This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
11B-X-1371 has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
December 2, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a "
creepy puzzle" mailed to a Swedish tech blogger was found to contain coded messages implying a threat against the
President of the United States? |
I have added a notability tag here, because I am concerned this may not meet notability for WP:Notability (events). Yes, there is coverage - but will it continue for more the the scope of one-two weeks? Ping User:Daniel Case. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The Daily Dot – The most disturbing viral video now has a sequel, and we spoke to the creator
Apparently, the author himself decided to have an interview with the Daily Dot, and revealed some information behind the video. How are we gonna add that in?
-- Wuzh ( talk) 12:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The whole article kind of reads like an advertisement. It's not proven that this guy was the creator, even if a couple of influential people believe him to be. It really sounds like this guy wrote all that in the article in order to further his claim. The article needs to be a little less "conclusive" since there is no conclusive evidence that he is the actual creator. 50.113.90.43 ( talk) 06:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Remember that the important thing here is that where the truth isn't known or we put in articles what can be verified as having been reported in reliable sources (which of course puts on us the responsibility to write these things in such a way as to make certain we are not stating in Wikipedia's voice that this established fact. Unfortunately people don't always realize they have to do this.
As to your misgivings about The Daily Dot, perhaps its headlines are clickbait alright but the key thing is, is its content generally seen as making a good-faith effort to report things truthfully, subject to editorial oversight? I think we use it as a source widely enough to say that consensus is that we feel it does. If it reaches the Mail's depths of repeatedly showing reckless disregard for the truth, of repeatedly publishing outright fabrications, then we would discourage its use as a source. If you have concerns about TDD greater than those related to its use in this article, I invite you to bring them up in the same forum where the Mail's ban was discussed. Daniel Case ( talk) 19:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
"RedLips" backwards is spilder, Danish for wastes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.141.163.74 ( talk) 09:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is looking great but it seems to be more categories it can go under. I was also thinking that this should go under the WikiProject Horror since some have classified it as such.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 23:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Creepy puzzle. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 19#Creepy puzzle until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Robert C Christain 196.74.43.47 ( talk) 19:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
11B-X-1371 has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
December 2, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a "
creepy puzzle" mailed to a Swedish tech blogger was found to contain coded messages implying a threat against the
President of the United States? |
I have added a notability tag here, because I am concerned this may not meet notability for WP:Notability (events). Yes, there is coverage - but will it continue for more the the scope of one-two weeks? Ping User:Daniel Case. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The Daily Dot – The most disturbing viral video now has a sequel, and we spoke to the creator
Apparently, the author himself decided to have an interview with the Daily Dot, and revealed some information behind the video. How are we gonna add that in?
-- Wuzh ( talk) 12:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The whole article kind of reads like an advertisement. It's not proven that this guy was the creator, even if a couple of influential people believe him to be. It really sounds like this guy wrote all that in the article in order to further his claim. The article needs to be a little less "conclusive" since there is no conclusive evidence that he is the actual creator. 50.113.90.43 ( talk) 06:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Remember that the important thing here is that where the truth isn't known or we put in articles what can be verified as having been reported in reliable sources (which of course puts on us the responsibility to write these things in such a way as to make certain we are not stating in Wikipedia's voice that this established fact. Unfortunately people don't always realize they have to do this.
As to your misgivings about The Daily Dot, perhaps its headlines are clickbait alright but the key thing is, is its content generally seen as making a good-faith effort to report things truthfully, subject to editorial oversight? I think we use it as a source widely enough to say that consensus is that we feel it does. If it reaches the Mail's depths of repeatedly showing reckless disregard for the truth, of repeatedly publishing outright fabrications, then we would discourage its use as a source. If you have concerns about TDD greater than those related to its use in this article, I invite you to bring them up in the same forum where the Mail's ban was discussed. Daniel Case ( talk) 19:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
"RedLips" backwards is spilder, Danish for wastes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.141.163.74 ( talk) 09:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is looking great but it seems to be more categories it can go under. I was also thinking that this should go under the WikiProject Horror since some have classified it as such.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 23:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Creepy puzzle. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 19#Creepy puzzle until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Robert C Christain 196.74.43.47 ( talk) 19:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)