Talk:Wikitruth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikitruth article.
Article policies
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Contents

[edit] Archives

  • /Archive 01 Multiple deletions under different names, one AFD that fails, many failed speedy attempts, is WHOIS info encyclopedic?, redirected and protected, reverted, unprotected, domain added to m:Spam blacklist on recomendation of a lawyer that works for WMF, much debate over this, discussion of merging into Criticism of Wikipedia, protection again, removed from blacklist, readded to blacklist, protected, sprotection after sock attack, and lots of irrelevant discussion

[edit] Looking for admin help re Wikitruth

I'm a journalist and I'm writing a feature on the relationship between Wikitruth and Wikipedia. I'm specifically interested in the alleged "admin culture," as described in Parker Peters letter on the main Wikitruth page. Is there an admin currently involved in this debate that would like to contribute? I'm looking for a response to the charge that vandalism and sockpuppetry have become a sort of witch hunt within Wikipedia admin circles. Is there anyone that can respond to this? You can contact me at: jessica at radioopensource org.

[edit] Out of date notes from User:Kotepho

  • The domain wikitruth.info is currently in m:Spam blacklist by recomendation of a WikiMedia Foundation lawyer. This means that you cannot link to the site. Do not try to circumvent this through round-a-bout methods.
    • If you wish to discuss its inclusion in the blacklist the proper place is m:Talk:Spam blacklist.
    • It has not been determined if URLs that are not links are acceptable or not. As such, If you wish to cite the website as a reference use "<ref>"Article name" from ''Wikitruth'' accessed date</ref>".
  • The domain wikitruth.info has been removed from m:Spam blacklist.
  • If you want to send a message to Wikitruth use their email, wikitruth@gmail.com, not this talk page.
  • Do not link to Wikipedia pages outside of normal articles with internal links. Use single []s and the full URL (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_Actions WP:OFFICE]).
I have absolutely no idea what the above statement means. Could someone explain to me what the individual in question (who evidently didn't sign their work) was trying to say? For instance, in the example given, why wouldn't [[WP:OFFICE]] perfectly suffice for creating a link to WP:OFFICE? — WCityMike (talk • contribs • replies) 20:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll direct the question to Kotepho on his talk page, who did the archiving and wrote the statement in question. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • replies) 21:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Because it breaks mirrors. Kotepho 21:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
So essentially, are you suggesting no internal links, period, anywhere, to the Wikipedia namespace? That's somewhat puzzling, and a rather dramatic policy suggestion. If not, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • replies) 21:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know of a policy outside of WP:ASR, but cross-namespace redirects and such are deleted pretty regularly. This section was just a summary of stuff that came up a lot on the talk page, it really isn't all that useful now that the traffic has died down. Kotepho 21:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Aha. I think I get what you meant. If doing a WP:OFFICE link inside the article breaks that link when it migrates to, say, Answers.Com or another Wikipedia mirror, then you're basically stating this: if someone is writing an addition to the external article itself (as opposed to, for example, our discussions in here, and so on) that references a page in the Wikipedia namespace, they should use the external URL writing mechanism and not the internal wikilink mechanism. Am I understanding you correctly, now? — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 21:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but it really isn't me saying it per se. Kotepho 22:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay. The thing that had me confused the first time you said this was that you didn't make clear your request was limited to links to the Wikipedia namespace inside the article. I think this discussion will clarify it for not only me but others, and I learned something in the process, too. Thanks. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 16:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please restore the talk page!!!

Please do not archive this talk page without consensus and while there are unresolved issues being discussed. I would have reverted but the stupid blacklist won't let me. So if some admin could please restore this talk page I would appreciate it. -- noosphere 05:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Bring back any sections that you think are useful. Kotepho 05:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
They're all useful. -- noosphere 05:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
All of them amounts to ~140KB and I don't really think we need discussion of the time it was protected 5 times ago. All of the past discussion is in /Archive 01 still. Kotepho 05:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you're right. I just had a good look through the archive, and really the most pertinent unresolved issue was the spam blacklist debacle. So I was going to suggest that half the archive be restored, starting with section 24 - "Possible blacklisting notification". But now that that issue has been resolved (apparently), I have no more objections to keeping the whole thing in archive. However, others may feel differently. -- noosphere 05:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
As an alternative, what you can do is start a new topic continuing the previous topic, and use a section link to the previous discussion. WP:OFFICE#External links leads to a subsection. Honestly, the talk page was getting long and burdensome to search through; I could rarely tell when something new was added except for the last diff on my watchlist. Captainktainer 05:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I constantly used diffs to find the newly added material. And above the blacklist discussion there really wasn't anything new added until that anonymous user showed up with his conspiracy theories.
The subject of this article is rather sensitive, though (as I'm sure I don't have to remind anyone), and has been routinely attempted to be deleted... so when I saw the whole talk page archived all of a sudden I guess I sort of panicked.  :) But after taking a few deep breaths and carefully looking through the archive I see that there really wasn't all that much in live discussion from the last few days, except for the blacklist... and now that's settled for good (I hope). -- noosphere 06:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikitruth removed from the blacklist

Jimbo, myself, Tabu, and a few others have been emailing back and forth in regards to Wikitruth. A few days ago, Jimbo said we should probably remove it, unless anyone had a strong counter-opinion. As no one has presented any, I've gone ahead and removed it from the blacklist. Raul654 05:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you guys perhaps talk about how Wikitruth is utterly non-notable? It's literally a site written by a dozen Wikipedians whose readership mostly consists of other Wikipedians. Yeah, it had one link on Slashdot ... big whoop. Slashdot has had over a million stories by now and most of them have included links to various sites. Slashdot isn't so inherently notable that merely by linking to something it gives it notability. --Cyde Weys 05:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... notability arguments should be made at AFD. AFD, as we all know, was to keep. Therefore Wikitruth should not be added to the spam list, unless, of course, they start spamming. It would be in the Wikitruth administrators best interests not to spam us, I know that there are many who would love a chance to validly readd them to the list. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't give them any ideas. And, actually, the outcome of the AfD was no consensus. But there were twice as many editors for keeping the article as for either deleting or merging it. -- noosphere 08:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that's good. Pcb21 Pete 10:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason why Wikitruth was put on the spam blacklist was because they were posting copies of articles which have been deleted on Wikipedia, and people were linking to those copies of the articles in violation of GFDL. If Wikitruth has decided to comply with GFDL and have removed the copies of deleted Wikipedia articles, then let's keep them off the spam list. But if they continue to post copyright violations and copies of things which have been removed under the auspices of WP:OFFICE, we shouldn't remove them from the spam list. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

a) Wikitruth was put on the spam blacklist because of potential legal problems relating to libel, not copyright.
b) Even it had been about copyriht, linking to them would not have been a violation of the GFDL itself.
c) But anyway, people weren't linking to copies of Wikipedia-deleted content, they were linking to other Wikitruth pages.
d) Wikitruth's licence is now GFDL so most copyright issues have been resolved. They don't maintain history - but then NO mirror does, and even Wikipedia doesn't observe the licence completely correctly.
e) All of that notwithstanding, the purpose of the spam blacklist is to provide a list of known spammers so that MediaWiki wikis (not just Wikimedia ones) can block them. Whatever else Wikitruth might be they are not spammers so they should not be on the spam blacklist. Maybe (and I suspect this will be a matter of debate sometime soon) they should be on a Wikimedia-specific "legal reasons" blacklist that (it is rumoured) is in development.

So in short, I'm not sure I agree with much of your post :). Pcb21 Pete 17:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a longstanding policy of not linking to sites which violate copyright. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Really? Because when I asked about this I was told it doesn't matter. See User talk:Nil Einne#External copyvios. We do link to place like PirateBay etc too so I'm somewhat doubtful this policy is followed Nil Einne 14:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Off on a tangent : was Wikitruth removed from the blacklist

Did you guys perhaps talk about how Wikitruth is utterly non-notable? It's literally a site written by a dozen Wikipedians whose readership mostly consists of other Wikipedians. Yeah, it had one link on Slashdot ... big whoop. Slashdot has had over a million stories by now and most of them have included links to various sites. Slashdot isn't so inherently notable that merely by linking to something it gives it notability. --Cyde Weys 05:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the Guardian and Register articles. Those plus Slashdot are a lot more media coverage than the subjects of most Wikipedia articles get. Anyway, this was all already hashed out in the last AfD. -- noosphere 05:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't even bother mentioning those articles ... it's still rather insignificant. Sure, maybe the subjects of some other articles haven't had extensive overblown modern media coverage, but they were actually significant. You haven't seen a recent news article on Frederick Law Olmsted, I imagine, but that man is notable because he actually did a lot of stuff. Wikipedia is fundamentally incapable of trying to measure the notability of topics associated with Wikipedia. Yeah, of course to some of us Wikitruth may seem to be notable because we spend a lot of time on Wikipedia and it is important to me. But in the grand scheme of things it is nowhere near important. We also have the same problem with internet memes and websitecruft. Wikipedia has a bias towards covering online subjects because Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. We need to realize this and work on it, not just give in and write an article on every site involved with Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 05:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is fundamentally incapable of trying to measure the notability of topics associated with Wikipedia. I would disagree, but I would agree that there are measurement problems for self-reference. Given that fact, we should have a bias toward inclusion rather than deletion, to maximize the amount of information we can present to Wikipedia readers and editors. The solution to the online-topics bias is not to delete, but to add material on topics that do not fit the bias. Captainktainer 06:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Cyde, I just clicked ten times on the "random article" link, and here's what I came up with:
- Pain medicine (WP:NOT a dictionary) - A two-sentence article, referencing two articles in British Medical Journal, and one in AARP Magazine... I'd say the Guardian, Register, and Slashdot each have more readers than all these put together
- The Federation (hip hop group) - A four sentence article referenced by a single MTV.com article.
- Radio/Video - an album by System of a Down, no references at all.
- Martin Thulin - Lead singer of a Mexican band, three references from own webpages.
- Alomancy - Apparently a form of divination. No references.
- Jerel Myers - Football player for Kansas City Brigade. No references.
- Preacher Roe - Major League Baseball pitcher... now perhaps we're finally getting in to something reasonably notable. One reference to www.baseball-reference.com
- Lauren Newton - Daughter of Australian TV personality Bert Newton. References: imdb.com, girl.com.au, www.theage.com.au
- Tom Fouts - A comedian better known as "Captain Stubby". Two references: The Enquirer, and pharostribune.com... good job there with an Enquirer article... Wow... the second article for which notability could maybe be argued.
- Billionaire - Again, WP:NOT a dictionary. Two sentences. No references.
These were completely random... so out of ten random articles that's maybe one or two... maybe three, to be really generous, articles meeting Wikipedia notability criteria. And none of them, imo, are as notable as wikitruth due to the Guardian, Register, and Slashdot coverage. -- noosphere 06:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think what one could take from that would be "We have a lot of articles that need better citation or need to be deleted completely." Reductio ad mediocritum isn't really a great way to support a point. However, the article does indeed meet WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:WEB, and in almost every way exceeds those guidelines. Maybe this article qualifies as "worldcruft," but given the media coverage it would be in bad form to delete the article. Captainktainer 06:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You're confusing notability with references. Ral315 (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
No, not really. There are no policies on notability. However, the WP:WEB guideline says, "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a 'Reference' or 'External link' section." (emphasis in the original) In addition it says, "Web specific-content is notable if... The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Thus, wikitruth does meet the notability criteria as deliniated in the WP:WEB guideline.
And, by the way, using another notability criteria, google returns 143,000 hits for "wikitruth". -- noosphere 22:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, this is all academic. The AfD has come and gone, and twice as many people wanted the article kept than either wanted it merged or deleted. You can start another AfD if you want. Though I think it'll probably just piss off a lot of people and the outcome will be the same (or even stronger towards keep, since the article has been much improved since the first AfD). -- noosphere 21:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Why not just get Danny to delete it, and all reference to it, and the accounts of everyone who complains? 165.254.38.126 23:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, while it seems that some editors would rather that the first two happened, the third is completely unlikely- because at that point, Wikitruth would get back in the news, Wikipedia would get major negative press, you'd have anywhere from several dozen to a hundred or more very angry banned users willing to talk to the press, and the project would be harmed. An out-of-process deletion would be almost as bad, if not quite as bad. Seriously, one of the last things Jimbo wants to do is give Andrew Orlowski more credibility. Captainktainer * Talk 09:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on "RC patrollers"

The Wikitruth articles on RC patrollers and Vandalism are both funny and on point, and might deserve a better review in the Wikipedia article. There really isn't much on Wikitruth, but it has its good moments. --John Nagle 18:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they hit the point from time to time. BTW, they compare RC patrollers to Hitler Youth (see the pic). Now this would probably deserve a mention in the article. Misza13 T C 22:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh? Should we also mention how they can't interpret a diff? To see what I mean, see the article they have on Woohookitty. They say he defamed a teacher and provide a link to a diff that supposedly backs up their argument. When you correct the diff link, however, you see that Woohookitty actually reverted defamation. Evidently the editors on Wikipedia don't understand how the Mediawiki interface works. Another reason to believe that they aren't a group of admins on our site. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you'll find that WHK reverted vandalism and left the defamation in place, an unfortunate outcome of not checking back through edits, which the really good RC patrollers know to do. But I'm glad to see you so keen to lay red herrings across the track, Ta bu. No one will ever know you are that masked man. Grace Note 03:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
So in other words he didn't defame anyone and removed defamation, just not all of it. Out of interest, Grace, are you an administrator of Wikitruth.info, and did you write the nasty piece about me in their feedback section? Also, did you write that information about Woohookitty? If so, there is no right of reply. Perhaps you should add some? As for implying that I'm part of Wikitruth, well some people think I am, but I'm not. If you'd like to keep implying it, that's fine by me though. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not interested enough in it to argue with you, Ta bu. If you think that's what happened, that's cool with me. I am not an administrator of anything, sadly, and I have never written anything about you and I doubt I ever will. I believe Wikitruth allow a right of reply through their email address and by writing "TELL THE WIKITRUTH" on any page of Wikipedia. Gosh, do you think someone will now contact me?! I mean, I wrote the magic words, didn't I? Grace Note 05:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
If you say you aren't, that's good enough for me. Perhaps you could explain your comment "But I'm glad to see you so keen to lay red herrings across the track, Ta bu. No one will ever know you are that masked man."? I think it's implying I'm laying a red herring because I'm a member of Wikitruth, but of course I could be wrong. If I am, can you explain what you meant by that comment? You may not be interested in your own comment, but I certainly am! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Just teasing. I know it upsets you to be associated with it, so let me state categorically that I do not believe you are in any way connected with Wikitruth. I'm just funning with you because it's Friday evening and the week's work is done, spirits are high and I know you can take a joke and have a laugh. Grace Note 08:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another article

Dibbell, Julian. "Turf Wars: Wikipedia spars with a splinter site for truth", The Village Voice, 2006-05-02. 
It talks about the article being deleted, so you could probably pull off a paragraph on it referencing the deletion log and this article. Kotepho 03:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. -- noosphere 05:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Before noticing this comment, I fired off a Letter to the Editor of the Voice about the Dibbell piece. You can read my letter on the Wikimedia site. JamesMLane t c 04:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It seemed a bit whiny and aggressive to me, James. You might in future allow a wiki approach to your letters to the editor. We could have NPOV'd that for you ;-) Grace Note 04:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
By comparison with some letters in the Voice, mine is a model of restraint! As for a wiki approach, I assumed it would be done, if at all, under the auspices of the Wikipedia Communications Committee, based on the lead section to Wikipedia:Press coverage: "IF THERE ARE ERRORS IN AN ARTICLE, please post the matter to the Wikimedia Communications Committee's talk page. This way, the Wikimedia Foundation can send an official letter to the editor, or request for a correction." [emphasis removed] The Committee or anyone else may use all or any portion of what I wrote. I'm dubious about relying solely on a wiki process, though, for something with a time constraint, like a letter to a weekly publication. JamesMLane t c 21:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, Grace Note. I thought the Voice article was hostile, and James' criticisms of it were spot-on. I also commend James for going out of his way to defend Wikipedia like that. I hope the Voice publishes his response.
That's not to say the Voice article didn't have any valid criticisms.. but its author seemed to want to emulate wikitruth and couch his criticisms in ad hominems and half-truths... which shouldn't really surprise anyone, as much of the media thrives on sensationalism. -- noosphere 22:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The Voice did print an edited version of my letter (without the URL's and without some of the snarkiness). It's online here and in the print edition. JamesMLane t c 23:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Good going! (both you for sending the letter and the Voice for printing it) Now if they only listen to your advice and make www.villagevoice.com a wiki.  ;) -- noosphere 02:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the link to the Dibbell article to be more informative, and I've added a link to my letter to the editor in the form in which the Voice published it. JamesMLane t c 07:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Brown, Russel. "Wikipedia’s weakness is the same as its strength: anyone can edit it", New Zealand Listener, 2006-05-06.  Kotepho 15:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're missing a conjunction

Since the article is sprotected...

"Wikipedia users, administrators, bureaucrats, stewards."

Somebody forgot to stick an "and" in there. 4.253.45.28 21:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a rhetorical device called asyndeton. Angr (t • c) 13:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Aysndeton is totally inappopriate here. It's an error. But damn, if I didn't just have a flashback to my writer's craft course. 24.235.231.138 (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal Protection

Looking into the history of this page, there appears to me to be _one_ case of vandalism by an IP'd user. Every other user is either a current or former Wikipedian. While I find this story (both sides) fascinating, I don't feel the need to create an account to correct conjunctions, Can you either get the restriction lifted, or make more sense of why limiting access to anonymous users is an appropriate action? 70.176.205.171 03:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It's so we can witchhunt each other. Editing the page makes you a candidate for being considered a Wikitruthian, so we need to be clearly identified. At least, that's my guess at it.Grace Note 04:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Or it could be that it was being vandalised. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The guy here says it wasn't being. Was it? If people are putting in stuff we don't like, that's not actually vandalism, is it? I have to say, Ta bu, I'm not a big fan of semiprotection (partly because I don't always log in when I edit!) and lengthy periods of any kind of protection are not good for open editing. Can we give setting it free a go and seeing what happens? Grace Note 08:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The vandalism was done by *NEW USERS* which are also prevented from editing with a (sprotect). Of course, semi protecting an article doesn't prevent vandalism of this kind. They just wait for a few weeks before committing vandalism, which is called "waiting for the account to hatch". While Wikipedia allows people to register accounts without providing an e-mail address, and fails to provide administrators with the ability to see user's IP addresses, instead relying on the dubious methods of "CheckUser" to detect sock puppets, this kind of vandalism is going to continue. On top of that, corrupt administrators can abuse the "vandalism" "problem" to ban people just because they don't like them and force "consensus" by banning everyone who they disagree with. Hopefully Wikipedia wakes up to this soon. Other Wikimedia projects have appropriate vandal protections, but not Wikipedia. Is an IP address more anonymous or a screen name? The screen name seems more anonymous to me, especially when they don't have to provide any personal details to get one. 59.167.139.226 15:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The screen name gives pseudonymity, not anonymity. Some IP addresses give more anonymity than others. Mine, for example, gives extremely little - my residence can be easily located to within 50 meters or so with traceroute - but users of many ISP's have considerable anonymity, as illustrated by RIAA lawsuits. I, for one, happen to appreciate the extra privacy protection that CheckUser creates. Adminship is "no big deal", but revealing and having access to personal information is. Furthermore, technical sock puppet detection in cases of vandalism is rather unnecessary, since the accounts are already being used for vandalism and patterns of vandalism are usually readily apparent. I'm not sure what you mean by using the vandalism problem to ban people who don't like them. If you mean the semiprotection, then what curious view is held only by new and unregistered users? And despite admins often being abrasive on this page, I don't know of anyone who was banned or even blocked for a significant period because of constructive edits to this article. --Philosophus T 10:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

removed post from banned user. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Admins can always run CheckUser and grab a screen name's IPs. Copysan 06:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
You mean users with the CheckUser bit. Ordinary admins can't do this. --Philosophus T 10:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection requested. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 21:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

removed posts from banned user. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Banned user, according to SlimVirgin, is User:Zodrac User:Zordrac, although changes were made as anonymous IP 203.122.215.44. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 01:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikitruth is actually kinda funny...

On Wikitruth's "Vandalism exposed" page, there's a statement that the color scheme on wikipedia really sucks. I just thought it was funny that they used the exact same styles for their site. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 21:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A modest proposal...

In my opinion, this article does not have anywhere near enough images! Four images, three of which are fair-use, is clearly nowhere near enough. We must exploit the fair-use rights to their maximum extent! The layout of the images at the moment is very good, making effectively sure no one reads the article, but I'm quite certain there could be some more useless images. For example, this article would really benefit from some more images from the site. Like... um... I haven't read the Wikitruth site that much... damnit... Well, this for example?

Okay, I'm not entirely serious here. Seriously, I think there's too many pics. Do we really need anything besides perhaps a screenie of the main page - or alternatively, the logo? We certainly don't need screenshots of both... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that one could easily tag these images as GFDL or whatever creative commons they started out under. The logo is pretty useless and so is the king jimbo icon though, so feel free to ax them. Kotepho 16:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not very neutral

This article sounds very pretentious and mocking towards wikitruth. This is very apparant in sentences like this:

"It is also a self-described "scandal sheet" that castigates certain Wikipedia administrators and Wikimedia Foundation members for perceived character flaws."

The best response to critics is proving that we have the capacity to write articles that are in a balanced and neutral tone, something that is not present in this article. --void main 17:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Self-referential" image

I know what this caption is getting at (I think), but it really sounds like the image is referring to itself. —ptk✰fgs 01:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

agreed

[edit] GeorgeLouis: Creation date

Why did you revert my change? As far as I know, it was created recently. Rather than just revert it, which is oppressive, just find the date? I figured someone would know it. What the heck? Tyciol 23:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean anything to you personally, but when you add a fact, it should be sourced. Editors have plenty to do without completing other editors' work by looking things up on the Internet. Thanks for taking an interest in this article. It is really interesting, isn't it? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 23:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ha ha

What a great article on a fun website! Lord Chess 18:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Origin of Wikitruth

Only recently I stumbled across "Wikitruth". Could it be that this anti-Wikipedia site has been created by multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias User:NightCrawler and his many other sockpuppets? DW was under a hard ban since 2003 (see [1]) and "has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales," etc. in 2005. See [2], [3]. One of the criticisms against Wikipedia centers on Jimmy Wales and the Wikipedia:Office Actions page which deals with certain legal issues. Ted Wilkes claimed to have much legal knowledge and used this knowledge in his mud-throwing campaign against arbcom member Fred Bauder. Wilkes, who plumed himself on being one of the best and most active contributors to Wikipedia, was blocked by arbcom ruling on 19 March 2006 for one year. See [4]. Is it just mere coincidence that Wikitruth was started shortly after that date, on 20 March 2006? His alias NightCrawler had much trouble with administrator Angela, ironically wishing Angie "WikiLove," etc. See [5], [6]. Significantly, Angela Beesley is attacked on the Wikitruth pages. Furthermore, administrator FCYTravis is one of Wikitruth's whipping boys, perhaps because Ted Wilkes had some trouble with this administrator on the Talk:Nick Adams page. See, for instance, [7]. Wikitruth also frequently claims that too many vandals and trolls "game the system" on Wikipedia. Is it just by chance that Wilkes and his supporter User:Wyss frequently accused other users of gaming the system, being trolls, the "most dangerous vandals", etc., falsely claiming that their edits were fabricated, unfounded, or unwarranted and therefore must be removed. See [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Wyss even accused administrator Mel Etitis of being a troll. See [13]. For a summary of the facts, see also [14], [15]. Significantly, Wikitruth is recommended on Wyss's user page. See also this discussion. So much for my suspicion concerning the origin of Wikitruth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.196.89 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 7 October 2006

  • The only way that it can TRULY be proved that Wikitruth has the involvement of some past or present administrators is for said administrators to reveal themselves. Otherwise, the "evidence of administrator involvement" can easily be laughed off as hacking. ----Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 14:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • So the idea that adminstrator accounts can be hacked is funny? --Myles Long 17:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
In the 2nd AFD I saw TenOfTrades (or similar name) post this and had remembered to log in that time so I believe that's who posted it. Anomo 04:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Attributing it to TenofTrades was an error on my part. I incorrectly analyzed the diffs and attributed it to the wrong person. Many apologies all around. It is now correctly attributed to the same anonymous editor that's listed above. --Myles Long 12:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] keep it

Why not? There's no point in pretending it doesn't exist. It's a good thing to have around, a yin to Wikipedia's yang, a superego to Wikipedia's id. Wikipedians are constantly guilty of hypocritical and blowhard acts, so we need something to counterbalance our shortcomings. Youaredj 03:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypocricy is the greatest luxury — raise the double-standard! Anyway, I speedy kept it (i.e. another infamous fait accompli by yours truly!). Thus, I get a chance to say HI, WIKITRUTH! They love me, they hate me, they love me! With the "wikisensitivity" of a sledgehammer, El_C 05:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desc. of "The Register" not necessary

This is fairly minor compared to the rest of the discussion on here, but I just thought I should point out that I deleted the brief description of The Register from the first sentence under Publicity. It really didn't add anything, made the sentence long, and could be found on the article for the publication itself if needed. Revert it if you think I'm a heretic, but I think my reasons are solid. — supreme_geek_overlord 03:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonuniformity

I coughed when I read "a registered Ohio sex offender". What's the matter with his name? Its omission is only going to cause more intrigue and cause more people to search for him (and, of course, he's not hard to find). The current version almost feels like self-censorship. Ckerr 03:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a new Law of the Internet: Censorship Is Self-Defeating. E. Sn0 =31337= 03:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should "uncensor" the article and see what happens? - O^O

[edit] Jimmy Wales

  • Note: 216.56.5.231 (talk · contribs) restored my original changes to the article, but I removed them again until this issue can be resolved. This user appears to be an experienced wikipedia user, given the use of an edit summary, but is not a sockpuppet of mine; indeed, this address is in a different part of the world from where I am. I have left a message on the user's talk page, but have not recieved a response. Vectro 17:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I made the following change to the article yesterday. My changes are noted in bold:

There is also a page describing Wales on the website, which contains several claims, including the assertion that Wales rules by fiat, enticing other "Wikipedians" to perform actions he wants, such as the insertion of certain website links into articles.[8] It is worth noting that the Wikimedia Foundation explicitly notes Jimbo Wales as the "ultimate authority on any matter".

O^O (talk · contribs) reverted these changes some 12 hours later, with the edit comment "The bylaws give Jimmy Wales two special privileges; exemption from dues and the requirement to contribute. They give him no special 'authority'." Although this is accurate (Mr. Wales has no special privelages due to bylaws), O^O refutes something that is not what Wikitruth claims; they claim that he "rules by fiat", a claim which is supported by the Wikimedia Foundation's official policy that Mr. Wales is the "ultimate authority on any matter", as noted on m:Foundation issues. In short, a link to m:Foundation issues is an important supporting document in any discussion of this wikitruth claim, and it should be in the article (either as a wikilink or as a citation; I'm indifferent to this).

Please leave comments here, and hopefully we can come to a concensus on this issue. Cheers, Vectro 16:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Vectro - Perhaps we can quickly narrow down where we disagree.
  1. I agree that wikitruth asserts that Wales rules by fiat.
  2. I agree that m:Foundation issues states "Jimbo Wales as ultimate authority on any matter"
  3. I disagree that m:Foundation issues represents the official position of the foundation.
Perhaps you could find a citation at http://wikimediafoundation.org/ to support the point you are trying to make? - O^O 16:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
m:Foundation issues may or may not represent the official position of the Foundation, but it certainly does reflect the official policy of the Foundation. This is reflected in this ArbCom decision, on this template (which is used on Wikipedia:List of policies), and, indeed, even the page itself, which is noted as "Policy". Perhaps we can reword the claim to clarify the issue; how about "According to the Wikimedia Foundation issues, all Wikimedia projects are subject to Jimbo Wales' 'ultimate authority on any matter'." I would even accept, "Wikipedia policy, as enforced by the Arbitration Committee, supports Jimbo Wales as the 'ultimate authority on any matter'". I'm flexible as to whether the link is in the text itself or cited as a reference, but I do think it's relevant to the article one way or the other. Cheers, Vectro 17:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm completely happy with either of those, with one very small change:
  1. According to the meta.wikipedia.org Foundation issues, all Wikimedia projects are subject to Jimbo Wales' 'ultimate authority on any matter'.
  2. Wikipedia policy, as enforced by the Arbitration Committee, supports Jimbo Wales as the 'ultimate authority on any matter'
Cheers - O^O 18:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Have a look at this change; feel free to edit if you think it's not good. Cheers, Vectro 05:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm having a problem with some circular logic here, maybe someone can help. First, I'll restate a basic observation:
  • The bylaws of the foundation give neither ArbCom nor Wales any special authority.
Now, we are trying to quote ArbCom however as stating Wales has the 'ultimate authority on any matter'. Problem, where they heck did ArbCom get the power to decide who has 'ultimate authority'? Could ArbCom arbitrarily give ultimate authority to someone else? According to Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee, ArbCom has authority because Wales gave it to them. Now we are stuck in a circular loop:
  1. Wales has ultimate authority because ArbCom says so.
  2. ArbCom has authority because Wales says so.
But since the foundation bylaws give neither ArbCom or Wales any special authority, the whole thing falls apart. Can anybody find any official position of the foundation, stated by the foundation, that supports either ArbCom or Wales having any special authority whatsoever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by O^O (talk • contribs) 16:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
From reading the actual list of Board Resolutions, it appears to me that the board doesn't actually set project policy at all; instead, the Board seems to concern itself with only three things: money, legalities, and the creation of new projects. As a practical matter, however, the wikipedia policy documents are for the most part enforced, even if the ultimate source of their authority is rather nebulous. Also, the Arbitration Committee doesn't just get its authority from JW; editors were permitted to vote on it in 2004. Vectro 02:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I see that fewer than 30 people voted yes (at the time that ArbCom declared themselves to have authority). I certainly accept that a "yes" vote could mean that those people have voluntarily submitted themselves to be subject to ArbCom decisions. But what of the "no" voters, or what of the non voters? Where, ultimately, did the authority come from to say that people who voted no, or people who abstained from voting, are somehow subject to ArbCom?
Even assuming momentarily that ArbCom somehow was granted authority by that vote, and the arbitration policy at written at that moment [16] came into force, where were the votes for each of the many changes to the policy that have happened since then? [17]
The whole thing sounds fishy to me. It might have made sense back when Jimbo owned everything, but none of it seems to have any solid underpinnings now. - O^O 19:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, although that applies equally to all wikipedia policies. It would probably be best if the board would formally recognise the existing power structures, but since 3 out of 5 are Wales' choice, the whole board structure isn't much more than a smoke-screen anyhow — in that sense, Jimbo still owns everything. Vectro 01:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need to know

How do you create an account there? I obviously can't f-up the website without loggin in. But when I go to create an account, the only option is to login, which I can't. Anti-Wikitruth

Wait a minute, its an info site? Thats bullcrap! There is nothing informational there! All there is, is a bunch of complaints from probably an ex-wikipedian who got ticked off they couldn't become an admin. --66.218.11.61 06:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like someone is sensetive when it comes to truth. =( --ABigBlackMan 16:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Its a closed wiki, therefore you can't unless you get into contact with those at the site capable of supplying you with an account Godloveslamb 14:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikitruth is a fishbowl wiki. If you want to help F up the web site, try sending e-mail to its editors and/or making a "Tell the Wikitruth" section on your English Wikipedia user talk page. Full instructions --Damian Yerrick (☎) 03:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Man, wikipedia has really fucked people up, hasn't it? People see a website and are utterly unable to comprehend why they can't mangle its content at will. Jesus, people are stupid. 152.3.46.147 03:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It could also be the fact that the text "create an account" remains to this day, without any explanation for why it can't be done… \sim Lenoxus " * " 04:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I know that this is not a forum, is there any way at all that a person can get an account on Wikitruth?  ~Steptrip 02:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Notability?

I have to ask, but if Encyclopedia Dramatica is not noteworthy enough to have an article, how is Wikitruth? 220.245.213.247 10:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, the personal attacks on Wikitruth are not as flagrant as on ED. For another, there are plenty of mainstream or near-mainstream media sources in the footnotes of this article; did The Guardian, Techweb, or The Register ever mention ED? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Jews Did WTC was mention on CNN 142.151.175.39 02:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
A single mention of something that once appeared on a website isn't enough to create an article on that website. There are no real reliable sources (or not nearly enough) for Encyclopedia Dramatica, but as this article demonstrates, there are enough for Wikitruth.--Cúchullain t/c 19:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I'm a little puzzled as to the need for Image:Restore Wikitruth info.png in this article. It appears to be there as a source for the article's assertion that at least one member of Wikitruth is an administrator. However, I don't see how citing an image with no source information, hosted on Wikimedia's own servers, meets our definition of a "reliable source". Such an image could be produced by any administrator, so it fails to demonstrate what it is intended to demonstrate. I assume that the image was at some point posted on Wikitruth itself; if this is the case, then the assertion is correct, but the method of sourcing is not.

Would it not be more appropriate to link to the version of the image on Wikitruth itself (or, if it no longer exists, another suitable on-site reference) in a footnote at the end of the sentence, in line with the sourcing method used in the rest of the article? As the article is not concerned with the MediaWiki interface, administrator rights or the deletion of the article itself from Wikipedia (which would be a self-reference anyway), the image itself does not appear to add any additional value to the article beyond its function as a source for that one sentence, making it unnecessary.

Curiously, I brought this up in the #wikipedia IRC channel and was promptly kicked for it; it may perhaps have been mistaken for trolling. I maintain that it is not, and that my question is entirely serious and based solely on my interpretation of our attribution policies – Qxz 08:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur that the image need not be placed within the article, and that it would be more appropriate to link to the image on wikitruth. But if you got kicked for so much as mentioning it, I'm not inclined to draw ire by implementing it, even though it meshes better with my knowledge of the attributation policies and general structure. If you wanna do it, you have my support. Peace. Raeft 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo's video announcement

I don't see any reason to add it to the article, but if someone else does, Jimbo made an announcement about the Wikitruth, which was then added to MediaWiki:Watchdetails on April Fools Day 2007. timrem 03:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting video. 68.93.142.116 (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It's 404 (not found) now. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparisons with Encyclopedia Dramatica

ED has more sources: 6 newspapers, one news channel, AND slashdot. It also has more google hits, higjer alexa rang, and well over thirty times as many articles. ED is much more notable. ED is not an attack site, whereas Wikitruth is, yet ED is deleted and considered an attack site, whereas Wikitruth iskept and just considered a "critical site". And ED users AREN'T trolls. Infact ED has good information, and the fact that (1) it is less of anti-WP attack site and (2) it has more reliable sources have proven that ED is much more worthy of an article on WP than Wikitruth.Riboflavinl0l 02:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, ED uses much more vulgar words and even use obscene pictures, while Wikitruth does not. Also Wikitruth doesn't "out" real life identify of Wikipedians. WooyiTalk to me? 02:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. Besides ED has only a few articles that slander WP users and most are just about the lulz, and whether or not something has attacks has nothing to do with worthiness for a WP article. Lols.Riboflavinl0l 02:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

IAWTC above. lol hai Ribo.

Well, ED defenders such as yourself don't do the greatest job of "defending" their site... saying that a self-proclaimed joke site has "good information" seems pretty bizarre, and that it only has a "few articles that slander WP users" is much like saying a restaurant's food has "only a little bit of E Coli". Sticking in "Lols." at the end of your comments doesn't really help the tone, either. However, there's still actually a good point in there... Wikitruth does "out" Wikipedians, and make various assertions about their lives (such as reporting them as transsexuals or citing their alleged fetishes), without even claiming to be a parody site like ED, so just why is the "anti-attack-site" crowd so eager to suppress all references to some sites but not this one? *Dan T.* 11:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, they are now. --MichaelLinnear 06:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links taken out of Wikitruth

Per WP:BADSITES/Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. That site actively defames and outs Wikipedians. Nominated for deletion: Merrick3x 13:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: User:merrick3x was blocked for distruption. --Sigma 7 06:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links to this website removed

I have removed the links to this website since the site is engaged in efforts to out our contributors. Replacing them is tantamount to endorsing their efforts.--MONGO 05:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

By all means remove them from project and user space, but to apply the same standards to an encyclopedia article is ludicrous. And it's rather inappropriate to poison any debate by suggesting that restoring them is tantamount to endorsement. --MichaelLinnear 06:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not ludicrous. Restoring them is only assisting them in their efforts to harass. Where are the otherlinks? Is there a way to see where else their website is linked in the rest of article spaces easily?--MONGO 06:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you just have to use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Linksearch and search through it manually. --MichaelLinnear 06:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Properly referenced attack pages are permitted on Wikipedia. If you want to remove links concerning Wikitruth.info for this reason, you have to do the same to almost any other disparging content. In any case, a large number of references on Wikitruth.info link back to Wikipedia - in which case taking out those links would require doing a database-level edit on Wikipedia to remove the references for those links. In any case, this is a borderline WP:SNOW or WP:POINT issue. --Sigma 7 06:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The link to the site should remain. I really can't even fathom why it should be removed. Is it because it's a touchy subject? Or is it just because the site is against this one? To put it bluntly, that's censorship. There's no reason not to include it besides the fact that you don't like it, which is against policy. --132 15:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
My essay has more background on the struggle in which this is just one skirmish. *Dan T.* 17:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Excellent essay. I generally very much agree with it. Those deleting the links should comment here on the talk page and address the points in that essay, not just revert without discussing on the talk page. Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia itself contains personal attacks: malicious stuff on some talk pages, and hopefully verifiable but negative stuff on some BLP's. This doesn't mean people shouldn't link to Wikipedia! User:61.60.74.118 said in an edit summary, "why do you support sexual humiliation and cyberstalking? (see FCYTravis on that attack site - a link to this attack site has NO PLACE in our community and YOU do not decide consensus)". Note that inserting the links does not necessarily mean that the person supports anything on the website. However, this article is about this website and the URL of the website is a very significant piece of information on the website so it should be included in the article. Also, links to the website are being used as references to support some of the statements in the article. Also, unfortunate material on one (or some) page(s) of a website doesn't necessarily mean we can't link to other pages of that website. It doesn't even necessarily mean we can't link to the pages with the unfortunate material. User Picaroon also made a good point in an edit summary: "rv, arbitrators' comments are not policy - if they were, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=156040037 counteracts you". All these points should be addressed here on the talk page before removing any links. --Coppertwig 20:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikitruth does not meet WP:RS but is used as a reference here

Wikitruth does not meet WP:RS. All material in this article (Jimbo is a <blank>, Jimbo is <blank>, Wikipedia stinks, etc) that cites it as a source should be removed.

Wikitruth is an "attack site" against wikipedians if the same criteria is used that was cited in "arbcom" and quasi-policy pages written by hit-and-run sockpuppets of those "attacked". It has "published" articles on the identities of aliases that post on wikipedia, details of their particular sexual situations, etc.

This site does not merit an article or being used as a reference.

If for some reason editors feel it does, and can defend that criteria, please apply the same criteria to...oh my lord...dare I even used acronyms for these other "attack sites" that do the same thing but aren't useful tools for certain cliques on wikipedia?...OK...WW, WR, ASM. These sites even use publicly verifiable information on the web, and first-person letters from several notable individuals (many of which even merit their own biographies on wikipedia, ironically, and would consider wikipedia an attack site on them) used in these so-called attacks.

Some "attacks" are more equal than others on wikipedia. Piperdown 13:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

According to policy, primary sources are allowed in an article about that subject. I think a better solution would be to work for articles on those other subjects, where able rather than deleting this one. --MichaelLinnear 21:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I support this edit by MichaelLinnear which restored various links; I especially support restoring the link to the Wikitruth website.
Apparently Wikitruth is notable because it's been mentioned in newspaper articles, therefore it makes sense to have an article about it. I would think the Wikitruth website would qualify as a primary source of information about itself. Even if the Wikitruth website does not qualify as a reference, it's still very sensible to supply its URL in the External Links section. When doing that, the article is not necessarily using the website as a reference, but is supplying the URL as information useful to the reader, just like any other information given in the article. I think that for many readers, the URL of the website is very pertinent, interesting and useful information. I think that the reasons that attempts are being made to delete this information are not because it is not relevant, interesting, useful etc., but as a form of censorship, to try to suppress information that appears on that site. Wikipedia is not censored, so that is not a valid reason to delete the link. --Coppertwig 17:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You assertion that the "site does not merit an article" has already been refuted by consensus in an AFD nomination. Given that the site in question is a criticism site (albeit of a rather crude nature), it makes sense to cite some of the criticisms and the Wikitruth site is the primary source for such quotations and must therefore be cited with a link to the relevant material on Wikitruth. -- Cjensen 20:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I support inclusion of links to Wikitruth in the article about that website. Although Wikipedia is not censored, I urge people not to post pejorative adjectives about anyone (Wikipedian or not) on talk pages or in edit summaries, especially not in edit summaries where they're difficult to delete. That is, I'm urging people not to post edit summaries such as "why do you support sexual humiliation and cyberstalking? " and "removed malicious attack site that sexualyl humiliates our editors. have you people no morals or principles?)" and "remove links to a terroristic sexual humiliation site". --Coppertwig 15:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese site

Alkivar, how do you know this site isn't related? [18] SlimVirgin (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well for one... after significant article writing by Wikitruth, have you ever seen them refer to anything but the EN wiki? Not to mention after babelfishing the Japanese site, all of the content there refers to specific incidents on the JA wiki, and refers to Wikitruth.info in the third person... If they were related wouldnt they be using we instead of they?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
One can also ask whether anybody knows it is related. Is there any proof one way or the other? *Dan T.* 02:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Not being a Wikitruthian, I cannot say this with absolute authority, but one would expect that if there were a relation, there would at the very least be a link to the Japanese site. Quatloo 03:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we would need a reliable source before adding it. I was only curious as to how Alkivar could be so certain. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations tag removed

I have removed the "citations needed" tag. The Village Voice, The Guardian and The Register fulfill the requirement for third-party sources. Elbowdrop 01:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of Wikipedia section

I don't see how Wikitruth could be viewed as a reliable site for criticisms of Wikipedia, per WP:V, which says:

  • Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources.

Comments posted on their about a third-party (Wikipedia) are no different than those posted on blogs or forums. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikitruth isn't an open wiki; it's a closed one limited to the (secretive) group of members of the site, with no way for the public to join or edit. And it appears it's only being used as a source for statements about what Wikitruth says themselves; there are also some third-party sources in the source list, which is how the notability of the subject was established. *Dan T.* 04:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not disputing the notability, just its reliability about 3rd-parties, includig Wikipedia as a whole and Jimmy Wales in particular. If we used it as a source for their membership, or other non-contentious material, then it wouldn't be a problem. However they make some contentious assertions. The notable ones have appeared in other sources, and I think we should probably use those instead. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Point of View

I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, and having discovered (and thoroughly explored) wikitruth today while hungover, I am a little disenfranchised, but did they seriously write that article about NPOV? Wow. Articles about pseudoscience should NEVER be sympathetic, because being sympathetic involves endorsing something that is just plain wrong.

Correct. This paragraph is pointless. But then, I'll never run for administrator, so it doesn't really matter. Michael.A.Anthony (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't understand the article, which suggests that it's a good thing that pseudoscience is not actually treated neutrally, but is given an unsympathetic hearing. And writing about something neutrally needn't be an endorsement of it. This understanding is wholly lacking from Wikipedia, where interest groups tend to war over articles, each attempting to ensure that articles are "neutral" in a rather restricted sense, and definitely not strictly neutral. It's difficult, I think, for rationalists (I'm one myself) to understand that views they believe everyone should hold are not actually neutral. Grace Note (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia admins/editors harassing over wikitruth links

Is there any notable mention of wikipedia admins and editors removing mentions of wikitruth from user talk pages? I know that the link I put up in my user talk was removed once already. If it's been covered I think it should be mentioned here. Zenasprime (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The failed WP:BADSITES policy is the gift that keeps on giving... My essay gives more about this ugly strain of WikiPolitics. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to let the people know, I got a 1 month ban for linking to wikitruth in my userpage. Escherichio (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC) (aka zp)