Template:Did you know nominations/Wikipediocracy: Difference between revisions

Wikipediocracy

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Wikipediocracy, a weblog and forum, is dedicated to criticizing Wikipedia?

Created by Volunteer Marek (talk), Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk). Nominated by Reaper Eternal (talk) at 16:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC).

• I think this needs a slightly more catchy hook. Right now, it's rather dull. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Doing... --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, mentioning the assistance in research for the Salon article would make the hook more interesting.Volunteer Marek 17:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) I'm currently reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Elder Village. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Can you add another source for 'Wikipediocracy is a website for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation sites. or mention which part of this article verifies it! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"But two weeks after my story was published, a group of Wikipedia editors affiliated with the Wikipedia criticism site Wikipediocracy approached me." —Andrew Leonard, on Salon.com. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• You could stick "and has assisted journalists reporting on Wikipedia controversies?" on the end of that to make it more hooky. ;) --The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I was actually thinking something more along the lines of

• ... that Wikipediocracy, a weblog and forum, is dedicated to critiquing Wikipedia, including this very DYK section?

However, I couldn't find much mention of the GibraltarpediA controversy with respect to Wikipediocracy in reliable sources. For the hook, we definitely need a non-primary source. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion I made would be backed by secondary sources. :) --The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, definitely not. Way too self-referential and inside-baseballish. The vast majority of readers (including many Wikipedians) won't know what it refers to. Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• ALT 1:... that Wikipediocracy, a weblog and forum dedicated to critiquing Wikipedia, helped expose the "Qworty saga" and has received contributions from Wikpedia's co-founder Dr. Larry Sanger? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 19:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think making up terminology like the "Qworty saga" is very appropriate. Silverseren^C 20:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• try this from the second Salon piece:

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has yet to comment on the record to Salon, but on his own Talk page he quoted my story:

"For those of us who love Wikipedia, the ramifications of the Qworty saga are not comforting." That sums it up for me. More thoughts soon. I would have banned him outright years ago. So would many others. That we did not, points to serious deficiencies in our systems. — Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC) -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Definitely no to this hook. Far too self-referential, and in all honesty it's hardly a "saga". It's also certainly not a good or ethical idea to use DYKs to go after particular named individuals in this way. Qworty may have become a hate figure in certain quarters but that's no justification for going after him on the Main Page. Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• ALT2: ... that Wikipediocracy, a weblog and forum dedicated to criticizing Wikipedia, has assisted journalists reporting on controversies involving the online encyclopedia?

• Per my comment above I think that is just hooky enough. I would prefer to not go after Young with a DYK.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• This seems like a much better method to go about it. And it gets to link to a much better and more relevant article. Silverseren^C 20:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• My suggestion wasn't intended to go after "Qworty", just draw attention to the problem, and that is the reason the article is here now after all. I think that mentioning Sanger adds interest. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Silver seren. Frankly I'd prefer we didn't have an article on the Fuckwit Forum at all, but if we're going to be lumbered with one, this is the least awful hook proposed so far. Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I take it you mean this forum ? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, I mean the whole hive of knuckle-dragging malice, as you know perfectly well. Quit trolling. Prioryman (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• A true upholder of the Flaming Commandments (esp. No.4 and No.12.) ;) -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Mothers doing strange things with vegetables do probably explain the disposition of Wikipediocracy's contributors... Prioryman (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Prioryman. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)