's claim to have uncovered 142 examples of suspected plagiarism among the 12,000 Wikipedia articles he searched.[12] He called for Wikipedia to conduct a thorough review of all its articles.[12] According to the report, "Wikipedia editors have been reviewing the 142 articles in question and have declared a handful to be OK because copied passages came from the public domain. Editors found others where Wikipedia appeared to be the one plagiarised. But editors found extensive problems in several cases, with many still not yet fully checked."[12]
The news story used as a source for this assertion, "Wikipedia Critic Finds Copied Passages", makes no mention of Wikipedia Watch, the subject of this article. If Wikipedia Watch wasn't involved why are we mentioning the incident in this article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- It looks like it had been copied from the article about Brandt as a result of the AFD. The coverage of the plagiarism claim does not mention Wikipedia Watch although the claim may have been published on the website. I cannot find much coverage of the website and I think maybe this article should be merged into Criticism of Wikipedia, although that article is very long and needs some editing. --Snigbrook (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Hey, why not mention it in the Daniel Brandt article? John Nevard (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Very funny. More seriously, I agree with Snigbrook. This is one of the less notable websites that are critical of Wikipedia. Most of its notability is tied to Brandt, and he's not notable either. A merge to "Criticism of Wikipedia" seems sensible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Notability
I am not sure of the notability of Wikipedia Watch, as the sources are mainly about Brandt, and just mention that his website is called Wikipedia Watch. --Snigbrook (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, per above. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
