Talk:Xeni Jardin/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

XeniSucks.com

Xenisucks.com: parody site or attack site? Should it be included in the external links? Of course, when an anon adds it, it looks suspicious. It was linked off of Boing Boing (http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/27/xenisuckscom.html) by Jardin herself. "This is a total hoot." --Christopherlin 21:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

eh. why give anons like me edit abilities if our changes are all going to be reverted anyway? I'd say it's a vicious parody site, and it can certainly be Npov to at least link to someone pointing out jardin's foibles. 67.184.95.163 13:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a question best asked at the Village Pump. Typically, however, attack sites need to be scrutinized -- particularly when we're dealing with living people here. In this case, though, I don't see the problem as Xeni took note of it in her blog. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 14:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Calling this a "parody" is like calling the Swift Boat Campaign "all in good fun". The XeniSucks site [is not parody]... To allow ... XeniSucks.com to thrive is a blight on Wiki. Matt N 18:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Given this new information, I am all for the removal of this link (despite Xeni's own mention of it in her blog). -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I move that the Xeni Jardin page be protected for a few days. I have had to remove the libelous link several times already. Anon trolls are appearing under the guise of furthering "satire" when they are in fact seeking to libel and damage this woman via XeniSucks.com ... Matt N 21:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
That's funny, the only page you've editted is the Xeni Jardin page. Perhaps you're Point of view on this matter is not neutral? ... It seems to me that this should be resolved in a similar manner as the corysucks.com site addition to the Cory Doctorow article. As long as the link is labeled correctly (something like vicious parody of Xeni Jardin's Boing Boing posts) then readers of the wikipedia know what they're in for. It's certainly not libelous, nor is it going to 'damage' Ms. Jardin 208.20.220.72 22:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of my perceived interests, the information is solid. The XeniSucks site is a libelous defamation of this woman's character. ... [This] work is most certainly not "parody" nor "satire" ... Matt N 22:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we refrain from adding the link to the article until the XeniSucks site stays up long enough to be relevant. I'm sure there is tons of brief critisism of Xeni (or any other web personality) available on the internet already. If the XeniSucks site stays up and actually continues to critique the subject on an ongoing basis, maybe then it would be relevant to link to the site. If it is a short term project then it really doesn't merit a direct link, IMHO.
That sounds reasonable. How long is long enough? 2 months? 208.20.220.72 14:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
We will know if it's relevant when we see it. If Xeni or her blog-mates over at BoingBoing continue to make an issue out of it, or if litigation actually happens, or if Sharp's site becomes a center for critisism of Xeni's writing, it should make itself obvious within a month or two. If Sharp and Xeni battled it out with pistols at 20 paces at a tech conference this weekend, it would be immediately relevant. I've noticed this problem with BoingBoing related Wikipedia edits before. These articles tend to attract rookie editors who want to passionately debate the relevance of a blog post only hours old, as if its immediate inclusion into Wikipedia is a crisis of some sort. Glowimperial 15:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
That being said, it's hard for me to consider the site a "potentially litigous personal attack". Although [the] critique of Xeni via XeniSucks is harsh and aggressive, it's well within the bounds of parody and satire. Depending on your perception of Xeni, [the xenisucks.com site creator], it may appear to be in bad taste, but we're not in the business of regulating taste here on Wikipedia. Regarding the libel issue - what exactly on [xenisucks.com] page would be considered libel? Xeni herself seems to have no issue with linking to or promoting XeniSucks.com, I have a hard time seeing how she or anyone else could make an argument that she is being libeled, when she herself has actively promoted the site, and seems to be taking the critisism without a hint of seriousness. Glowimperial 23:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
(Reply to 67.184.95.163) They're not all reverted. There are lots of anons who make great edits, and there are plenty of registered users who do bad things. This is my guess: Contributions from anons are scrutinized more. Newbies and others less familiar with Wikipedia tend to not create accounts - "I'll just change this one thing and be done with it." That and much of the vandalism comes from IP editors (or at least seems to). That's the perception. I read somewhere that anonymous editing is one of the fundamental parts of a Wiki. Of course, you could always create an account... :-> I hope this helps. --Christopherlin 15:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Chtistopher - lots of anon users contribute in a positive way to Wikipedia. I will add that 99% of the vandalism I revert on an almost daily basis is by unregistered users. Contributions by anonymous users do get scrutinsed and reverted much more agressively because of the massive number of anonymous vandals here. It's really easy to set up an account, and it's a great way to say that you're serious about making a real contribution to what we're doing here, even if your not going to edit every day. Glowimperial 18:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the page to its last known good state on the 22nd of March. Any and all edits after that point were either vandals or people cleaning up after them. Please don't change the page and add unverifiable facts. Ioerror 19:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that bold of an edit was warranted - is there an issue regarding the verifiablity of Xeni's birth name and her other alias(es)? Also, given that your photography is the subject of direct critisism on XeniSucks.com, isn't it a bit inappropriate for you to make edits regarding this issue? Glowimperial 20:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Ha. I hadn't even noticed that he was refering to me as I'm not a teenager. That's cute. And yeah, my issue is this: there's no backup to the supposed "facts." "Content must be verifiable." Where's the source? This is clearly the result of an interpersonal fight. The clear choice was to revert back to the point before all this fighting and to discuss the changes from that point on. This way sockpuppets and other non verifiable facts can be left out of the article. Seems reasonable, doesn't it? I personally think if this crap keeps up, the page should be protected until all this blows over. Ioerror 20:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Didn't mean to ride you, I'm just anal retentive on potential conflict of interest issues (such as editing a page on yourself, or about an issue in which you are personally involved. Given the potential issue it might be a good idea to keep your inputs regarding the XeniSucks issue to the talk page. Or not, this is a minor issue, and your involvement is pretty distant, but making edits on this issue might be interpreted as a response to that critisism, or that you represent Xeni's personal interest in your edits. Why do you not consider the traveltrust archived page with contact info for "Xeniflores Hamm" to be not verification of her previous alias? I don't have any reason to believe that that page was fabricated and exists solely to "out" Xeni's "transitory alias" from her birth name to her current name, it should probably stay in the article. I haven't seen anything verifiable regarding her birth name yet, so that can stay out, but the earlier alias should stay in, IMHO.
I don't see this page as needing a lock-down. The rate of trolling is pretty high, but I'm not seeing the kind of sockpuppet madness that goes on over at Sollog, yet. Glowimperial 20:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Ditto on the above: certainly the Xeniflores Hamm aka was attested for. I don't see why that particular bit of information was removed, even if it was entered by an anonymous user. It seems Ms. Jardin has acknowledged the Xeniflores name was an alias, it seems logical if perhaps not proven that her birth name was Jenny. And the Xenisucks author reads as if he knows people who know/knew Ms. Jardin personally so it's not unreasonable to assume that he actually does know her "real" name. Why not get in touch with him? Mvuijlst 23:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been through this debate on other articles. If the subject doesn't want their birth name made public, us Wiki editors have to provide linkable, irrefutable evidence of the original name, or it will never make it into the article, possibly triggering an annoying revert war which is not usually worth the time. Glowimperial 23:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
And it is also worth noting that, in general, such information is entirely unencyclopedia and should be omitted on purely editorial grounds anyway. (There are exceptions, of course... the point is that this is a valid editorial judgment, even if there is linkable irrefutable evidence.) --Jimbo Wales 22:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd argue that there's significant interest in the the subject's past and the "backstory" behind her unusual name to merit inclusion of previously used names in the article. Some brief internet research reveals that Xeni has likely used several different variations of the name, and there seems to be sufficient confusion and interest regarding the subject's history and what appears to be her attempts to obfuscate that history to warrant inclusion in this document. Her "mysterious identity" is a key feature of her role as a pop culture celebrity and is one of the factors that have been part of her success as a blogger and internet personality. If this article, and by extension Wikipedia itself, is intended to be a comprehensive document than it should include data regarding the subject's name. Glowimperial 23:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I hate to disagree with The Jimbo Wales here, but call such information "entirely unencyclopedia" is total crap. The first two words of the Ringo Starr article are "Richard" and "Starkey". Is that entirely unencyclopediac, too? Front243 00:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
And Marilyn Monroe, Cary Grant, and John Wayne all have their given names listed as well. 208.20.220.72 00:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Should birth date also be ommitted? It seems in reverting my sentence about her current name not being her given name, you also reverted the info I added about her birthdate. It also seems like this discussion should be under the name heading instead of the xenisucks.com heading. 208.20.220.72 23:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
One clarification. Nothing I found indicated that Xeni was trying to hide her name changes, so if we use "alias" in this discussion it's not in the sense of "witness protection program" alias, but just that she used the first name Xeniflores at time X, and shortened it to Xeni at time X+1. --Zippy 03:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, this whole discussion of hiding her birth name seems really hypocritical in the face of how many times Xeni and her supporters have posted the full name (and all variations thereof) of the xenisucks.com author. (I count twice on boingboing and at least nine times above.) Front243 00:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, believe that Jacob Applebaum, a known close associate of Xeni Jardin, hardly represents NPOV in editing Xeni's page.

As this whole discussion should prove to you, adding in a link to xenisucks.com is not vandalism (a poor editorial decision, maybe, but not vandalism). Besides, name-calling is uncool, and you should be counting your reverts. Front243 12:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to reinforce that - we don't have a vandalism issue here, what we have here is a dialogue regarding two seperate situations. The first situation is the relevance of XeniSucks.com to this article, and the second situation is the importance or non-importance of the inclusion of previous names used by the subject, different than her current legal name. What we should be doing is refraining from making edits to the actual page right now, excepting grammar or other basic style edits, while the issues are discussed and we come to a consensus on how to make this article the best article it can be. Right now, I support the removal of the XeniSucks.com link, as there is no real consensus on the relevance of that link yet. We can afford to be patient here, no one is going to suffer if that link doesn't make it into the article immediately. Glowimperial 17:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This whole argument about xenisucks.com has nothing to do with any perceived legal issues and everything to do with hiding the truth. Since when has Wikipedia had issues with linking to potentially sensitive/illegal content? Look at this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocuast_denier). That page contains links to content that if published in Germany or Austria could see you experiencing jail time. This is not a place to boost one's ego or to only display information which portrays people in a good light. It is a fact that xenisucks.com exists. It is a fact that Xeni has in the past had different names. Last time I checked encyclopaedias were based around facts and there is therefore no reason why all the above information should not be included in her entry.Gerardm 10:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
... what I would propose is the creation of a new Wiki page specifically for XeniSucks.com. On this page we can examine the lives and histories and contributions to society of the ... people involved... Matt N 20:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I quote from (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/join/) "You Have the Right to Blog Anonymously.". Who cares if he tried to remain anonymous (the WHOIS info on xenisucks.com would suggest otherwise), if nothing else the creation of xenisucks.com proves that Xeni Jardin/Xeniflores Jardin/Olive Jardin/Whatever writes material that provokes a reaction. ... what matters is the concerted effort by Xeni and others to ensure that her entry here is exactly how she wants and portrays her in only in a good light. That is not how it works here or indeed in any encyclopaedia. ...Gerardm 21:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


If facts are found about names or whatever I say post them. Xeni can complain about it but facts are facts. XeniSucks.com, however, is not a place where factual information is presented, and being that it was created in the spirit of extreme negativity and personal malice, I say it has no place on her page. Matt N 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Without Xeni Jardin, xenisucks.com would not exist. For that reason alone it is relevant to, well, Xeni Jardin. Are you saying in the parody section of Wikipedia we should not link to theonion.com (http://www.theonion.com) because it is not a place where factual information is presented? It belongs on her page because it shows that for whatever reason Xeni Jardin inspires someone to create a .website dedicated to her. Would you object if I created ilovexeni.com and someone linked to it? ...Gerardm 22:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
XeniSucks is not a parody site. It's a scathing PERSONAL attack, not satire, not parody. A site like "ILoveXeni" would also be irrelevant and improper for inclusion here. The Onion is a fine site, and you would never see something like the content of XeniSucks there. Even Defamer would probably poke fun aggressively but they would never stoop to specific personal attacks. Matt N 23:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not the same person as gerardm. We do seem to have some of the same pov on these issues, but are not the same person. Arguing with MATT N certainly won't change his mind, but I'd urge the other editors to actually check out the xenisucks.com top couple stories. The site links to Xeni's boing boing posts, and does parody them and mock them. The top posting at this moment is mocking a mash-up, followed by asking what's wrong with police gathering evidence of a crime, and mocking Xeni's "Drop Kittens, not Bombs" t-shirt.
The wonderful thing about all this, ... is that Xeni will continue to enjoy a fine and fabulous career, regardless of what's posted here, or elsewhere. Clearly, a majority of the world that's aware of Xeni finds her fascinating, highly intelligent, noteworthy, and professional. A small but vocal minority has gathered tar and feathers Rock on, Xeni! By the way ... Matt N 23:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
... What I do hate is encyclopedias being tainted by biased opinions. It is abundantly clear to one and all your bias in this situation and that has been further compounded by your false accusations. Gerardm 00:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
As to glowimperial's objection that we'll know it's relevent when we see it, it certainly seems relevent now, more relevant than the dead links that had been on the article since this discussion has started that I just removed. If it ever becomes unrelevant, that seems the time to remove the link, instead of waiting for it to hit us with a relevancy stick.
Finally, I know inserting this comment here is confusing but it is a reply to Matt N. Who should be the one to take initiative and clean up the talk page? 208.20.220.69 23:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Regardles of how much bile [the xenisucks.com creator] has for Xeni Jardin, his site is obviously critisism via parody. I still don't think that makes it deserve mention (yet) in this article, mainly because the way the site is constructed it does not really provide serious critisism that would make it a valuable reference to Wikipedia readers, nor is the site in and of itself notable enough to deserve mention, IMHO. Maybe I'm not seeing it yet - I think we should monitor the XeniSucks.com situation for a few weeks and see if it merits mention in the article then. It's not that the critisisms of Jardin there aren't viable points of view, it's that the parody medium, combined with [the creator's] obvious seething dislike for Jardin blunts the value of his arguments tremendously.Glowimperial 01:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
... Frankly, I think the whole XeniSucks thing will have it's brief moment of internet novelty (as these things tend to do) and then slowly die off, making it not a good link from this article, nor a reference of any value. As xenisucks.com holds what is an obviously NPOV attitude towards Xeni and has an obvious axe to grind, his website is not a good source of data for this article. That being said, should his website be responsible for some notable activite in the life of the subject of this page, or become a wellspring of actual critisism (other than the griping that's there now) of the subject, it would be a worthy addition to this page. Critisism of individuals or their works (in this case the subject's published writings) are commonly linked to on Wikipedia, in an effort to provide varied perspectives of the subject or their works. That also being said, I see no need for a XeniSucks.com page here on Wikipedia. It is not notable enough to merit a page of it's own. If every "I'm complaining about this or that" blog on the internet had a Wikipedia page, we'd clock past that 2,000,000th article at the speed of light. Wikipedia may not be paper, but we sure as hell don't need to clutter this place naming every grain of sand in the internet universe. Glowimperial 21:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
...Glowimperial, you are 100% correct and I agree with you. I wish I were as reasonable about my thinking sometimes. I think your view is reasonable and responsible. I think there is not good in this world without healthy and sometimes violent criticism, but it must be criticism that is not tainted with envy and jealousy. If [xenisucks.com] changes [its] tune, I agree that a site critical of Xeni's actual words would not be improper. No one is immune to criticism, but no one should have to deal with having their actual person assaulted by maladjusted and envious carrion crows. Matt N 21:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
We need to seperate the two issues XeniSucks.com has nothing to do with the Xeni Jardin name issue, as far as I'm concerned. While I'm advocating that we wait a while before including or not including the XeniSucks.com link or reference (it's a bad reference, as it's decidedly not a source of POV information) it in the article, we certainly can settle the name/identity issue to the best of our ability. Glowimperial 17:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So while everyone was fighting for 1-2 weeks about whether the link to xenisucks was relevent to the article or not, there were 2 links going off to dead sites. It was ok for those links to be there when they were useless, but it's not ok to post links to xenisucks.com when it's relevent? Eventually it may become unrelevent, but I'd say delete the link then instead of waiting to 'know it when we see it.' At this point, the links are really the most useful part of the article, so it seems like keeping them complete is the best plan. 208.20.220.72 16:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Having read all the comments on here I have decided to put the link to xenisucks.com back on. The reasons for this are: a) it is relevant as it is about Xeni, b) without Xeni the site would not exist therefore it deserves to be mentioned as it shows the reaction that people have to what Xeni writes and c) because we can. Wikipedia is better than an old encyclopedia because it can adapt in seconds. We don't have to wait for the next print run to update the information here. At this point in time xeniscuks.com exists, people are talking about it and I believe anyone looking at the Xeni Jardin page on Wikipedia deserves to know such a site exists. If the site no longer become relevant then lets remove it but for now it should be on the page. ----

I think more than your own opinion is needed on this matter, especially given that Wikipedians are about to delete the Xenisucks article itself. If Xenisucks is going to be deleted, why should such a non-notable site be kept here? To satisfy your need personal to be right? or to serve some greater "good"? Matt N 09:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Well if we are getting into opinions, it is *your* opinion that the site is non-notable. I happen to disagree. The onus is for you to tell us why it shouldn't be included. There is a piece of information that is directly related to Xeni Jardin. Please tell me why it should not appear in an entry about Xeni Jardin. However I fear we won't get a senisble debate as your opinion on Xeni Jardin is clearly biased as your posts in this discussion have proved. I am putting the link back up. --Gerardm 11:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Your single opinion does not amount to a "consensus". When the Americans are up and out of bed, let's see what they have to say. Until then, I will revert every edit I see until I'm either blocked or feel a democratic consensus has been reached. Your transparent agenda of denigrating Jardin is not at all hidden by your multiple phony accounts and false "edit sincerity". Matt N 11:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh so now we wait for the Americans to come and regulate Wikipedia? What planet are you on? Could you please tell me why you think xenisucks.com should not be listed? To help you out, "because it criticises Xeni" is not an acceptable answer. And for the last time, I am not behind the anonymous edits you accuse me of. Would you like to provide some evidence to back up your claim? So far you have accused me of making edits from an account in the USA and in the Xeni edit you have accused me of having accounts in Australia too! Wow! Seriously, do you have any evidence for this? I have no personal opinion on Xeni Jardin but I will not stand by while someone who clearly is pro-Xeni tries to remove any criticism of her. I am now adding the link back --Gerardm 11:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Your assertions of not having an opinion are absurd. No one is as motivated as you are without some driving factor. Xeni is obviously someoe you despise, most likely because you, like the other Jardin Haters, are the kind of male I describe on my user page. Myself, I'm not so much pro-Xeni as I am anti-defamation, but my job here is now done. I know from a pair of 3rd party individuals that my activity here has made a difference, in more ways than one. This satisfies me no end and now I must go. Matt N 11:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Did you feel like you didn't need to address the serious allegations you made against me regarding anoymous edits/sock puppets? Or shall we all just sit back and listen to more of your amateur psychology? When you say "Xeni, is a bright, benevolent, positive force in the world" and "Clearly, a majority of the world that's aware of Xeni finds her fascinating, highly intelligent, noteworthy, and professional" it is obvious you have a pro-Xeni bias. Nowhere have I commented either way to my like/dislike for Xeni because it bares no relation to the matter at hand. Your activity here has proved that Wikepedia has serious flaws because any cretin can change an entry. Throughout this debate all you have argued is your pro-Xeni agenda and you have yet to provide one good reason why xenisucks.com should not be included in her entry. And because of that, back in it goes. --Gerardm 12:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Strawpoll on xenisucks.com

  • I think it is time to archive the straw poll, since we all seem to agree that in its current form as of this writing, and since April 7, 2006 when I personally added the link back, the XeniSucks link is good to go and is fine to appear here. Matt N 10:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so let's stop fighting and name-calling, and let's try to reach a real consensus. Do you support or oppose the inclusion of a link to xenisucks.com? Please sign your votes with four tildes. Front243 14:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Abstain

  • Abstain: I refuse to contribute to this poll as it is fundamentally pointless. What if I start a strawpoll with a load of creationists (I am not a creationist by the way) and we get the majority to agree evolution didn't happen? Would that make it valid if the majority agree?

There have been, in my mind, no good agruments as to why it should not be included. Someone has suggested it doesn't add value; that is entirely subjective: some people may say it does. You can't have subjective arguments as to the inclusion of content. --Gerardm 15:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I will not participate in strawpoll. However, when Matt says "For the same general reasons that you would not put a link to the KKK on the Holocaust page", that is entirely not the point. There is not a 1-to-1 correlation between the KKK and the Holocaust; the KKK are not exclusively negative towards the Holocaust. xenisucks.com is exclusively commenting on Xeni Jardin. --Gerardm 22:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  • Support: I think the "energy" of the debate on this talk page shows the site is relevant, at least for now. C33 17:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC) (First and only edit by C33)
  • Support: I agree with Gerardm, this vote is ridiculous, just like ANY internet poll. 208.20.220.69 18:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Then why in the world are you voting for Support? That's ridiculous. --Kickstart70·Talk 00:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: It's become notable. Yes, that's a recent thing, but that should not be the determining factor on inclusion. Perhaps the info about xenisucks.com is not huge, but that's quite fairly because it's an external link about the person in question, and external links rarely have much information about them in Wikipedia. That's why external links are used in the first place, rather than just linking to a Wikipedia page specific to the external resource. --Kickstart70·Talk 21:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: As long as it's presented on the page as it is now, which is to say, in a neutral way, it's fine. A critical view is still a valid point of view. -- Mirrormaybe 05:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Criticism doesn't need to be constructive to be relevant, and parody can be very relevant specially when the subject is a controversial public figure. Lost Goblin 20:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: The vehemence with which the anti-xenisucks partisans decry xenisucks indicates to me that the site is relevant. Tafinucane 23:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Xeni is a writer, writing is a creative act, creative acts provoke criticism, that criticism is important.Delasky 06:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Notable critical site. Attacks are made based on published work and public facts and do not delve into prurient details or non-public incidents, although the attacks may be considered personal by a sensitive person. Look at all the anti-name of politician sites on wikipedia for instance. Calwatch 00:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: It's as relevant as an external link can be. I don't think a link should be excluded just because someone disagrees with the contents. Plus the wiki page for Xeni Jardin is all neutral or positive. There's nothing on the Xeni page that indicates anyone thinks she sucks. So the page should either provide the external link, or (in NPOV) explain that many people think Xeni sucks. Jjlira 17:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: It's clearly become a notable site, as shown by all the discussion of it here and elsewhere, and although it is a rather distasteful 'attack site' it appears to contain nothing obviously false, libellous or illegal. It's mentioned in the article, so why not link to it? Terraxos, 20 April 2006
  • Support It is relevant as an external link. Besides, it is also a notable critical site. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose - The link contains no real further information about the subject, nor is the critisism there of any real value other than to establish that Xeni Jardin's work has critics. Given the broad critisism of Xeni that does exist (the sheer existence of the de-Xeni Greasemonkey script comes to min), perhaps the article itself could make mention of her critics in a broad sense. Glowimperial 15:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For the same general reasons that you would not put a link to the KKK on the Holocaust page (the user C33 above is glaringly bogus, further demonstrating the kind of motivations behind something like Xenisucks). Apart from that, the Xenisucks site is simply the brooding ground of a vicious detractor with an obvious and rather pathetic personal agenda, adding no value to the page, no valid criticism (when there is an instance of valid criticism, it is so awash in hate and personal agenda that it becomes diluted). Were the site undertaken in a more scholarly and non-personal tone, there would be no argument from me. If you link this site, then why not link every site created in hate? Yes, let us include links to vicious attack sites created by non-notable individuals to all Wiki articles, equally. How about adding one to the Martin Luther King, Jr. page, or even the Bob Denver or Benny Hill or Sam Donaldson page? As it stands, Xenisucks is a rubbish site, constructed to defame and attack rather than analyze. There is nothing subjective about this assessment, unless you hate Xeni. Understand that I am aware that Xeni's excellent career and life will not see one blip of trouble from this Xenisucks site, and that no one with any sense whatsoever will give the site "the time of day" (in the professional world, or otherwise) but that is beside the point. Matt N 22:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Stop with the personal attacks! 129.55.200.20 13:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I have no idea who this person is, but became involved because I reverted an edit. I followed the xenisucks.com link, and researched the Greasemonkey script. The xenisucks.com site provides no Constructive Criticism, rather only ridicule. If that's the case we could add that type of link for every individual in Wikipedia. The script is an interesting issue, and I'm split on that - however I will note that the creator's boss publically frowned heavily on the thing and apologised for its creation. Isn't there a link that provides actual, verifiable criticism of the subject? CMacMillan 22:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We (wikipedia) really shouldn't be about giving people with a personal agenda spotlight. This is a personal attack site and it has no place in the wikipedia. If this was "XeniWatch" and the person had uncovered important facts about Xeni that would be one thing. It might be newsworthy, but this is just someone making personal attacks. If we allow this one that means anyone who wants to attack someone can create PERSONSNAME_SUCKS/BITES/IS-A-JERK and get a bunch of traffic. JasonCalacanis
These *sucks.com have been notable in the past. aolsuck.com and microsoftsucks.com were heavily involved in improving the customer service by those companies, and in the latter case dealing with the issue of contractor fair treatment. In any case, criticism is a valid form of expression, and you are intimately tied to the subject matter (being a friend and ex-employer of the person in question), so it's hard to put any weight behind your statements here. --Kickstart70-T-C 20:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the fact that I know Xeni and worked with her puts more behind my statement. I've looked at the site and it is clearly of no importance when you look at her work. If there was something to this site beyond someone with a personal ax to grind I would agree with you 100%. If the person pointed out something of note about Xeni we should include. But someone putting up a site and saying "Xeni sucks" ten times a day is not "of note." Wikipedia shouldn't be the place for personal attacks. It should be the opposite, a place for accurate articles on a subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jasoncalacanis (talk • contribs) .
And do you not see that the fact you worked with/are friends with Xeni makes your opinion biased? Who cares about what work she has does? There are sites that parody God and I'm sure Christians the world over would argue the importance of his work; it makes no difference to the existence of the parody. Clearly there are a sizable number of people who do not like Xeni Jardin and any attempt to misrepresent the existance of those people is wrong. Yes in your opinion she does a lot of a good and that is represented in her Wiki entry. But also she provokes a reaction in some that is negative and that is represented too. Are you seriously saying you want Xeni's entry to be nothing but positive reaction? --Gerardm 23:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Parody site, not relevant... does not add NPOV. Xeni is a person, not a corporate entity with a major, high-profile detractor here. It's strange how badly some of you want xenisuck.com to be a part of an encyclopedia entry here... makes me wonder about possible ulterior motives with some of you. Cowicide 05:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Article for site?

I don't think XeniSucks.com would make WP:WEB guidelines. If it deserves any sort of encyclopedic writeup, it should be here under criticism, if it gets longish, under a subsection of critcism. Besides, it's kind of strange for a criticism section to be almost as long as the rest of the article. --Christopherlin 20:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEB states:

"Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."

XeniSucks.com has be referenced in both the New York Times and BoingBoing iteself. Doesn't that make it relevant per the guidlines in WP:WEB? C33 03:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)