Will whomever is vandalizing the DU page on Wikepedia please stop?

[benburch]

OK, guys, listen up.

Somebody who probably is a DUer is repeatedly removing a link from the Wikipedia article for DU. This link is to a Freeptard site that seems to exist only to abuse and make fun of DUers, but that isn't the point. Wikipedia articles are maintained through editorial consensus. I have been arguing in the talk page for the DU article that said link is inappropriate, and the other editors, mostly right wingers, have been arguing the opposite. And we have not reached consensus. And the repeated attempts to remove this link and avoid consensus are not making my job of arguing against it any easier. So, PLEASE STOP. If you are an established Wikipedia editor and want to add your opinion to the Talk page, that is absolutely fine, but do not remove that link again until we have a clear consensus decision on it.

OK?

Am I making myself clear?

[Captain Hilts]

1. For anything political, people should NOT use Wikepedia.

It's horribly unreliable.

It's also awful for biographies.

Anything people have an angle for.

[benburch]

3. I tend to agree with you.

But I am committed to having the DU article be the best article it can be, regardless.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

2. Good luck...

... right wing types get erections and juicy panties over things like this, I guess ignoring them isnt the thing to do. Don't forget, if it is illegal or unethical, right wingers like to do it. Don't forget that Abramoff guy, oh, and then Grover Norquist and his ties to those that fund terrorist cells in the US.

[benburch]

5. Yeah, they do.

And the amount of venom and vitriol directed at me for my attempt to modify this page within the rules has been exceptional.

[Book Lover]

4. I wish I could say that I am the one doing it,

but sadly I am not. At any rate, if there is a discussion as to the page's content going on, why isn't the page locked against edit for the duration of the discussion? Oh wait, I'm sorry; there I go being all editorial and procedural on Wiki. How foolish of me.

[benburch]

6. Feel free to ask for that.

One of the RWers asked and was denied already.

[IdaBriggs]

7. So, what's up with this part:

"Since its inception, over 90,000 forum accounts have been created with over 1,000 still remaining active."

That doesn't make sense -- we only have a thousand active members? :wtf:

[benburch]

8. I know for fact we have many more than that.

At the very least about 8000 read articles I post here in the average week.

But it is hard to argue with the language "over 1000", as 8000 is "over 1000" and so is 50,000.

If we are going to change that number, we would need to be able to defend that change and cite a source, and I don't think that DU publishes that number anywhere.

The closest I can come are the log files from the banners in my postings, or the pageviews reported by blogads.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. Woudln't pageviews count unregistered lurkers?

[benburch]

14. Indeed it would.

Which is why I cannot use that to indicate number of active users.

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. The only way to know for sure would be to ask Skinner

[IdaBriggs]

19. Anal Retentive Woman Strikes Again

Okay, I went and copied the user names for the MOST RECENTLY UPDATED (meaning "top ten") threads in four forums:

Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
General Discussion: Political
DU Lounge

and the "top ten" threads from the "Greatest" page.

This gave me a total of 2,132 different postings, with 779 *DIFFERENT* Posters -- does that help at all? :)

[benburch]

21. Yes! That is very helpful.

Now if we could figure out what percentage of users post in any given popular thread, we could extrapolate.

[IdaBriggs]

22. Urk. Need more data --

Maybe its time to turn to the mods. Don't they keep these kinds of statistics (active users / different users posting) ?

[benburch]

25. When I was a mod we had no such data.

Skinner, Elad, and EarlG likely have some idea, but I am not even sure they know for sure.

[IdaBriggs]

30. Hmmm. How to get the attention of the "Big Guys?"

Oh, Skinner! Elad! EarlG! Can you help us out here? Perhaps I should alert on myself ... ?

[benburch]

31. You could IM them!

Skinner, EarlG and Elad all read their IMs.

[IdaBriggs]

33. Just ran into EarlG over in a Rush thread -- if he doesn't come over,

I'll send them an IM. Good thinking! :)

[gkhouston]

9. that's got to measured by stars

yet there are people who post that don't have 'em. :shrug:

[benburch]

11. I know we have more stars than that, too.

1200 were "sold" at the last fundraiser. And many people (like me) don't wait for fundraisers to buy stars, and I often buy stars for people who need them.

[benburch]

10. BTW, if you will read the discussion page...

...I was asked to post this here by one of the RWers, one Jinxmchue. And this is posted here in cooperation with him. See the talk page for that discussion.

[karlrschneider]

12. Wiki is really just a bloated blog & has no real value.

Actually, it's worse because it attempts to project the image of accuracy and impartiality. Sorta like Faux Snooze.

[benburch]

15. My present difficulties tend to show that clearly.

But if our ideas are to reach the masses, we have to engage with Wikipedia and stay within its rules and processes. It is the #1 search ranking on almost any topic.

[LoZoccolo]

16. I don't think your politically-motivated WP:NOTs have helped any, sir.

Wikipedia is a special place that should be free of what's been going on at the DU article, but also what you've been trying to do with the Protest Warrior article along with another one which for whatever stupid reason I'm not allowed to even mention the name of. It's all childish and taints the reputation of Wikipedia (which, ironically, people feel is important enough to vandalize). I feel very strongly about this, as well as about the notion that probably 95-99% of the time, WP:NOT is utter bullshit, snobbery at best, and censorship at worst.

[benburch]

17. Perhaps!

And I've learned my lesson there; It isn't worth the hassle.

But I really felt neither were notable whatsoever. And the process exists to determine that. It isn't as though they remove anything at all at my say-so. And that other site was not removed in response to anything I did, but was removed in an entirely separate process.

[meisje]

18. Remove Pitt as well or add Ash and Liepold

[benburch]

20. Feel free to make that case.

Ash and Leopold don't post here, though, do they?

[Catherine Vincent]

23. How do I get to the page? I'd like to see it.

[benburch]

28. Right here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Underground

[Cocoa]

24. let it stay

a link to a site criticizing DU seems appropriate to me for a Wikipedia entry about DU.

[benburch]

26. Comment noted.

And I am tending towards that position too, but the vandalism is being a huge distraction.

[TrogL]

27. While you're at it, could you mention Oscar?

and what a "freeper" is?

[benburch]

29. Oscar?

Elucidate?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benburch]

35. Who is that? nt

[benburch]

36. It would appear the matter has been dealt with.

Thanks for your cooperation!