Wikipedia vs The Jackal | The Jackal

13 Sep 2011

Wikipedia vs The Jackal

A few days ago I wrote about the trouble I was having over at Wikipedia, in a post entitled Will Wikipedia Kill The Jackal?

Well it turns out to be a bit more than just other editors fucking with my articles by not following the rules. Since I started editing Wikipedia entries, an increase in cyber-warfare has seen the death of one of my email accounts and attack bots trying to harvest info from my blogger account.

That pesky SOL cookie has also reared its ugly head again after I signed into Wikipedia. It prevented me from editing some info I had cut and pasted out of The Jackal (blogsite) Wikipedia article. It's more annoying than anything as there's easy ways around such controlling measures.

So in light of the fact that Wikipedians are actively limiting peoples access to information, and that light is truly the best disinfectant; I have included the Jackal AfD discussion below for reference:

== The Jackal AfD ==

===[[The Jackal (blogsite)]]===

:{{la|The Jackal (blogsite)}} – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jackal (blogsite)|View AfD]][[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 5#{{anchorencode:The Jackal (blogsite)}}|View log]]) :({{Find sources|The Jackal (blogsite)}})

:Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites|list of Websites-related deletion discussions]]. — [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 23:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete The [[WP:CSD#A7|A7]] speedy deletion tag was rightfully declined but this should still be deleted. No indication is given that this blog has any importance. Actually that's not quite true: some indication is given that the author is viewed by other bloggers as an idiot, a troll and a plagiarist. I guess it's better than nothing but it's not necessarily a good sign and it certainly doesn't even come close to the basic notability requirements. (Bonus deletion marks for the fact that the username suggests that the article's author is also the blogger) [[User:Pichpich|Pichpich]] ([[User talk:Pichpich|talk]]) 18:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no attempt to hide the fact that the administrator of The Jackal is also the writer of the article in question. The article raises notable topics of interest concerning [[Netiquette]] and [[Internet law]] that requires further consideration, therefore it should not be deleted.
My intention was not to say that the fact was hidden but simply to point out that the resulting [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] was extra incentive to delete the article. [[User:Pichpich|Pichpich]] ([[User talk:Pichpich|talk]]) 02:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete as blog sites aren't generally notable. [[User:ArcAngel|  ArcAngel  ]] [[User talk:ArcAngel|(talk)]] ) 19:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The article documents a blogsite. A generalization is not a reason for deletion.

Please note that a previous comment of mine was removed from this page when parts of it were not included in the talk page. I have attempted to address this by accessing the history and reintroducing the deleted content. Please take a care to edit accordingly. I would prefer all arguments to be maintained in their entirety. JackaL 12:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Another question about "''notable topics of interest concerning Netiquette and Internet law''". Even by your own account, the story goes like this: troll trolls, troll gets banned, troll threatens bogus lawsuit, people laugh at troll's threats, troll threatens bogus lawsuit about laughing at him. And as far as I can tell, that's the end of the story since it's obvious to all that the lawsuits were just a slightly more elaborate form of trolling. In any case, this is very far from anything resembling a notable Netiquette-related or Internet law-related incident. [[User:Pichpich|Pichpich]] ([[User talk:Pichpich|talk]]) 02:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And one last thing. It's being argued on the article's talk page that the blog meets the notability requirements because "''the content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators''". It is true that some of the blog posts are reposted on the fairly well-known blog-collective The Standard but we're talking about one post every ten days or so and 12 posts in total. [] [[User:Pichpich|Pichpich]] ([[User talk:Pichpich|talk]]) 02:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The validity of the references does not seem to be in question, just the notability of the publications. An argument should not be made on assumptions. Even if further reference to validate was required, statistical information is currently unavailable.

A Wikipedia search of ''"notable topics of interest concerning Netiquette and Internet law"'' has no results. Please clarify? I have referenced material and documented what happened, I have not written a personal account. Privately threatening a [[Lawsuit]] is not a form of [[trolling]].
Are we talking about the same incident? You threatened a freedom of speech suit when banned for trolling someone's website. If you were not serious, it's a form of trolling. If you were being serious, I'm afraid I have to suspect complete idiocy. [[User:Pichpich|Pichpich]] ([[User talk:Pichpich|talk]]) 03:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Please acquaint yourself with the Wikipedia:Civility standard and be nice to the newbie. JackaL 06:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I am neither an Inclusionist nor a Deletionist, and have shown that the article is unbiased by providing a potentially valid (emotive) reason for deletion within the article. Trying to discredit the article because of the authors previous conduct outside of Wikipedia is not a valid argument.

A number of works have been published within the contested reference. The timeline of those republications should be considered. The notability of the work is not only defined by the amount of publications referenced. There is no question that a reputable and independent organization has chosen to republish those works. Therefore the article meets Wikipedia:Notability (web) Criteria (3). JackaL 12:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep There is no conflict of interest as the article is unbiased and written from a [[Neutral point of view]]. Notable use of the [[OCILLA]], Notable use of Blogger. Blog sites and references are notable. No defined republishing amount stated: [[Wikipedia:Notability (web)]]. The article meets criteria (1)(3) for notability. Republishing signifies importance. Site content is relevant and notable: Google search. JackaL 22:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I don't really think the [[WP:COI]] needs to be brought up right now. While writing an article about yourself or something you own is generally frowned upon in the community, it seems to be coming from a pretty neutral standpoint.
JLL, you keep saying that the article meets criteria 3. It seems a weak case, but I understand where you're coming from. Still, taken from [[WP:WEB]]: ''However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the content.'' I don't think a dozen or so blog posts relisted by The Standard meets notability standards. Also, the bulk of the contents in the article is a feud between bloggers. I don't think there is a solid reason this article needs to be on Wikipedia. '''''[[User:Ishdarian|Ish]][[User talk:Ishdarian|dar]][[Special:Contributions/Ishdarian|ian]]''''' 13:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The article also meets criteria (1). ''The reference has multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself''. JackaL 21:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Can you give some examples? I tried to look through them, and I didn't see any that were really "significant coverage in reliable independent sources". But I might have missed some. [[User:ErikHaugen|ErikHaugen]] ([[User talk:ErikHaugen|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/ErikHaugen|contribs]]) 22:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The Standard is a reliable and independent source. The Jackal's articles are published in the [[New Zealand Blogosphere]]. Would you like me to list them all? [[User:Lifebaka|Lifebaka]] declined speedy delete: "''decline, giving benefit of the doubt based upon refs, and supposing that republishing signifies importance.
The link you provided above does not appear to meet Wikipedia's [[WP:RS|reliable source]] guidelines. As for your criteria one claim, the policy states, verbatim: ''The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.'' The content, in this case, is your site. I looked through all the refs in the article and did a brief Google search, and I was unable to find and reliable sources that discussed your site, aside from the Standard. The case with the Standard is not that IT is unreliable. The problem seems to be that it has been the only one to repost anything about your site. While it has reposted a dozen or so articles, it is still a singular source. The criteria three claim is a bit of a stretch to me, but the claim that the article meets the first criteria does not seem plausible. '''''[[User:Ishdarian|Ish]][[User talk:Ishdarian|dar]][[Special:Contributions/Ishdarian|ian]]''''' 11:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
No disrespect in pointing out the obvious, but a blogsite is not automatically a trivial publication, as defined by the criteria. Multiple meaning many, ie 12 independent publications as referenced. You should not lump those publications into a singularity. The guideline does not state that the republication has to occur on multiple outlets, just that there needs to be multiple republications that are independent and unbiased. The sites referenced in the article are not indiscriminate sources, the work published is not trivial in nature. The fact that those articles are then widely read on the second highest most popular Blogsite in New Zealand should be considered. The included information is verifiable. The article is new and requires more time to include items, which will increase its notability. The article is notable as defined within the shorter description of the word. The article should be kept or merged, there is no reason for a delete. JackaL 22:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the point is that the references themselves should be independent of the subject, that is, independent of the Jackal. The Standard is not really independent of its own content. Also, the mauistreet example you gave just above isn't really significant coverage; that entry doesn't even really talk ''about'' the Jackal blog. It's something, but it isn't [[wp:GNG]] on its own, certainly. "Would you like me to list them all?"—Just, say, 2 good ones. Thanks! [[User:ErikHaugen|ErikHaugen]] ([[User talk:ErikHaugen|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/ErikHaugen|contribs]]) 22:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The Jackal is independent of The Standard. They're separate blogs operated on entirely different platforms and run by completely different people. Please [ contact The Standard] if you need further clarification of this. The Standard selects the articles through a process I have no information on. Perhaps they think the articles selected are notable. I have no control over that process or what articles are chosen for inclusion on The Standard. The Standard is reputable, independent and makes note of who wrote the articles at the top of the post. The Standard does not create the content, it republishes. I have already referenced articles that have been independently republished. JackaL 02:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I realize they are separate, but in some sense they are not totally independent. In any case, these aren't references ''about'' the subject, are they? [[User:ErikHaugen|ErikHaugen]] ([[User talk:ErikHaugen|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/ErikHaugen|contribs]]) 05:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete —The sources don't appear to establish [[wp:GNG|notability]], they are mostly other bloggers whining about the subject. I don't think the level of redistribution on ''The Standard'' establishes notability. This article appears to essentially be self-promotion, what [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] was written for. [[User:ErikHaugen|ErikHaugen]] ([[User talk:ErikHaugen|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/ErikHaugen|contribs]]) 14:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete as [[WP:Attack page]] also borderline [[WP:GNG]] / borderline [[WP:N]]. Disclaimer: I'm a New Zealand and an active member of [[WP:NZ]], but I'd never heard of this blog or this article until this nomination. [[User:Stuartyeates|Stuartyeates]] ([[User talk:Stuartyeates|talk]]) 07:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

*:Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand|list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions]]. —[[User:SimonLyall|SimonLyall]] ([[User talk:SimonLyall|talk]]) 20:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to [[The Standard (blog)]]. I think The Standard as one of the top 5 NZ political blogs probably qualifies for a place. Since this blog is a small subset of that then this probably doesn't. - [[User:SimonLyall|SimonLyall]] ([[User talk:SimonLyall|talk]]) 20:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC) 
**Not sure if that is a worthwhile redirect. -- [[User:Alan Liefting|Alan Liefting]] ([[User_talk:Alan_Liefting|talk]]) - 20:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

**I'm not sure it makes sense to think of it as a "subset" since the overwhelming majority of posts on the Jackal blog are ''not'' reposted on the Standard. [[User:Pichpich|Pichpich]] ([[User talk:Pichpich|talk]]) 21:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable, self-promotional. DerbyCountyinNZ ([[User talk:DerbyCountyinNZ|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/DerbyCountyinNZ|Contribs]]) 20:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete. It is referenced entirely from the [[blogosphere]]. May not even deserve a mention in the [[New Zealand blogosphere]] article. As an WPNZ member and NZer I also have not heard of this blog. -- [[User:Alan Liefting|Alan Liefting]] ([[User_talk:Alan_Liefting|talk]]) - 20:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete. No more notable than hundreds of other low-traffic NZ blogs. I have never seen reference to the blog anywhere other than The Standard, where the blog's writer regularly republishes posts or summaries of posts as comments. The contributor's effort would be more usefully spent creating an article for The Standard itself. [[User:Daveosaurus|Daveosaurus]] ([[User talk:Daveosaurus|talk]]) 03:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Not noteable. I've never seen a reference to it in the NZ media, and the blog does not have sufficient traffic to be independently noteworthy. IdiotSavant 01:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  '''Please do not modify it.''' Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.

Anyway, The Jackal (blogsite) article has been deleted from Wikipedia. There was also a little side commentary going on:
Comment retrieved from Pichpich talk page:
Just a friendly heads up. I know AfD's can get heated when your message is misunderstood by the intended audience. The written word is terrible at carrying vocal tones. Just try to keep a cool head and politely state your point. I don't think it was a serious civility issue, but it might have been a tad bitey. Cheers! '''''[[User:Ishdarian|Ish]][[User talk:Ishdarian|dar]][[Special:Contributions/Ishdarian|ian]]''''' 13:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes you're right, I suppose I did lose my cool. One thing I find particularly aggravating is someone playing dumb. I'd have no problem keeping my cool if I knew he was a total dimwit but he's not an idiot so the "Who? Me? Trolling?" routine and the "Oh my, I think I've just been insulted and I'm just a defenceless newbie!" shtick really get under my skin. The irony of course is that his only claim to fame is that he got under the skin of a few other people... [[User:Pichpich|Pichpich]] ([[User talk:Pichpich|talk]]) 14:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Pich, I understand what you mean. If an individual "plays dumb", try and brush it off. Just press on other points/evidence. Remember, light is the best disinfectant. :) '''''[[User:Ishdarian|Ish]][[User talk:Ishdarian|dar]][[Special:Contributions/Ishdarian|ian]]''''' 11:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the written word is as expressive as the spoken word. I don't think there's much point in covering a topic already discussed. Can a nomination be made, when that nomination has the same parameters already dismissed? Could you clarify what you mean by "bitey"? Cheers! JackaL 11:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi JLL. The term ''bitey'' is a reference to [[WP:BITE]]. That article should clear that up for you. Also, there are three varying stages for deletion:

*[[WP:SD|Speedy Deletions]] which deal with several different issues. There are generally used to remove an article quickly which fail to meet certain criteria without drawing the issue out at AfD.

*[[WP:PROD|Proposed Deletions]] which are used on articles which a user or users think would be uncontroversial.

*[[WP:AFD|Articles for Deletion]] which are used to gain [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] on whether the article stays or goes. This is where things get a bit more in-depth.
Comment retrieved from JLL talk page:
To answer your question at [[User:Pichpich]]'s talk page: if an article fails a speedy deleting, it may be sent to AfD for further discussion. In this case, Lifebaka gave benefit of the doubt and declined the SD. However, the article was then sent to AfD to gain consensus on the issue of notability. This actually happens frequently on Wikipedia and is perfectly acceptable, as long as it is done in [[WP:AGF|good faith]]. I hope this clears things up for you! :) '''''[[User:Ishdarian|Ish]][[User talk:Ishdarian|dar]][[Special:Contributions/Ishdarian|ian]]''''' 11:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the information Ishdarian. I appreciate the time you've taken to explain the process. Just a few more questions if you don't mind:

Is there a standard or policy to dismiss an AfD because the nominator is uncivil? I would have thought that an uncivilized display shows a lack of good faith.

How might I find a deleted edit from [[The Jackal (blogsite)|The Jackal (blogsite)]] talk page that was further to the decision not to speedy delete? It does not seem to be in the edit history after comments I made were deleted from the AfD. I know about compare, but it doesn't seem to be there at all. Would this be what is refereed to as vandalism? It concerned criteria 1 being met.

I would have thought all edits were available on Wikipedia?

Is there any relevance to it being a new article, that needs further work which will give it more notability?

Is there any relevance to furthering an argument concerning other Wikipedia content, that is far less notable but remains intact? JackaL 12:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
No. The nomination itself was in good faith. It was a minor incident and I already spoke to Pich about it.

The talk history of the article's talk page would be a good place to start, however, I see no mention of deleted posts. If it was an accident, it's not vandalism.

Yes, on the history pages of articles.

The fact that it is a new article is usually a key talking point when an article is flagged for having little content. When it comes to notability, the age tends to not matter as much.

The essay at [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] can explain things. Just because there may be an article with less to no notability that slips through the cracks, it doesn't mean we have to let everything through.The discussion is supposed to focus on the article at hand; not others.

Hope this helps! If you have any other questions, I'll try to answer as best as possible, or at least point you in the right direction. Cheers! '''''[[User:Ishdarian|Ish]][[User talk:Ishdarian|dar]][[Special:Contributions/Ishdarian|ian]]''''' 13:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Ishdarian. I appreciate the information. JackaL 04:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah! The games we play.