What is Digg?200 Comments
- Aleman360, on 12/04/2007, -3/+178I laughed at the idea of "elite" Wikipedians.
- UGM2099, on 12/04/2007, -8/+163Am I missing something? This sounds like a 13 yr old girl's dramatic account of something boring.
- sockpuppets, on 12/04/2007, -7/+145In banning this account, Durova described it as an "abusive sock puppet," insisting it was setup by someone dead set on destroying the encyclopedia.
I have no involvement in this matter. I was rummaging through a sock drawer for a potential mate at the time. - tdrizzle, on 12/04/2007, -5/+100Citation needed.
- thefieryangel, on 12/04/2007, -18/+89Finally WP is being held accountable for their "cloak and dagger" methods for attacking innocent people. The Wikipedia Review is a good source for further information about this and other WP scandals. Please keep this all in mind before you give them any money!
- papusman, on 12/04/2007, -2/+69NERD WARS!!!
- RealmDown, on 12/04/2007, -7/+51This comment needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this comment by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
OMGWTFBBQ! - cheesegrits, on 12/04/2007, -11/+51Ron Paul for Wikipedian! (oops,wrong thread, sorry).
- TimmyGUNZ, on 12/04/2007, -5/+41Nerd fight...nothing to see here, move along.
- insomniacal, on 12/04/2007, -0/+34*** WHAM! *** (strikes _very_ close to home)
You think Digg's any different? If there's a system in place, there's a group of clever, power-hungry people thinking up ways to exploit it to push their own agenda.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Digg front page. - demonbaby, on 12/04/2007, -4/+36Hmm, I think I saw a similar article on someone's MySpace blog the other day:
"ok every1 this might come as a shock 2 u but its time to blow the lid off the fashist mods at the south jersey halo clans discussion forum! they r an elite click that has banded 2gether 2 censor any voice that speaks out against them! just yesterday my friend covenantlord17 submited clearly the best logo design for camden elite clan #6 and almost everyone in the clan agreed but it was vetod WITHOUT DISCUSION by clan leader masterchief1990 who also happens 2 b a mod and BFF with Sp4rT4N, the SAME ADMIN who locked my "contreversal" thread about n'tho's origins. can someone say conspiracy?? clearly the mods and admins do not want there opinions 2 b chalenged ever and they r censering the boards left and right. as of today i have had enuff and me and covenantlord17 r boycotting the south jersey halo clans discussion forum and starting our own forum which will b FREE OF CENSERSHIP!!!1 please spread the word about whats REALLY happening at sjhcdf and come join our new board if you want your voice to actually b heard!!" - FredFredrickson, on 12/04/2007, -4/+36If you read the article, it sure does make Wikipedia sound like a big pile of high-scool melodrama crap.
- jackdubious, on 12/04/2007, -5/+35OMG!! I just turned in my paper about 18th Century Agrarian society. Now I find out all my research was *****!! Damn you wikipedia!!! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!!!
- bightchee, on 12/04/2007, -3/+33Am I the only one who keeps seeing this "tempest in a teacup" saying often being used lately?
- landmonster, on 12/04/2007, -10/+40Wikipedia is a run by a clique of *****.
- xanjamanuo, on 12/04/2007, -1/+26Me too. And I'm doing it again now.
- writerjudd, on 12/04/2007, -10/+34Cade Metz is the first journalist to capture the true essence of the corruption at Wikipedia. You need to read this and future reporting by Metz on the topic to really understand what's going on there.
- KirbyMeister, on 12/04/2007, -3/+27Ahem. It's already happened to digg, there was a study done on how stories get popular and many stories get loads of diggs once certain popular users digg them.
Don't have the source URL, but I read it on Wikipedia so it must be true. - JanYpe, on 12/04/2007, -4/+27This is digg. Any thread can be a Ron Paul thread.
- ryanbrill, on 12/04/2007, -4/+25Umm, guys... This is coming from The Register...
- GREEDOnvrFIRED, on 12/04/2007, -4/+25I find The Onion's articles much funnier than these guys. But hats off to The Register for giving it a go.
- exomni, on 12/04/2007, -3/+23I've been following this on Wiki. Actually for the last five years. It's been quite something to watch as Wiki has evolved into an increasingly closed platform ruled by a small group of people. It's like watching a nation being taken over by a political party, in fast-forward.
- PaperMonkey, on 12/04/2007, -0/+20Wouldn't that be a wikispiricy..?
- inactive, on 12/04/2007, -1/+20Some people might consider that to be a wee bit scumbaggy.
Wiki ain't to boost your site rank, guy.
Crap like that doesn't help wiki get better.
But as long as you benefit it's cool, right? - astyler, on 12/04/2007, -1/+17anyone notice any connections with what's happening with Digg? There are digg groups that collectively bury stories that oppose their views, and many suspect the "elites" here of preventing users who disagree with them from reaching top tier status or acclaim. Shouts and friends will be the death of digg.
- missingnoh4x, on 12/04/2007, -32/+48This site's been claiming Wikipedia is all a conspiracy for a long time, nothing's remotely true. Buried for tinfoil hat BS.
- missingnoh4x, on 12/04/2007, -11/+27Wikipedia Review, that is. Not Theregister.
- Shakermaker, on 12/04/2007, -7/+22So this is a big deal, why?
- Izzie, on 12/04/2007, -3/+17According to wikipedia a conspiracy can be "A group of people who make an agreement to form a partnership in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member and engage in planning or agreeing to commit some act." or "An act of working in secret to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations.", which describes to the perfection how admins work together against perceived threats. Actually this is the way pyramidal structures of power work and wikipedia is no exception.
- TheMidnight, on 12/04/2007, -1/+15I edit Wikipedia!
No, you don't. *banhammer thunder echoes through the night* - NuchDog, on 12/04/2007, -2/+16I read the article and got worried! Glad to see you got to it early, before you got banned for no reason...
- scabbers, on 12/04/2007, -1/+14I love how Jimbo's response to huge scandals (the phoney credentials incident, and now this) is that everyone should "love each other".
- KyleGoetz, on 12/04/2007, -2/+15Exactly. Wikipedia was supposed to be something different, something better. This is a huge letdown to me, and I'm going to be thinking twice before I donate any more money; look at the abuse Jimbo Wales was throwing at someone for bringing this story to light! And the User "!!" who was banned and then vindicated as a good user has quit; furthermore, !!'s user page still labels him/her as a sock puppet even though !! has been vindicated.
This is *****. - Falldog, on 12/04/2007, -1/+13Sorta like elite diggers though...
- vanebeard, on 12/04/2007, -4/+16Even if this is true, all it means is that Wikipedia is just like every other encyclopedia in the history of encyclopedias.
- floodyberry, on 12/04/2007, -1/+12You just repeated what Kirby said, except you tried to spin it as a positive feature. Popular users do have orders of magnitude more exposure on anything they submit/digg over the average user, but that's not a good thing if their friends merely want the exposure of having the popular user digging their submissions and will do anything they can (e.g. reciprocal digging) to attract them.
You are right, however, in that the Digg system is explicitly designed to exploit nepotism, and that it is working as designed, although Digg has had to patch it up occasionally as popular users would have 100% front page rates given the ever growing size of their circle-jerk networks. - KyleGoetz, on 12/04/2007, -1/+12The Register IS a tabloid.
- NeonFire, on 12/04/2007, -1/+12I don't get it. Seriously, I just ... don't get it. =/
- Otto, on 12/04/2007, -0/+11Wikipedia is a big pile of high-school melodrama crap. It's not far from self-destruction and/or total reorganization. I suspect that within a year or two, it'll be refactored either internally or through somebody replacing it with something better (and copying all of its content for starters).
- NoahK, on 12/04/2007, -2/+13Ohhh, the private email list. Let's all apply to join! http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wpcybersta ...
- KirbyMeister, on 12/04/2007, -1/+11Nobody accepts Wikipedia as a source, nor should they. Barring any concerns over accuracy, isn't it a rule that you don't cite general encyclopedias?
- merreborn, on 12/04/2007, -1/+11"Only on wiki can 2 "delete" votes beat 17 "keep" votes."
Deletion votes are not democratic. They're a debate. 2 people making solid arguments will always win out over 1 weak argument and 16 "Me too"s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_de ...
"Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipe ...
"Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting." - crossmr, on 12/04/2007, -5/+15"This feels like the beginning of something big..."
this feels like an overly sensationalist pretentious summary.. - jacquesm, on 12/04/2007, -1/+11agreed wholeheartedly. Digg wants to re-invent itself as a 'social network' instead of a 'cool places on the web to visit' site and that means that the cliques will gain the upper hand. I'm sure someone will come up with a good replacement though.
- Wronghead, on 12/04/2007, -1/+10Now if only we could generate this sort of care and scrutiny over the secretive activities of our own governments.
- mrgreen4242, on 12/04/2007, -0/+9That kid should work for Newsweek.
- Markpdotcom, on 12/04/2007, -0/+9It is true. Check the posts daily. Same names. Same major websites. Shame really!
- williamdyer, on 12/05/2007, -0/+9The WP scandal isn't about secret societies, it is, in part, about a woman named Linda Mack who was a "journalist" until she got canned by none other than Pierre Salinger for being a spook inserting propaganda into the news. Now she is a phenomenally prolific WP editor. I wonder who pays her for her marathon WP sessions?
Do you doubt that people get paid to support the war here on Digg? - Sabarok, on 12/04/2007, -0/+9If it were that simple, then it should be easy for blog spammers to post on digg. How many spam reports should it take to get something taken off the front page? We have digg and reddit and other similar sites for a pure democracy type style of postings, and even then there's still some editorial control in getting stuff removed.
Editors need to make decisions, and those decisions need to be in the interest of the goals of Wikipedia, and not just what has the most votes. Votes can be rigged, also sometimes people vote without fulling understanding the issue. Compare Wikipedia to the alternatives, like Britannica. Which one is more open? - cheesegrits, on 12/04/2007, -3/+11Yes. See your therapist right away.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 202 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is