This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Examiner.com article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Examiner.com. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Examiner.com at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Examiner.com is nothing more than a legitimate looking lure website for the purpose of planting tracking cookies, spyware, and adware on curious users computers, targeting Google News searchers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.30.96 ( talk • contribs)
I tried adding a link to Examiner.com and got told it has been blacklisted. Anyone know why? ( Emperor ( talk) 04:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC))
I thought examiner.com was the San Francisco Examiner website. Now I know better. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 18:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it time to de-blacklist this site? The writers now all seem to be well-credentialed, and every article has a link at the bottom that tells what the writer's credentials are. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Other than possible plagiarism there seems to be no mention at all about the site's questioned credibility. Look for instance at articles like "/article/official-disclosure-of-extraterrestrial-life-is-imminent" which clearly support some fringe conspiracy theories... But I agree that we should find some credible reference questioning the site's credibility.
Oh, it seems that links to the site are considered spam by Wikipedia and won't be allowed, which might be another indicator of what I'm discussing (how relevant! I removed the domain to only provide the reference related to the site's root, for reference)... 76.10.128.192 ( talk) 14:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
This article should inform that examiner.com is blacklisted as a source on Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 06:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Where is the policy discussion on this? No links provided! Zeddocument ( talk) 12:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the drastic change in the lead needs discussed. Examiner has a less than stellar reputation, but jamming a contentious label into the first sentence, based on a source or two, isn't very NPOV and merits discussion. Just because a source says something doesn't mean it gets a free pass into an article. Similarly, the location (the lead) is a big factor. Niteshift36 ( talk) 01:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
(?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$)
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)== "Fired" writers ==
Since there is no employer-employee relationship, saying someone is fired is a misnomer. They are contractors that work on a piece by piece basis. Examiner makes it very clear on their website that writers are not employees and can't represent themselves as such. Further, the source you're using isn't reliable. You have a amateur columnist doing a recap of an interview given to someone else, along with his opinions. The interview is a primary source. This guy's recap of it is opinion and he shows a bias. This entire non-issue doesn't merit inclusion. You'd need to demonstrate that this is an issue of enduring notability of persons and events and not just a passing event in the news cycle. WP:RECENTISM suggests a 10 year test. In this case, less than a year later, nobody cares. The media collectively yawned a let it go away into obscurity. So should we. It's not encyclopedic. Niteshift36 ( talk) 13:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Examiner.com. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The site reopened sometime last northern fall, but with an apparent focus on tech coverage this time around (from the looks of the six articles on its new front page so far, all from September-October 2022); currently run by an entity known only as "shanghaiist", based on the social links thereon. ( WP:RS needed.) -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 09:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Examiner.com article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Examiner.com. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Examiner.com at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Examiner.com is nothing more than a legitimate looking lure website for the purpose of planting tracking cookies, spyware, and adware on curious users computers, targeting Google News searchers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.30.96 ( talk • contribs)
I tried adding a link to Examiner.com and got told it has been blacklisted. Anyone know why? ( Emperor ( talk) 04:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC))
I thought examiner.com was the San Francisco Examiner website. Now I know better. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 18:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it time to de-blacklist this site? The writers now all seem to be well-credentialed, and every article has a link at the bottom that tells what the writer's credentials are. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Other than possible plagiarism there seems to be no mention at all about the site's questioned credibility. Look for instance at articles like "/article/official-disclosure-of-extraterrestrial-life-is-imminent" which clearly support some fringe conspiracy theories... But I agree that we should find some credible reference questioning the site's credibility.
Oh, it seems that links to the site are considered spam by Wikipedia and won't be allowed, which might be another indicator of what I'm discussing (how relevant! I removed the domain to only provide the reference related to the site's root, for reference)... 76.10.128.192 ( talk) 14:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
This article should inform that examiner.com is blacklisted as a source on Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 06:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Where is the policy discussion on this? No links provided! Zeddocument ( talk) 12:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the drastic change in the lead needs discussed. Examiner has a less than stellar reputation, but jamming a contentious label into the first sentence, based on a source or two, isn't very NPOV and merits discussion. Just because a source says something doesn't mean it gets a free pass into an article. Similarly, the location (the lead) is a big factor. Niteshift36 ( talk) 01:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
(?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$)
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)== "Fired" writers ==
Since there is no employer-employee relationship, saying someone is fired is a misnomer. They are contractors that work on a piece by piece basis. Examiner makes it very clear on their website that writers are not employees and can't represent themselves as such. Further, the source you're using isn't reliable. You have a amateur columnist doing a recap of an interview given to someone else, along with his opinions. The interview is a primary source. This guy's recap of it is opinion and he shows a bias. This entire non-issue doesn't merit inclusion. You'd need to demonstrate that this is an issue of enduring notability of persons and events and not just a passing event in the news cycle. WP:RECENTISM suggests a 10 year test. In this case, less than a year later, nobody cares. The media collectively yawned a let it go away into obscurity. So should we. It's not encyclopedic. Niteshift36 ( talk) 13:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Examiner.com. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The site reopened sometime last northern fall, but with an apparent focus on tech coverage this time around (from the looks of the six articles on its new front page so far, all from September-October 2022); currently run by an entity known only as "shanghaiist", based on the social links thereon. ( WP:RS needed.) -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 09:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)