What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
78 Comments
- msaleem, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24edit: website is live now. Main page reads:
"WIKITRUTH IS BEING ***** HAMMERED RIGHT NOW.
WE THANK OUR PROVIDER, DREAMHOST" - soogy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18The Jack Thompson article which they reposted on Wikitruth is especially important. When I saw WP:OFFICE remove the Jack Thompson page, I was VERY disappointed in them. I can't believe they would cave in so quickly without even giving the community notice.
When the page finally came back, I was amazed. All of the criticism, all of the in-depth details about his activism (particularily against video games) were GONE. Not moved to other articles (as they probably should have been), but rather... GONE. They just deleted the information. Hence, I now only make minor edits to Wikipedia. - Drood, on 10/12/2007, -14/+27I hereby vote that the term wikipedian is dropped, in favour of the far funnier wikipedophile.
- betterth, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15"i hate the fud created by these wikipedia haters. most articles are very professional and clean, disputes make it an even better encyclopedia since multiple viewpoints get to duel, and even if its not perfect, its an invaluable source of information that in wikipedias absence would be unaccessable."
Disputes do make it better. Which is exactly the problem.
This is a collection of ADMIN-CENSORED articles. AKA articles deleted by a wikipedia staff member based on their own feelings purely for censorship.
Not debate, not users deciding, but a staff-deletion.
RTFA. - mtrip, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Wikipedia is neccessary, even if it can get the facts wrong so easily. For example, I looked up the phrase "All your base are belong to us," and sure enough it has a comprehensive article, which I can't imagine Britannica ever, ever doing. It's the little contemporary, pop culture things like that that make Wikipedia indespensable.
- HexInfinity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Controversial issues are going to be controversial, no matter what wikipedia or wikitruth say.
All I know is that Wikipedia can teach me about MF Doom, the four horsemen, and about the Tsar Bomba. Where else can I learn about these in a single site?
Wikitruth bitching about a couple of articles, for a whole site, is ridiculous. Encyclopedias are only going to give you a synopsis. Even the almighty Wiki. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9As a professor of Masters students, I can assure you that if anyone cited Wikipedia as a source, I would not even accept their paper. It is the same thing as citing random people off the street and saying "So and so said that this is true." Grante,d I am in a technical field (engineering), but I cannot imagine any ofhte professors I know (across several different subjects) would EVER allow Wikipedia as a source. Certainly not one that the professor will have to put their name on too, like to get published or whatever . Because then WE face lawsuits if the information is inaccurate.
- rm999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7judsond
In some cases, a single moderator (the founder and owner of wikipedia, jimmy wales) deleted articles despite a consensus to keep the article. - msaleem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The website is http://www.wikitruth.info/ but its down. Presumably due to the influx of traffic?
- quasarkitten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This was on Slashdot today @ 02:35PM So that is why Wikitruth has been hit so hard. Now that this is on digg while still being on the frontpage of slashdot. . . Well lets just say, "poor server"
- nunbot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I thought all censored wikipedia articles were on http://uncyclopedia.org
- basvd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7No, wikipedia contains the articles that didn't make it to uncyclopedia.
- judsond, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Andrew Orlowski is not exactly the most unbiased reporter when it comes to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Orlowski . Also censorship is a little harsh, deletion is more appropriate, and there are discussions about deletions, including everyone, not just Jimbo and the "super secret cabal" that doesn't exist...
- Shaunt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8betterth
Wikitruth does serve the function that you describe, but the author of the article seems to not understand the function of Wikitruth, and uses it as a tool to bash Wikipedia. the author describes Wikitruth as a site which"documents the inner machinations of the project". While this is a fair description, it is not a full description of the site and is pretty much the only mention of it. The rest of the article is a biased view about vandalism on Wikipedia, focusing mostly the negetive aspect, while painting the hard working editors who fight against vandalism as misguided nerds who spend too much time on a "doomed" site. This article, in my opinion, is an attempt to smear wikipedia from someone who doesn't know much about it. - theblackgecko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Not to be harsh, but shouldn't Wikitruth have expected heavy traffic?
- Daychilde, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Conspiracy theorists would argue government-sponsored DOS attacks, of course... *giggle*
- captaindan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6There's only so much you can do when you're hosted by a third party.
- loup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think story as a whole is kind of interesting, but the article seems to kind of drift off on a tangent near the end.
Also, I spent some time looking through the censored and uncensored articles. It looks like several of the articles have been added back into wikipedia with pretty much all of the information still there. Some of the articles actually appear to be formatted a bit better now, and have all of the same negative information about the people in the article. A few of the articles still are in their "censored" form though.
I wonder if the articles that have been added back into wikipedia have been added back because of the wikitruth site, or if they were simply added back after the situation was investigated. - WayneGoode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4From wikitruth.info:
...website run by Jimbo Wales and a massive, insane army of Wikipedians that he controls with his mind rays.
Looks like wikitruth can be counted on for a fair, objective and accurate view of the matter. (;->) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"You can think of admins as janitors, they are certainly not paid staff members, they are the ones that delete an article *after* a discussion has occurred where everyone has an equal voice. The discussions are in the open and are archived permanently regardless of the outcome.
The amount of edits done by actual staff members of the foundation is exceptionally small, as is the amount of people on staff."
But even Janitors can sweep up trash, that might not necsisarly be trash. Just because it is trash to the Majority of the Wikipedia Staff dosent mean the rest of the world agree's with it. Even Facts can be subjective. Why does a group of administrators get to decide what to keep and what to throw out? I think if you want a true democratic system out of Wikipedia that they slowly watch Digg and its edititorial system. Although still flawed I think Digg has potential to be a great site of user based editors. It would be intresting if say you voted on a story to be locked and uneditable after so many users agree that a subject is completely true in and out and the only way to reedit it is if you and a few hundred other users disagree with it and vote for it to be edited, kind of a majority ruling, with no administrator intervention or supposed "Janitors" - crimson117, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Give me a break all you whining about dreamhost... no one provides slashdotting protection for $7.95 a month. If wikitruth wanted to withstand heavy bandwidth, they at least should have sprung for a dedicated server.
And knowing how you can manage your dreamhost accounts, wikitruth probably put up that status page themselves - dreamhost lets you set up a throttling threshold which puts up a plain low-bandwidth info page. - nads, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Wow, it says "If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up."
They're on the ball, aren't they! - wardriver20, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"i hate the fud created by these wikipedia haters. most articles are very professional and clean, disputes make it an even better encyclopedia since multiple viewpoints get to duel, and even if its not perfect, its an invaluable source of information that in wikipedias absence would be unaccessable."
Agree. Also,
I wouldn't be surprised to see Wikitruth censor something that they dont like.
We see this everywhere. Think what would you do if you were the admin? - rm999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4looks like wikipedia is trying to block (censor?) an article about this website from appearing on it. Sort of ironic. If you are an editor/user of wikipedia take part in the discussion of whether it should stay:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikitruth.info - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Won't be long before they are threatened with lawsuits. Some frivilous, but some that are perfectly legitimate lawsuits.
Wikipedia took down many sites for a reason. You can't lible a man on a site like that and say "Hey, we didn't do it, our members did." That is not a legal excuse. - JustinGN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I like WikiTruth. In this day and age of the internet, with the blazing fast exchange of information, it's nice to see that there's a site I can go to get information (Assuming I question the reliability of such info) that was deleted from Wikipedia due to controversial issues (A la Jack Thompson).
As for censorship, I kinda have to agree that the current Admin Roster seems to cave under pressure of "e-lawers" fairly quickly as well as a select few being on power trips. What the admins at Wikipedia need to understand is that it is no longer "their house." They may own the server(s), yes, but the entire world now sees the majority of Wikipedia as a fairly reliable and up-to-date source of information, and therefore the admins need to be kept in check through some other form. Checks & Balances. I also think that articles shouldn't be deleted unless it's a personal page for someone, IE, I go and create a wiki all about me. I've seen some actual good, if smalltime articles deleted just to "trim the database". Well, you don't see Britannica removing entries on dead history figures or ruins to "trim the content", nor do you see Google removing out-of-date pages to "narrow search results." - Bratsche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm an inactive admin on Wikipedia, and from what I understand from conversations with several people, WikiTruth is pretty much a website that is set up to store deleted articles, some of which are deleted by the Wikimedia Foundation office. Rumor has it that it was started by the infamous troll Lir, who has been kicked off Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Unencyclopedia, and the Wikipedia Review forum. Apparently, he's not too welcome in many places.
Jimbo Wales or his assistant Danny do the deletions or protections in response to complaints from people. These articles are usually replaced, with libelous and false information removed.
Diggers, realize that Wikipedia is now a top-10 websites, with many people who would love to suck the lifeblood out of it (Encyclopedia Britannica, which has taken out full page ads in the New York Times against it). Libel suits are one way to do this. If temporarily deleting an article is the way to save our favorite source of cool information from those who want to discredit the site forever, then I'm all for it. Lir and the rest of the trolls can go pout in the corner for all I care. - theclosedcircle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7The article in question is written by that renowned nitwit Andrew Orlowski of The Register, so you can't believe a word of what *that* says.
- lukeydukey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Haha they said they were slashdotted, guess that + digg makes the equivalent of a DDOS attack. =(
- scriptkiddie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2google cache : http://snipurl.com/pb9g
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"They don't, deletion rules are very open, and anyone can participate. Are you commenting based on what you know about wikipedia, or what you assume to be true? The use of the word "staff" is troubling, wikipedia admins are "staff" just as much as you are "staff" of digg."
I was commenting based on experenced. I helped edit an entry once and my post found its way into the marked for deletion since one "staff" member decided it didnt fit some sort of criteria and since no one else really cared about it, it never got over turned. - btipling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thanks for the link. Had to put my two cents in. ;)
- Rio517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I don't know.. Coming from an advertising background, this article almost reads like it was written by, or at least heavily influenced by, a publicist from Encylopedia Britannica. Check out these quotes:
"This gradual deterioration afflicts any utopian online space... That isn't true, of course, of printed work such as Britannica's entries."
"People will return to traditional publishers as they see the consequences of the wiki approach..."
Whoever is behing the site is being very careful not to reveal any indentifing information. Registered little over a month ago - March 13th, the site was purchased by a proxy domain firm and is hosted on a shared server at dreamhost. Who knows, maybe some from Encyclopedia Brittanica is behind the wikitruth site?
I have no proof whatsoever, but it is an interesting possibility. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"the entire world now sees the majority of Wikipedia as a fairly reliable and up-to-date source of information"
I assume you forgot the sarcastic smiley at the end of that. About administrators being on power trips and doing whatever the ***** they want with no checks and balances though, you're absolutely right. It doesn't help that the roster of administrator heroes includes such stars as mentally-ill 17-year old Scientologist and 15-year old that still likes playing with toys (all from their own descriptions, I only wish that I was making this stuff up). Wikipedia is probably the only place on the planet that would take such people seriously, let alone give them supreme administrative power over hundreds of thousands of users, including all the supposed experts that Wikipedia trolls convince themselves frequent the site - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Since Wikipedia articles can be written and then edited by anybody, it is all just pubilc opinion, or unverified claims...so what does it matter?
WHO CARES?
Just more unaware speculative, arrogation! - count_z, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You should never cite the Wikipedia as a source (which the creator of The Wikipedia said himself). Anyone can edit the article so you what you site, might change drastically tomorrow (heck you could edit an article yourself to support your point).
The Wikipedia isn't meant to replace something like Britannica (i.e. it doesn't make any guarantees of accuracy... if there's a mistake someone might catch it and correct it, but Caveat Lector). What makes the Wikipedia great (that anyone can edit it and make revisions) is also it's biggest weakness (because people can mess-up the articles to suit their purposes).
I use the Wikipedia to look-up stuff all the time, but I do keep in mind that the information might not be entirely accurate (and for a research paper I would use other, peer-reviewed sources). - msaleem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They should have expected heavy traffic, and the got it. Perhaps more than they expected. But that's a good sign I say They are up and running, which is good too.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1im ircing now :)
- brownb2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nothing on Jerry Taylor from Tuttle - that was blocked recently on Wikipedia :(
- judsond, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6"Why does a group of administrators get to decide what to keep and what to throw out?"
They don't, deletion rules are very open, and anyone can participate. Are you commenting based on what you know about wikipedia, or what you assume to be true? The use of the word "staff" is troubling, wikipedia admins are "staff" just as much as you are "staff" of digg. - Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ Quakes
"I'd hate to be the student of such a closeminded professor, Koshak. If someone cited Encyclopedia Britannica as their source, would you accept their papers? Why? After all, a wikipedia article on the same subject can many times be both more correct and more extensive."
I like Wikipedia. It covers pop-culture topics a more traditional encylopdia wouldn't even consider. And, on occasion, it MAY be more accurate and up to date than traditonal sources.
But, as a whole,there's simply no way that a website that can be edited by anyone is as reliable as a source written & edited by experts in a given field who are putting their professional reputations on the line. - Migdilio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I was about halfway down the site when I became completely distracted by that photo of Brian Peppers. I then spent the next 25 minutes scouring the internet for more information about Mr. Peppers. Digg.
- nads, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I want to take a look just for curiosity to see if wikipedia is being extreme or not.
- CorpT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I'd hate to be the student of a professor who accepted Wikipedia as a source because I probably wouldn't learn anything from such a crappy professor.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Who the heck uses wikipedia for anything serious anyway? You'd probably use it to look up a 1-minute info sheet on 'fart' for instance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart ). Anything more serious, and I'd look elsewhere.
- pucosk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Ehm, how can be WP more accurate then other sources. If you are writing something for your masters class you can use WP for initial scouting but you should damn sure use some credible source for your citations. I wouldn't also use Britannica or other general purpose encyclopedia. Not in engineering. Maybe for elementary or high school it may enough but for gods sake for master degree???
- danpsmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Does it really matter? Everything has an effect on wikipedia. It's not a dead encyclopedia with spelling and grammar errors and inaccuracies. Inaccuracies get fixed in response to criticism, critics serve a function in wikipedia too, to help draw attention to and fix broken or misleading information. By criticizing the encyclopedia and drawing attention to its flaws, you are essentially making it stronger with every example.
- p00p, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well I'm glad to know I'm not the only paranoid who thinks Wikipedia is up to no good sometimes.
- danpsmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Most major wikipedia articles have references that are linked to it, so you can see the source of the information for yourself and decide if the information as quoted is reliable all in a couple clicks. And this bares a question: If you won't accept wikipedia as a source, how about the sources that wikipedia quotes?
Anyone who makes it a requirement for their student to quote a text source over all else is being very narrow minded in my eyes in this day and age. - abuendia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1/.ed or digged ???
-
Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is