Trivialist (talk | contribs) ugh, broke my own markup, trying again |
→revert: pov |
||
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
:My revert was countered by [[User:Trivialist]] without discussion. They were following the "Ban" and were not aware that it is being challenged. Hopefully, they will revert their changes and bring their POV here or elsewhere in the discussion. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase|talk]]) 19:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
:My revert was countered by [[User:Trivialist]] without discussion. They were following the "Ban" and were not aware that it is being challenged. Hopefully, they will revert their changes and bring their POV here or elsewhere in the discussion. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase|talk]]) 19:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
:: I was removing sources generally considered unreliable. Per [[WP:RS]]: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Neither Breitbart nor Infowars meet these standards. [[User:Trivialist|Trivialist]] ([[User talk:Trivialist|talk]]) 19:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
:: I was removing sources generally considered unreliable. Per [[WP:RS]]: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Neither Breitbart nor Infowars meet these standards. [[User:Trivialist|Trivialist]] ([[User talk:Trivialist|talk]]) 19:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::"Neither Breitbart nor Infowars meet these standards." is POV and does not reference context. Please try again. [[User:Endercase|Endercase]] ([[User talk:Endercase|talk]]) 20:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:10, 5 March 2017
Internet culture Stub‑class | |||||||||||||||||
|
Internet Stub‑class | ||||||||||
|
Old Stuff
I just started the hellbanning article, and found it tough to find reliable sources. I will look more a little later today -- meantime, if anyone else can find reliable sources, that would be great. I checked Google News archives, Google Books and Google Scholar, but found nothing much. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk ) 20:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
That's because this isn't UrbanDictionary.com... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.90.59 (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the Unsigned IP that this isn't article worthy, but I've corrected the information on Stack Overflow; there's no such option on the site and I'm a mod on the network; there is no such tool and no evidence of such a ban ever occurring. The blog post referenced was a theoretical exercise. --Sirtaptap (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting that info on Stack Overflow! Although, question: how is this not article-worthy? Sure seems like it to me. Internet culture is a very article-worthy subject, and I imagine stealth-banning could easily prove controversial, as I doubt it hasn't already in other spheres of discussion.
Proper Noun?
In the last paragraph, in reference to Craigslist, the word ghosting is capitalised; is it a proper noun? Otherwise, it should be lowercase.
Confusing Sentence
In the last paragraph, it says, "Reportedly, an ad is placed, confirmation is sent that it has been posted." I would fix this myself, but I'm unsure what it's saying: "if an ad is placed, confirmation is sent that it has been posted"? Or is it saying something else?
We should start gathering peer reviewed, and publicly reported evidence of shadow banning on twitter. Sadly, I can only find a very limited number of sources right now. Endercase (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC) http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/16/exclusive-twitter-shadowbanning-is-real-say-inside-sources/ http://www.infowars.com/proof-twitter-is-censoring-donald-trump-to-block-fundraising-efforts/ http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2016/07/twitter-shadowbans-censorship-and-antitrust/8173/ http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/16/14635030/twitter-shadow-ban-moderation Endercase (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The reliability of Breitbart and Infowars was called into question. I call for discussion. See Talk:Alfredo Beltrán Leyva for more. Endercase (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for starting this discussion. Past RSN discussions demonstrate clear consensus that Breitbart is not normally a reliable source for statements of fact: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_211#Is Breitbart.com reliable?, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 216#Breitbart News. And the idea of calling the conspiracy-theory site Infowars a reliable source is absurd—it's even listed at List of fake news websites. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- See Talk:Alfredo Beltrán Leyva. Please try to keep the discussion in one place. Endercase (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
revert
I reverted following the 1RR policy. See WP:PGBOLD.Endercase (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- My revert was countered by User:Trivialist without discussion. They were following the "Ban" and were not aware that it is being challenged. Hopefully, they will revert their changes and bring their POV here or elsewhere in the discussion. Endercase (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I was removing sources generally considered unreliable. Per WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Neither Breitbart nor Infowars meet these standards. Trivialist (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)