![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | A fact from Wikipedia Review appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 July 2008 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
Is this link, http://encyc.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Review_Moderating_Team, appropriate for the external links section? __ meco ( talk) 21:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The lead should say more clearly that it's not operated by the WMF, although that is probably deduced from the infobox line "owner: anonymous". Tijfo098 ( talk) 01:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems odd that it doesn't say who owns Wikipedia Review, not even a pseudonym. It says who started it, but not all the in between bits. Is there some controversy about ownership? Even if there is, surely it is relevant and surely we could at least present the possibilities and then let readers decide. Thoughts? 123.243.134.238 ( talk) 00:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Not from the box on the article page, nor from my home. Any ideas what has happened/is happening?
Bielle
As of this morning (1/17/12) the site is redirected to a GoDaddy URL, as the domain was not renewed it appears. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 15:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Seriously boys, grow up. I was just on the WR about 30 mins ago til it flaked out again. As noted above, sometimes it takes the DNS to catch up when there'd been an interruption. We don't need to rush to a website's article to scream "OMG INACTIVE!" the moment that there is a service interruption. Tarc ( talk) 01:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Tarc, stop accusing everyone of gravedancing and trolling. There is no "gravedancing" going on here, people are trying to update Wikipedia in good faith. Please stop assuming bad faith and please stop making unfounded accusations just because this article is about a website you frequent. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
It's just as inappropriate to call it "defunct" as to call it "active." It's certainly not active. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
That a website is down for 3 days and there's 0 mentions of that in any WP:RS sources begs the question of its notability. Article is mostly WP:OR, although compared to most other "forum" articles, it's realtively high on the list of possibily meeting general notability criteria. Right after "blog in 2008 that got mentioned once in a newspaper article". Right up there with The Onion's "Area Man...". Hmmmm, wonder if Area Man has a BLP. Cookiehead ( talk) 17:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there an alternate URL/IP address that will actually get people in if the main one doesn't work? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia Review's website is still available and fairly easily. The registration with GoDaddy expired, but not the hosting contract with Softlayer, as such the content of the website is still there and there is some activity on it. I would suggest before marking it as inactive and the like, that we wait some time and see how the situation develop. All can access the website thru [3]. Snowolf How can I help? 02:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I just made this edit.
The citation seems rather questionable and silly. The same can really be said for the entire article. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Apparently "Selina" forgot to renew the domain name.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
.. a user keeps removing the template (username having something to do with promoting Calloway gulf clubs), even though the guidelines are very clear that it should stay. From the ARS: "It is unhelpful, and possibly disruptive, to remove the rescue tag before a deletion discussion is complete." I think this is keepable and the excellent encyclopedic talents of the ARS may contribute to this effort. Bali ultimate ( talk) 19:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, rather more importantly, have they now redirected the site to http://ilovewikipedia.com/ ? A recent edit suggested this, and it appears to be correct.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
ilovewikipedia.com
was created at GoDaddy today (20 Jan 2012).
[4] There is currently no automatic redirect from the old name, and this may be difficult if "Selina" is dead or missing in action.--
♦IanMacM♦
(talk to me)
20:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
http://184.172.174.94/~wikipede/index.php?showtopic=36276&st=20&p=294223&mode=linear#entry294223 – ilovewikipedia.com isn't the Wikipedia Review's new domain. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 03:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
A website doesn't cease to exist just because its domain name expired. A domain is just a way to give the website a neat address. "184.172.174.94/~wikipede" is still the second incarnation of Wikipedia Review. As far as I'm aware, the Wikipedia Review is still located on the same servers, and it hasn't changed hands (yet). This is different from the case of "encyclopediadramatica.com" vs. "encyclopediadramatica.ch". Instead, the WR case more closely resembles Facebook's change from "thefacebook.com" to "facebook.com". -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 03:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
---WP:OR....WP:HUMORECTOMY. 71.67.117.116 ( talk) 15:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Renewed. The domain owner woke up. → Stani Stani 06:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
There seems to have been a recent "schism" whereby a number of former WR contributors have left (or been kicked out) and formed a new site called Wikipediocracy... the split was so acrimonious that WR even seems to have its own variety of BADSITES policy to ban all links and mentions of the other site. Can anybody find a Reliable Source™ so that this can be written up in this article? *Dan T.* ( talk) 03:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
And there's now a press release: "Announcing a new Wikipedia criticism site" - "Wikipediocracy.com hosts articles examining Wikipedia's editorial failings and the governance flaws that lead to them, as well as a forum dedicated to criticism of Wikipedia's administrative culture." -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 13:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The site has not worked since yesterday. Toccata quarta ( talk) 14:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, it seems to be down yet again now. *Dan T.* ( talk) 18:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
...And it's back up yet again! *Dan T.* ( talk) 13:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
. . .
Down again. To save everybody some thrashing around, just paste this in your browser: http://192.254.236.99/~wikipede/ → Stani Stani 00:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
This talk page is to discuss article improvement, not for charming soliloquies to Ye Olde Wikipedia Review. Tarc ( talk) 12:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
My guess is that there's a lot of accurate critiques in there (as well as 'outing' histories) that someone wanted buried. Think of all the rich material in there, with the whole Essjay scandal, SV's newspaper history (and Slashdot listing), and the Durova affair. Those were some "good times" and really interesting to be a part-of (and watch) but at the end of the day.... ... my guess is someone decided it would be a good idea that all that finally got buried, as did Wikiinfo. I doubt it will resurface. Though I have been known to be wrong, "at least once". :) 193.239.220.249 ( talk) 11:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
|
I remember seeing Arbitrators with accounts in WR, is this true? 135.0.167.2 ( talk) 06:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Given that there are a number of other websites available that sprung up from Wikipedia Review, I don't think that it is accurate to call it dead. There are also mirrors and it seems likely that, if the domain name does expire, it will be restarted again soon afterwards, perhaps just with different owners. Maybe even the people who started it would gain control again, instead of the people that stole it from them. 123.2.223.96 ( talk) 06:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The website is back up. Most recent post there is the case of an Admin range blocking an entire ISP (or city?) in Indonesia. 124.171.36.228 ( talk) 23:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I can't find the DYK on July 8th. Does anyone know what it read and what happened to it? Zell Faze ( talk) 22:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | A fact from Wikipedia Review appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 July 2008 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
Is this link, http://encyc.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Review_Moderating_Team, appropriate for the external links section? __ meco ( talk) 21:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The lead should say more clearly that it's not operated by the WMF, although that is probably deduced from the infobox line "owner: anonymous". Tijfo098 ( talk) 01:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems odd that it doesn't say who owns Wikipedia Review, not even a pseudonym. It says who started it, but not all the in between bits. Is there some controversy about ownership? Even if there is, surely it is relevant and surely we could at least present the possibilities and then let readers decide. Thoughts? 123.243.134.238 ( talk) 00:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Not from the box on the article page, nor from my home. Any ideas what has happened/is happening?
Bielle
As of this morning (1/17/12) the site is redirected to a GoDaddy URL, as the domain was not renewed it appears. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 15:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Seriously boys, grow up. I was just on the WR about 30 mins ago til it flaked out again. As noted above, sometimes it takes the DNS to catch up when there'd been an interruption. We don't need to rush to a website's article to scream "OMG INACTIVE!" the moment that there is a service interruption. Tarc ( talk) 01:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Tarc, stop accusing everyone of gravedancing and trolling. There is no "gravedancing" going on here, people are trying to update Wikipedia in good faith. Please stop assuming bad faith and please stop making unfounded accusations just because this article is about a website you frequent. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
It's just as inappropriate to call it "defunct" as to call it "active." It's certainly not active. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
That a website is down for 3 days and there's 0 mentions of that in any WP:RS sources begs the question of its notability. Article is mostly WP:OR, although compared to most other "forum" articles, it's realtively high on the list of possibily meeting general notability criteria. Right after "blog in 2008 that got mentioned once in a newspaper article". Right up there with The Onion's "Area Man...". Hmmmm, wonder if Area Man has a BLP. Cookiehead ( talk) 17:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there an alternate URL/IP address that will actually get people in if the main one doesn't work? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia Review's website is still available and fairly easily. The registration with GoDaddy expired, but not the hosting contract with Softlayer, as such the content of the website is still there and there is some activity on it. I would suggest before marking it as inactive and the like, that we wait some time and see how the situation develop. All can access the website thru [3]. Snowolf How can I help? 02:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I just made this edit.
The citation seems rather questionable and silly. The same can really be said for the entire article. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Apparently "Selina" forgot to renew the domain name.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
.. a user keeps removing the template (username having something to do with promoting Calloway gulf clubs), even though the guidelines are very clear that it should stay. From the ARS: "It is unhelpful, and possibly disruptive, to remove the rescue tag before a deletion discussion is complete." I think this is keepable and the excellent encyclopedic talents of the ARS may contribute to this effort. Bali ultimate ( talk) 19:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, rather more importantly, have they now redirected the site to http://ilovewikipedia.com/ ? A recent edit suggested this, and it appears to be correct.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
ilovewikipedia.com
was created at GoDaddy today (20 Jan 2012).
[4] There is currently no automatic redirect from the old name, and this may be difficult if "Selina" is dead or missing in action.--
♦IanMacM♦
(talk to me)
20:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
http://184.172.174.94/~wikipede/index.php?showtopic=36276&st=20&p=294223&mode=linear#entry294223 – ilovewikipedia.com isn't the Wikipedia Review's new domain. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 03:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
A website doesn't cease to exist just because its domain name expired. A domain is just a way to give the website a neat address. "184.172.174.94/~wikipede" is still the second incarnation of Wikipedia Review. As far as I'm aware, the Wikipedia Review is still located on the same servers, and it hasn't changed hands (yet). This is different from the case of "encyclopediadramatica.com" vs. "encyclopediadramatica.ch". Instead, the WR case more closely resembles Facebook's change from "thefacebook.com" to "facebook.com". -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 03:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
---WP:OR....WP:HUMORECTOMY. 71.67.117.116 ( talk) 15:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Renewed. The domain owner woke up. → Stani Stani 06:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
There seems to have been a recent "schism" whereby a number of former WR contributors have left (or been kicked out) and formed a new site called Wikipediocracy... the split was so acrimonious that WR even seems to have its own variety of BADSITES policy to ban all links and mentions of the other site. Can anybody find a Reliable Source™ so that this can be written up in this article? *Dan T.* ( talk) 03:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
And there's now a press release: "Announcing a new Wikipedia criticism site" - "Wikipediocracy.com hosts articles examining Wikipedia's editorial failings and the governance flaws that lead to them, as well as a forum dedicated to criticism of Wikipedia's administrative culture." -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 13:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The site has not worked since yesterday. Toccata quarta ( talk) 14:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, it seems to be down yet again now. *Dan T.* ( talk) 18:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
...And it's back up yet again! *Dan T.* ( talk) 13:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
. . .
Down again. To save everybody some thrashing around, just paste this in your browser: http://192.254.236.99/~wikipede/ → Stani Stani 00:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
This talk page is to discuss article improvement, not for charming soliloquies to Ye Olde Wikipedia Review. Tarc ( talk) 12:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
My guess is that there's a lot of accurate critiques in there (as well as 'outing' histories) that someone wanted buried. Think of all the rich material in there, with the whole Essjay scandal, SV's newspaper history (and Slashdot listing), and the Durova affair. Those were some "good times" and really interesting to be a part-of (and watch) but at the end of the day.... ... my guess is someone decided it would be a good idea that all that finally got buried, as did Wikiinfo. I doubt it will resurface. Though I have been known to be wrong, "at least once". :) 193.239.220.249 ( talk) 11:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
|
I remember seeing Arbitrators with accounts in WR, is this true? 135.0.167.2 ( talk) 06:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Given that there are a number of other websites available that sprung up from Wikipedia Review, I don't think that it is accurate to call it dead. There are also mirrors and it seems likely that, if the domain name does expire, it will be restarted again soon afterwards, perhaps just with different owners. Maybe even the people who started it would gain control again, instead of the people that stole it from them. 123.2.223.96 ( talk) 06:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The website is back up. Most recent post there is the case of an Admin range blocking an entire ISP (or city?) in Indonesia. 124.171.36.228 ( talk) 23:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I can't find the DYK on July 8th. Does anyone know what it read and what happened to it? Zell Faze ( talk) 22:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)