![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Question: Are these sections really necessary? It seems like mini-communities within the site really aren't very encyclopedic, since someone browsing this article won't have any interest in knowing about the minicommunities (and anyone who is likely would already be posting on dKos). I suppose BiPM is significant due to his frontpage Cheers and Jeers posts, but the Scotty Show really seems irrelevant. I've been reading dKos daily for three or four years now, but not as a regular in the community, so my perspective on the community may be a little different than the rest of the contributors to this page. Virogtheconq 22:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know DailyKos' record for upholding truthfulness and accuracy in the articles that it blogs? This seems like an important big issue as blogs are not typically held to the same standards as conventional sources of journalism.-- 153.104.27.107 21:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
The passage about contributions to Democratic candidates, all of whom lost, is a little confusing. Obviously, Daily Kos readers would have made contributions to many candidates, some of whom won. I gather that this refers to contributions made through the DK website. Can someone elaborate on the mechanism -- who identified the candidates, and how contributions were tabulated to count toward the total given in the article? If it seems like too much detail for the article, can we just link to something that explains it and gives the dollar total? JamesMLane 20:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah, they just LOVE republicans at DailyKos. Kind of like the love they receive right here at Wik!
I noticed that virtually every section, even those dealing in controversy, always end with a paragraph that makes DailyKos look good or vindicates them in some way. This is in stark contrast to virtually every paragraph in the Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson etc etc articles where each section ends with an attack on the subject or a quote of theirs to make them sound like a nut.
I guess this is all just a coincidence, huh???
Big Daddy 13:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
from Zephyr Teachout aka Zonkette, the former online organizer for the Howard Dean campaign.
On Dean’s campaign, we paid Markos and Jerome Armstrong as consultants, largely in order to ensure that they said positive things about Dean. We paid them over twice as much as we paid two staffers of similar backgrounds, and they had several other clients.
While they ended up also providing useful advice, the initial reason for our outreach was explicitly to buy their airtime. To be very clear, they never committed to supporting Dean for the payment -- but it was very clearly, internally, our goal.
Kos did make a disclosure about being hired as consultants for the Dean campaign in June of 2003, but what is interesting is what the Dean campaign thought it was getting by hiring Kos, compared to what Kos thought.
On his blog, Kos claimed that he was providing "techinical" advice to Dean: "But for the record, I will not discuss my role within the Dean campaign, other than to say it's technical, not message or strategy." However, the Dean campaign flatly contradicted this, by saying that they paid Kos as a political (i.e. a message) consultant. Being a "technical" consultant implies that he acted as a webmaster/designer, not a policy wonk.
How do you pronounce "Kos"? Is it kohs (like "flows") or kawhs (like "floss")?
The article should be updated to reflect the new version of the Daily Kos logo. It changed about a week ago from what is pictured in the article.
Rather than obsess over the logo, I think a little content-check is in order. The dust-up over the mercenaries was HUGE...even amongs democrats. As it stands, this section is missing the essence of the outrage that was expressed against Kos.
I'd like to see the article include this piece:
"The campaign manager for Democratic Congressman Martin Frost wrote a scathing rebuke on Frost's behalf "As a former Army Reserves member, spouse of an Army General on active duty and an American, Martin finds these words extremely irresponsible and highly offensive. ...There is no place for these disgusting remarks in this nation's discussion on foreign policy" [1]."
Big Daddy 13:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I added information about a new community within dKos, AFAIK, the first such sub-community, and it was deleted as "linkspam". I find this incomprehensible - you could argue that it wasn't important enough (yet) to be in the article, but "linkspam"? Weird. Guettarda 23:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
It's significant because it is an expansion of the largest politican web community into a new area. As for "nothing on the website", how about the "about" button?
Who's behind the site? Markos Moulitsas provides the technical and administrative muscle; pastordan is solely responsible for site content.
And, btw - calling someone a spammer is a pretty serious allegation. Guettarda 18:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Can someone provide some citations for this section - as it stands it seems overly vague and fluffy. Guettarda 20:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Do those links help any? I think they give a fair overview of the patriotism/non-patriotism debate.
To make generalisations we need a source. The data is out there for someone to study the perception of patriotism by rightwingers, but we can't look around and say it is so. Generalisations need to be based on representative samples - but we can't do that study ourselves (as that would be original research). A statement like that needs a source who has actually done the research and published it somewhere. We can't just look at a couple sites and say "x is the case". Guettarda 21:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Unless the four people killed in Fallujah had been found guilty of some crime, the word "executed" is inappropriate. Andjam 12:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Someone has reverted security contractor to mercenary. Unless that wikipedian, or Moulitsas or the people who killed the four people wish to prove that they were mercenaries rather than security contractors, the four people should be called security contractors or alleged mercenaries. Andjam 14:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
More to the point, "security contractor" is an in-group, non-neutral phrase. It's no more appropriate in an encyclopaedia than 1337. What English word or phrase, accessible to an ordinary person who is not a newsjunkie, better describes the people who were killed? We are writing an international encyclopaedia here, not an in-group chat. Guettarda 16:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
What about calling them Blackwater USA employees in the non-quotation bit? Andjam 13:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
If anyone still wants to have "mercenary" outside of quotations, can they discuss it here please? Andjam 12:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The word "mercenary" does not imply people who are themeselves contracted to protect other contractors who are hired to build things or perform some service in a dangerous area. Whom are they "waging war" against? If they are attacked or threatened they fight back in self defense. I seriously doubt those four Blackwater men were interested in engaging anything other than a paycheck and a safe return home. Kos himself said it all: They were mercenaries; so fuck them. By the way, I'd like to compare the military records of those four men with Kos's oft-mentioned military service. Did Kos ever fight in combat? He never clarifies that unless asked to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.181.218.19 ( talk • contribs) November 8, 2005.
How’s about “security guard”. TDC 19:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I see your point regarding mercenaries - I hadn't thought about the distinction between combat and non-combat...though that distinction is pretty much academic in Iraq. Anyway, based on the definition at mercenary based on the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions", they do not meet the definition of mercenary. On the other hand, they are not security guards either. "Security contractor" is misleading as well, in my opinion - it's newspeak. The Wikipedia article is at private military contractor - would that be an acceptable (linked) term? In addition to being the term in use, it's also far clearer English, IMO. Thoughts? Guettarda 20:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Should we mention a list of politicians at Daily Kos? Yesterday, John Kerry signed up and posted a diary while in the past, various Democrats such as Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold have appeared. -- Blue387 19:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps if a third column was added, there might be more room? The Daily Kos article is not that long anyway, so I would say err on the side of inclusion of as many people as possible.
The fundraising role for Paul Hackett (running for congress in Ohio 2nd) should be brought up since it was a ground breaking on line event among liberals all over USA and also gained attention among international bloggers.
I believe the following section needs to be sourced. The first line especially is non-neutral. Guettarda 02:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
While the site claims to support free speech and that Democrats support free speech this is far from the truth. The site frequently bans people from posting, even people who are popular with other kossites, if they are part of the good old boy's front page club. One such instance occurred when one member davybaby, one of the good old boy's, compared all women to Ann Coulter. When another member tri confronted him about this, they were banned from the site. Additionally, those who try to point out just how similar the Democrats and Republicans are, are also frequently banned.
Anyone feel this should be mentioned?
These comments are inflammatory. I’m not saying they should be completely eliminated, but definitely stated in a more neutral, less partisan manner. The source cited for this, Redstate, is a political adversary to DailyKos, and definitely should not be used or taken as a neutral source of this information. A news organization perhaps? And, I don’t feel that should be listed under controversies section, as it is not controversial.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Red pepper ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Question: Are these sections really necessary? It seems like mini-communities within the site really aren't very encyclopedic, since someone browsing this article won't have any interest in knowing about the minicommunities (and anyone who is likely would already be posting on dKos). I suppose BiPM is significant due to his frontpage Cheers and Jeers posts, but the Scotty Show really seems irrelevant. I've been reading dKos daily for three or four years now, but not as a regular in the community, so my perspective on the community may be a little different than the rest of the contributors to this page. Virogtheconq 22:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know DailyKos' record for upholding truthfulness and accuracy in the articles that it blogs? This seems like an important big issue as blogs are not typically held to the same standards as conventional sources of journalism.-- 153.104.27.107 21:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
The passage about contributions to Democratic candidates, all of whom lost, is a little confusing. Obviously, Daily Kos readers would have made contributions to many candidates, some of whom won. I gather that this refers to contributions made through the DK website. Can someone elaborate on the mechanism -- who identified the candidates, and how contributions were tabulated to count toward the total given in the article? If it seems like too much detail for the article, can we just link to something that explains it and gives the dollar total? JamesMLane 20:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah, they just LOVE republicans at DailyKos. Kind of like the love they receive right here at Wik!
I noticed that virtually every section, even those dealing in controversy, always end with a paragraph that makes DailyKos look good or vindicates them in some way. This is in stark contrast to virtually every paragraph in the Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson etc etc articles where each section ends with an attack on the subject or a quote of theirs to make them sound like a nut.
I guess this is all just a coincidence, huh???
Big Daddy 13:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
from Zephyr Teachout aka Zonkette, the former online organizer for the Howard Dean campaign.
On Dean’s campaign, we paid Markos and Jerome Armstrong as consultants, largely in order to ensure that they said positive things about Dean. We paid them over twice as much as we paid two staffers of similar backgrounds, and they had several other clients.
While they ended up also providing useful advice, the initial reason for our outreach was explicitly to buy their airtime. To be very clear, they never committed to supporting Dean for the payment -- but it was very clearly, internally, our goal.
Kos did make a disclosure about being hired as consultants for the Dean campaign in June of 2003, but what is interesting is what the Dean campaign thought it was getting by hiring Kos, compared to what Kos thought.
On his blog, Kos claimed that he was providing "techinical" advice to Dean: "But for the record, I will not discuss my role within the Dean campaign, other than to say it's technical, not message or strategy." However, the Dean campaign flatly contradicted this, by saying that they paid Kos as a political (i.e. a message) consultant. Being a "technical" consultant implies that he acted as a webmaster/designer, not a policy wonk.
How do you pronounce "Kos"? Is it kohs (like "flows") or kawhs (like "floss")?
The article should be updated to reflect the new version of the Daily Kos logo. It changed about a week ago from what is pictured in the article.
Rather than obsess over the logo, I think a little content-check is in order. The dust-up over the mercenaries was HUGE...even amongs democrats. As it stands, this section is missing the essence of the outrage that was expressed against Kos.
I'd like to see the article include this piece:
"The campaign manager for Democratic Congressman Martin Frost wrote a scathing rebuke on Frost's behalf "As a former Army Reserves member, spouse of an Army General on active duty and an American, Martin finds these words extremely irresponsible and highly offensive. ...There is no place for these disgusting remarks in this nation's discussion on foreign policy" [1]."
Big Daddy 13:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I added information about a new community within dKos, AFAIK, the first such sub-community, and it was deleted as "linkspam". I find this incomprehensible - you could argue that it wasn't important enough (yet) to be in the article, but "linkspam"? Weird. Guettarda 23:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
It's significant because it is an expansion of the largest politican web community into a new area. As for "nothing on the website", how about the "about" button?
Who's behind the site? Markos Moulitsas provides the technical and administrative muscle; pastordan is solely responsible for site content.
And, btw - calling someone a spammer is a pretty serious allegation. Guettarda 18:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Can someone provide some citations for this section - as it stands it seems overly vague and fluffy. Guettarda 20:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Do those links help any? I think they give a fair overview of the patriotism/non-patriotism debate.
To make generalisations we need a source. The data is out there for someone to study the perception of patriotism by rightwingers, but we can't look around and say it is so. Generalisations need to be based on representative samples - but we can't do that study ourselves (as that would be original research). A statement like that needs a source who has actually done the research and published it somewhere. We can't just look at a couple sites and say "x is the case". Guettarda 21:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Unless the four people killed in Fallujah had been found guilty of some crime, the word "executed" is inappropriate. Andjam 12:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Someone has reverted security contractor to mercenary. Unless that wikipedian, or Moulitsas or the people who killed the four people wish to prove that they were mercenaries rather than security contractors, the four people should be called security contractors or alleged mercenaries. Andjam 14:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
More to the point, "security contractor" is an in-group, non-neutral phrase. It's no more appropriate in an encyclopaedia than 1337. What English word or phrase, accessible to an ordinary person who is not a newsjunkie, better describes the people who were killed? We are writing an international encyclopaedia here, not an in-group chat. Guettarda 16:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
What about calling them Blackwater USA employees in the non-quotation bit? Andjam 13:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
If anyone still wants to have "mercenary" outside of quotations, can they discuss it here please? Andjam 12:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The word "mercenary" does not imply people who are themeselves contracted to protect other contractors who are hired to build things or perform some service in a dangerous area. Whom are they "waging war" against? If they are attacked or threatened they fight back in self defense. I seriously doubt those four Blackwater men were interested in engaging anything other than a paycheck and a safe return home. Kos himself said it all: They were mercenaries; so fuck them. By the way, I'd like to compare the military records of those four men with Kos's oft-mentioned military service. Did Kos ever fight in combat? He never clarifies that unless asked to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.181.218.19 ( talk • contribs) November 8, 2005.
How’s about “security guard”. TDC 19:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I see your point regarding mercenaries - I hadn't thought about the distinction between combat and non-combat...though that distinction is pretty much academic in Iraq. Anyway, based on the definition at mercenary based on the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions", they do not meet the definition of mercenary. On the other hand, they are not security guards either. "Security contractor" is misleading as well, in my opinion - it's newspeak. The Wikipedia article is at private military contractor - would that be an acceptable (linked) term? In addition to being the term in use, it's also far clearer English, IMO. Thoughts? Guettarda 20:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Should we mention a list of politicians at Daily Kos? Yesterday, John Kerry signed up and posted a diary while in the past, various Democrats such as Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold have appeared. -- Blue387 19:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps if a third column was added, there might be more room? The Daily Kos article is not that long anyway, so I would say err on the side of inclusion of as many people as possible.
The fundraising role for Paul Hackett (running for congress in Ohio 2nd) should be brought up since it was a ground breaking on line event among liberals all over USA and also gained attention among international bloggers.
I believe the following section needs to be sourced. The first line especially is non-neutral. Guettarda 02:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
While the site claims to support free speech and that Democrats support free speech this is far from the truth. The site frequently bans people from posting, even people who are popular with other kossites, if they are part of the good old boy's front page club. One such instance occurred when one member davybaby, one of the good old boy's, compared all women to Ann Coulter. When another member tri confronted him about this, they were banned from the site. Additionally, those who try to point out just how similar the Democrats and Republicans are, are also frequently banned.
Anyone feel this should be mentioned?
These comments are inflammatory. I’m not saying they should be completely eliminated, but definitely stated in a more neutral, less partisan manner. The source cited for this, Redstate, is a political adversary to DailyKos, and definitely should not be used or taken as a neutral source of this information. A news organization perhaps? And, I don’t feel that should be listed under controversies section, as it is not controversial.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Red pepper ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)