Talk:Webby Awards/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mentioning that the site links to porn

User:SJ, why did you remove my warning from the links list? Could you rephrase it instead of removing it? Mr. Jones 17:16, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

sure! I didn't think it needed to be there twice, but left it in this time w/ a rewording. +sj+

Um, what on earth is the porn warning referring to? There's nothing remotely pornographic on the Webby site itself, and it's hardly our problem if one of the nominees has titties (eek!). Jpatokal 14:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

"The voting system is famously easy to game," ?

In the awards categories bit it says "The voting system is famously easy to game,". I wonder if:

(1) this is accepted fact or just a matter of opinion. I wouldn't know, but to the casual observer there may be the whiff of sour grapes about it and I wondered if a more encylopaedic wording is possible; and

(2) if it does have to stay in, is there something other than "easy to game", which does not really work in my dialect of English? Presumably it means "easy to influence" or "easy to cheat at" or something, but "easy to game" just doesn't make sense to me even though I can infer the likely meaning. Thanks. Nevilley 08:10, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Nor in my dialect of English, either. Furthermore, even if true I do not believe it to be the kind of thing which ought to be in an encyclopedia. Victor Gijsbers 14:00, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Won by default

In 2004, Wikipedia won by default the Community Webby award. What does that mean, "by default" -- didn't we just win? jengod 02:11, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

yes, I second that question. I had a quick look at the webbies site and I thought there were other nominees in that category. I would have thought "by default" would suggest something like "no-one else entered so W had to get it." I am, I think, going to change the article, with advance apologies if I have misunderstood. If someone can explain why it IS by default - and perhaps reword the article so that it is clear - then of course I will not intervene further. Nevilley 07:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, congrats all around! JB82 20:30, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Speeches

Shouldn't be some sort of mention about the 5 word speeches at the award ceremony?Daniel Trielli 03:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! Good idea - just did! Spalding 03:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Repeated insertions of inappropriate POV content

A while ago a legitimate-seeming editor inserted a "criticism"[1] that the Webby Awards are a "Who's Who scam" because in recent years they charge at least some of their entrants a fee to be considered for an award. I assume this initial insertionwas in good faith, but it is simply wrong and inappropriate for the Wikipedia. Who's Who scams, as per the Wikipedia article contained in the link, are schemes where people are informed falsely that they have earned a listing in a who's who directory based on their achievements when the listing is in fact available to all who pay. They make money by charging people for a bogus award. If you review the history of the Webbies, sourced in this article and a number of related articles That is a strong claim against an established award organization with hudreds of articles to Forbes, New York Times, SF Chronicle, etc., the organization is not operating this way and is clearly not a scam. The only plausible source for the derogatory claim is the blog Sfist, which does not report directly that it is a scam but rather quotes "another prominent blogger" (unnamed) who purportedly says "It's most definitely a 'who's who' type scam," based solely on the fact that the contest charges a fee to contestants. Charging a fee for entry does not make any contest a scam, and one blog repeating anonymous hearsay from another blogger is not a reliable source to say there is a legitimate controversy over a well-established organization being a scam. It is clearly not a serious complaint but rather the typical peeve one sees all the time on blogs about organizations. If one were even going to report the complaint, the most one can say is that people have complained that there is a fee charged for some people to be considered for the award. There is nothing more to it than that.

After I removed the material it was re-inserted and far more contentious claims made by an anonymous editor[2] who added the false assertion that Scambusters.org also claims the Webbies is a scam. That source says the exact opposite of what the editor purports it to say, and discredits the claim: "a few legitimate sites that do charge entry fees, most notably the Webby Awards."[3] The anonymous editor goes on to editorialize without any sources that a comparison (also unsourced, and not otherwise in the article) between the Webbys and the Oscars is "illegitimate" and makes the charge that "Anonymous Wikipedia users who's IP addresses have been traced to the immediate area of the Webby Awards' offices" deleted the material. There's no point in my even trying to argue why a personal attack and assumption of bad faith against editors does not belong in the main text of an article.

Now a new editor shows up and reinstates the edits[4], saying I should "be banned somehow" for deleting this.[5] This infrequent editor has little history here, but I note they have accused an editor before of being "barbarous" for deleting a completely out of place rant about William Shakespeare[6]. When I reverted this inappropriate edit, the original IP editor reverted the exact same material and left similarly-worded threats against me - obviously, the same person.

I would lose too many brain cells trying to explain this, but it's quite stunning. I've left warnings for the user on both talk pages to cut it out. If this has to come up in a dispute resolution or a report of edit warring, you'll know what happened. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Update - the user (both in the anonymous IP and named user versions) just added the bogus material and personal attacks againthis series of edits and filed an ill-considered arbitration case over this. Although I pointed the user to this page in the edit summaries it's not clear he has ever read this page or understands Wikipedia policies and procedures at all. I've left a third warning on both accounts, but fear that some intervention might be necessary if he's not going to stop. Wikidemo (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply by Dario D.: For Wikidemo's attention, I have filed a complaint with the Wikipedia staff (they want me to go through my own private negotiations with you first, before they act), for your repeated deletion of the Criticisms section with the Wikipedia staff, which you can view here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Involved_parties I am accusing you of one very simple thing: deleting the Criticism section repeatedly, without stating what is wrong with the cited Criticisms. They are referencing what other sites have stated about the Webby Awards, thus, what right do you have in saying that even a mention of those accusations is "inappropriate"? Also, why can't you mention HOW each of those claims are inappropriate?

Quite simple: answer these questions:

• 1) How is it invalid to cite that scambusters.org has criticized the Webby Awards (IN the Criticisms section, no less)?
• 2) How is it invalid to cite that the San Francisco SFist blog has criticized the Webby Awards?
• 3) How is it invalid to state that the Webby Awards charges an entrance fee, and is therefor not all-inclusive?
• 4) How is it invalid to claims to be the "Oscars of the net" slogan is incompatible with the way the Oscars work, since the Oscars specifically do NOT charge any fee for participation?
• 5) Why do you care so much, so as to defy all of these logical foundations, and repeatedly delete the Criticisms without stating a single valid reason why? Your above statement presents absolutely nothing to work with, and is a pure, unadultered cloud of fluff that I can see right through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dario D. (talk • contribs) 02:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To offer some input from an uninvolved party...

• (1) It's definitely invalid to claim that scambusters has criticised the Webby Awards as a Who's Who scam, because the link you offer[7] says no such thing: it criticises other (unnamed) awards schemes as being scams, but specifically says that the Webby awards are legitimate. Nothing to see here, move along...
• (2) It's invalid to cite a blog because Wikipedia's neutrality policy requires that opinions are attributed to reliable sources; blogs are not generally regarded as reliable as they have little or no editorial oversight. If you can find a published source, such as a newspaper column or a magazine article making the same criticism, it might be appropriate to include it, but one person complaining on their blog doesn't necessarily merit a place in an encyclopaedia. Accusing someone of running a scam is a serious charge; we need reputable sourcing if we're going to make it.
• (3) It's probably not invalid simply to mention that they charge a fee, though it would help to be able to point to a better source than a blog for this.
• (4) It's invalid to claim that the "Oscar's of the net" slogan is incompatible with charging a fee because this seems to be your own original analysis, specifically a synthesis of two otherwise unrelated facts to make a point. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; if you want the article to include this comparison you need to show that somebody else has already made it in a published source, not just make it yourself.
• (5) I can't answer for Wikidemo, but as far as I can see he's quite right to remove most or all of the material unless it can be better sourced.

The final paragraph you're trying to insert is obviously inappropriate: the article itself is absolutely not the place to complain about a content dispute, and unless you've somehow managed to hack into Wikipedia's servers you know nothing about the IP address Wikidemo is posting from, so please cut out the allegations. Instead, I suggest you read out policies on neutrality, verifiability, sources and original research, and try to find some better sources to back up your criticisms so they can be included in the article. Best Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 02:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding #3, the article in its neutral form does say that the organization charges a fee for entry and that some blogs have called it inappropriate, referencing the SFIst complaint. So what this editor is fighting for is to try to use that as evidence of a valid serious claim that the awards are a who's who scam, which the blog entry clearly is not. Regarding #4, there is no positive claim that the Webbies are the "Oscars of the net" in the article or anywhere obvious in the sources, so there is no cause to talk about it at all, much less refute a comparison that isn't being made. Wikidemo (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Webbylogo.gif

Image:Webbylogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Are the Webby Awards a scam?

It seems to me that they're just like "Who's Who" vanity publications... they charge money to enter, and give "awards" to a very large number of entrants.

Here's a recent article critical of the webbies: What? You've Not Been Honored by the Webbys?If there is a less exclusive award on the planet, I've yet to hear of it.

How should the article address this? ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 20:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We've dealt with this issue before. Look at the article and talk page histories. No, it's clearly not a scam or a who's who operation. Read the article and its sources if you question that. Every notable person and institution in the world has detractors who call it all kinds of names. The Slate article is clearly not an appropriate external link per WP:EL, it's just a link detracting from the subject of the article. As a blog / editorial that mentions opinions rather than facts, it's not a reliable source regarding the nature of the Webbies. The only thing encyclopedic about this is to note that some people complain that the Webbies charges money. That used to be here, but someone removed it for weight concerns[8]. It's also original research to find a complaint in a blog, then report in Wikipedia that people in blogs are complaining. You need a reliable source that puts the complaints in context.Wikidemo (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well hold on a second here :-) I didn't put any of this into the article, I'm only discussing it, so I don't think there's any need to get defensive! I believe the Slate article would be an appropriate source, yes, not as an authoritative reference, but perhaps in a "Criticism" section in which the issue of charging entrance fees is discussed. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 22:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't get personal. As I said you can read the talk page here and look at the article history for more information on this issue.Wikidemo (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I got personal in any way. I was just slightly amused at the strong reaction you posted to my original post. I've been looking through the Talk Page history, thanks. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 00:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe this Slate Magazine article can and should be referenced in the article. It's not exactly a "blog" post since its author is paid to write it for a reputable publication. What do you think? ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 00:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source. It's an opinion piece that's simply a rant. The only fact to glean from it is that someone from Slate is ranting. But that's not encyclopedic or relevant unless we can source it to something. The simple facts that there is an entry fee, that there are 119 categories, that there are two winners in each, that they (apparently) take in $2 million a year, or that 15% of the entries are honorees may or may not be relevant to an encyclopedic coverage of the mechanics of the event. If they are, those could all be cited to a much more reliable source. They're certainly nothing out of the ordinary nor do they support a credible claim that the award is fraudulent. As far as I can tell the institution is completely above-board about this, and many contests work this way. Wikidemo (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's a reliable source - it's a Magazine that has submitted its own opinion of a *Criticism*, and that's what Criticisms are all about: citing sources that have posted their opinions about foul practices. The FACT that you yourself would not deny is that the Webbys are "pay-to-enter" awards. The CRITICISM of that fact is the article that Slate Magazine wrote, and thus it is perfectly acceptable to say in a wikipedia article "X Source Has Criticised This *True* Fact". The only instance in which you CANNOT logically do this is if the section is titled "Fallacies", not "Criticisms", because then you have to be scientific in your accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.164.208 (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewording one of the fields on the infobox

{{editprotected}}

The "Awarded for" field on the infobox is being misused to make an introduction to what the award is. The part "The leading international award honoring" is inadequate. Please change the field to say only "Excellence on the Internet, including Web sites, interactive advertising, online film and video, and mobile web sites." --Enric Naval (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "excellence" is also kind of peacocky. How about just plain "Web sites, interactive advertising, online film and video, and mobile web sites." -? Wikidemo (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, their website explicitely states that award excellence on the internet. We shouldn't paraphrase them just because we think that they are using a vague term --Enric Naval (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not to paraphrase anything, it's a simple statement of fact (namely what genre of things win the award). Is the "excellence" part of the official designation of the award, i.e. in each category the winner is one for "excellence in..." or is it just a self-description of the organization? In the latter case repeating it would make it sound like we're endorsing some puffery. Wikidemo (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's an official description of what do the awards honor, see on their main page, on a box on the right, under the title "Honoring the Internet's Best". It's also the first sentence on their about page. A different matter is how they define "excellence", but I think that this would go on the criticism section :D --Enric Naval (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the field to be a direct quote from their website, indicated and referenced as such, and excluding the "leading international award..." phrase, which is blatant unencyclopedic peacockery. I hope this is a good compromise - if not, I will revert, but remember that uncited quotes from their website constitute a copyright infringement. Happy‑melon 14:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I hadn't thought of making a direct quote. You are spot on on the infringement. Your edit is perfect. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

inlining one of external links as a reference to the correct number of categories

{{editprotected}}

The numbers of categories is incorrect and unsourced. I propose using one of the external links to source, and remove it from the external list. Relevant policies: WP:EL.

1. remove the "Webby Categories" link from the external links

1. Under "categories", remove the sentence that says "The Webby Awards present awards in more than 100 categories." with:

The Webby Awards has about 100 categories among all four types of entries. A website can be entered on multiple categories and receive multiple awards. <ref name="categories">{{cite web | url = http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/categories.php | title = Category definitions | publisher = The Webby Awards | accessdate = 2008-05-31 }}</ref>

Cheers --Enric Naval (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That looks good. Agreed, the "categories" link is an unnecessary duplicative external link and it doesn't really provide anything that can't be better described by text in the article. 119 can be sourced to the Chicago tribune article, and others, e.g. [9]. But that may not be definitive. It probably depends on how you count, and anyway it will be different next year. A lot of sources simply say more than 100. With any luck edit protection won't last too much longer...Wikidemo (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I guess I could have bothered to actually count the categories on the list :)))) . I'd just quote this source for the 2008 awards (let's see if I remember to do so when this gets unprotected, that's a good source, thanks for finding it). I think that they are adding new categories every year, for example I think that the 2006 awards had only 70 categories --Enric Naval (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done The copyeditor in me baulked at the word "about" but I hope my slight rewording is acceptable. Happy‑melon 14:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Very acceptable. "About" was a weasel word to run arond the fact that we should be using instead a list of how many categories were used on every year, or making a comment on how they grew over the years. "Over 100" is accurate, but only for the 2008 ceremony (I think that the 2007 one also had 100+, but not sure) so it's needs further wordsmithing --Enric Naval (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

number of noms on 2007, sourced from cnet.com

{{editprotected}}

At the end of the "History" section, please add this paragraph:

In 2007, the Academy says that it received over 8,000 nominations from 60 different countries. <ref>{{cite web | url = http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9714596-7.html | title = Webby Award winners: Mentos, ninjas, and 'The Office' | date = 2007-05-01 | accessdate = 2008-05-31 }}</ref>

That should be all. Cheers --Enric Naval (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

 Not done that doesn't look like a reliable source to me... Happy‑melon 14:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Ok, let's try again, this time with a 2008 press release and a bit of rewording of attribution:

In 2008, the 12th Annual Webby Awards received nearly 10,000 entries from all 50 states and over 60 countries worldwide, according to its organizers. <ref name="burne_press_release">{{cite web | url = http://www.webbyawards.com/press/press-release.php?id=156 | title = Webby Awards to honor David Burne and Lorne Michaels for lifetime achievment | publisher = The Webby Awards | date = 2008-05-28 | accessdate = 2008-06-01 }}</ref>

The 28 May date is from their press releases page, since the release itself has no date on it. It's attributed to the organizers, and doesnt' seem to be having any of the issues listed at WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Ought to be reliable enough, barring a reliable source claiming that the numbers are not correct. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That's more like it. "all 50 states" is a bit US-centric, and "according to its organisers" unnecessary unless it's a direct quote, but I've made this addition. Happy‑melon 19:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

adding list of types of entries

{{editprotected}}

Adding types of entries subsection, reusing the reference I gave on my above editprotected request.

Under "Awards granted", please add:

===Types of entries===The Webby Awards accept four types of entries: Websites, Interactive Advertising, Online Film & Video, (outstanding Online Film & Video that is premiering on the Web) and Mobile, which recognizes the emerging category of Mobile Websites.<ref name="categories" />

Cheers --Enric Naval (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Happy‑melon 15:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hum, actually, I think I'll wait until the page is unprotected, since this should take a few BOLD, revert, discuss cycles before getting it right --Enric Naval (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine. For what it's worth the change looks good to me and not very bold. Looks like incremental improvements and additions to the article. Wikidemo (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposition 2 (by Dario D.) Heavily Refined Criticism Section

I propose this section (re-titled, toned down, and cleaned up as per Jeremy McCracken's suggestions), adding a new citation from Slate (which is run by the Washington Post):

Take 1 (similar to the old version, with fixed citations)

Criticisms

The Webby Awards have been criticized due to the fact that website participants have to pay to be judged, and pay to attend their own awards ceremony,. While the Webby's send out fliers to website owners, claiming to be "the Oscars of the Internet", a core problem remains that the Webbys do not judge a vast majority of websites, and therefore are secluded into only awarding websites that have either paid to be judged, or been manually selected by the Webbys for inclusion. The Chicago Tribune reports:

"There is nothing 'top' about the Webbys," wrote Gawker Media impresario Nick Denton, calling them a "scam" with awards "bought by contestants, who are charged application and attendance fees."

--

Take 2

(heavily reworked, so that the claims are more closely tied in with what the cited sources are literally saying)

Criticisms The Webby Awards have been criticized due to the fact that website participants have to pay to be judged, and pay to attend their own awards ceremony. Slate, a Washington Post magazine, criticized, "The group charges a fee of $275 for Web sites and up to $475 for each advertising-campaign entry."

While the Webby's send out fliers to website owners, claiming to be "the Oscars of the Internet", a core problem remains that the Webbys do not judge a vast majority of websites, and therefore are secluded into only awarding websites that have either paid to be judged, or been manually selected by the Webbys for inclusion. This exclusivity has drawn fire from critics, as the Chicago Tribune reports: "There is nothing 'top' about the Webbys," wrote Gawker Media impresario Nick Denton, calling them a "scam" with awards "bought by contestants, who are charged application and attendance fees." Slate also comments: "…and the honorees also benefit from exercising their bragging rights to clients and competitors who aren't smart enough to know a Webby Award is worthless."

In Take 1, I was going to remove "...a core problem remains that the Webbys do not judge a vast majority of websites, and therefore are secluded into only awarding websites that have either paid to be judge..." but I couldn't being myself to do it, because how on Earth is that not *entirely* true? The cited sources also burn that one into the ground.

I was also trying to find a way to change the intro "...the fact that website participants have to pay to be judged, and pay to attend their own awards ceremony", but that pretty much nails it in the center. There just is no variant of that fact, and the Webbys themselves attest to that. --Dario D. (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editor adding defamatory material

A single editor has now added the defamation at least twelve times [10][11][12][13][14][15] [16][17][18][19][20][21], that the Webby Awards are a "Who's Who scam", i.e. (i.e. a "fraud"[22]), with the avowed purpose of interfering with their business.

Background

The Webbies

It is hardly necessary to introduce the Webby Awards. Anyone who knows the Web has run into them. They started 12 years ago as a "best of web" award for web designers and, in recent years, interactive advertisers, content providers, and so on. Mayors Rudy Giuliani of New York and Willie Brown of San Francisco pulled out all stops to land them in their respective cities[23][24][25]. Eventually New York won.[26] The organization has 5.3 million google hits[27], 2,500 to 3,000 news articles[28] [29] (some random examples: Forbes, New York Times, CNN, CNet, PC World, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New Yorker, the Guardian, Times of London), 270 mentions in Wikipedia[30], just under 200 books[31], and 200 google scholar hits[32]. We have a WP:CATEGORY just for them with seven pages on the Webbies alone, and several dozen pages in subcategories.

The organization has no obvious operations other than its yearly awards ceremony, which it sustains through entry fees, event tickets, and corporate sponsorships (including Variety (magazine), Wired (magazine), Reuters, New York Times, Getty Images, Adobe Systems, and Nokia, among others).[33] Every year about 8,000 websites enter for a fee of $100 to $400, and an "academy" of 550 professionals including Arianna Huffingtons, Rob Glaser, Matt Groenig, Richard Branson, Harvey Weinstein, New York Times journalists, etc., narrow the field to five featured "nominees", and from there to one "Webby Awards Winner" and one "People's Voice Winner" in each of about 120 categories,[34] plus four overall "Special Achievement Winners".[35] PricewaterhouseCoopers has "audited" or "oversee[n]" the vote tabulations since 1998.[36] There are countless reliable sources on how this all works. A useful introduction here.here.

Editor stirs up trouble

I first found the article in early January it was an utter mess[37] I did a copyedit and clean-up, removing impertinent material and some WP:PEACOCK terms, organizing, taking out an off-base "criticism" sourced to a blog, and adding a new template I had created to help organize the long unencyclopedic list of past winners.[38]

Soon after Darrio D., a 21-year-old game designer from California who had never heard of the contest,[39] received a "flier"[sic] by snail mail, inviting him to participate in the Webbies. He did some "online research" only to find blogs gawker and Gothamist (among the 5.3 million other google hits) "talking crap" about the organization.[40] In his first ostensible edit (unless there are WP:SOCKs) he reposted the "crap" he found, along with bizarre stalkerish accusations he added to the mainspace article that I had "repeatedly" deleted content and that he has traced my IP address "to the immediate area of the Webby Award"[41] (in fact I edited it only once, and I have no idea where the Webby Award might be located - a Webby hole perhaps?). He packed at least a dozen errors and policy/guideline violations Dario into his edit[42], including the charge that an organization named Scambusters.org confirmed the Webbies as a "scam" when in fact the source said the exact opposite, using the Webbies as an example of a "legitimate site".[43]. He then brought an arbitration case against me that was quickly dismissed as a content dispute, in the process saying I am "obviously a member of the Webby Awards, having authored almost the entire article"[44] and haranguing the Arbitration Committee with a "complaint about the complaint process"[45] among other things.

A number of people, in addition to me,[46] either reverted[47][48] or tried to help this person[49][50][51] [52][53][, including a member of the Arbitration Committee advising him to "consider the possibility that what Wikidemo is saying is right".[54] Undaunted, he launched a new round of revert wars and procedure games (including a second arbitration case, griping about arbitration again[55], and a forum-shopping "request for third opinion" in the middle of that)[56]

Deliberate defamation of a business

Dario vows to accuse the Webby Awards fraud to steer people away from participating. Here he says directly that he wants to post "defamatory" information that he considers "crucially important" - that "TENS OF THOUSANDS (iirc) of people" are "falling prey to their Who's Who scam" (emphasis in original).[57] He wants to "hound this issue" because it is "important for the hordes of people who are dumping their money into their scam."[58] If he doesn't do something to warn people away before the awards this year, he says, the Webbies "scam will march on"[59] so he is "making sure people know" that the Webbies are a scam.[60] The scambusters.org accusation (which he falsely claims accuses Webbies of being a fraud) "carries great impact, and should be known by all with great emphasis."[61]

Whether Dario D believes in his heart that the organization is a scam, deliberately trying to steer customers away from a business falls below Wikipedia standards of good faith. He is clearly misbehaving - only he thinks he is justified. To date, neither Wikipedia policies, the advice of experienced editors, or simple matters of reading comprehension have deterred him. He has a business to disparage, and if it takes months, arbitration cases, uncivil accusations, and long term edit warring, he will persist. That is the essence of tendentious WP:POV editing.

Tendentious incivility

(a very partial list because I have been letting this slide for the most part)

• claiming to engage in wikistalking, bogus COI accusation[62][63]
• "crap", accusations of bad faith, COI[64]
• "crap", accusations of sockpuppetry[65]
• "pretentious", "useless", "crap"[66]
• "crap", "foul diversionary tactics", accusations of sockpuppetry.[67]
• altering talk page headings to make a personal attack[68]
• faking talk page heading to further personal attack[69][70]

Analysis of most recent edit

I should hope it's obvious what is wrong with the disparagement Dario D. has been edit warring over for the past five months, but so there is no doubt I will yet again post in detail what is wrong with it. This time I go point by point over this edit[71], which he has inserted in more-or-less identical form six times in the past eight days.

• Change lede from "The Webby Awards" is an international award to The Webby Awards are a pay-to-inter international award.

Analysis: Dario is trying to establish a foundation here for calling the awards a "scam", and the comment has no other purpose here. The apparent basis of his vitriol against the Webbies (and that of the few bloggers he has latched onto) seems to be a miscomprehension about how awards ceremonies work. In fact, nearly every award or contest in every field charges an entry fee, from the US Open[72] to the Cannes Film Festival (Film Festival#Entry Fee) to the San Francisco International Wine Competition[73] to the Associated Press Managing Editors "Innovator of the Year" award[74]] to the El Paso County, Colorado County Fair[75] charge to enter. I don't mean to draw a close analogy, just to point out that is how contests work. There is absolutely nothing notable about having an entry fee. Saying so as the primary adjective to describe the organization in question is clearly unbalanced, impertinent information.

• "Accusations of being a Scam" headline

Analysis: Um, no. It is highly POV to add in a headline that an organization is accused of being a scam. Even bona fide criticism against highly controversial organizations (e.g. Church of Scientology) does not use that kind of loaded language. Even the Enron article uses the far more neutral word "Scandal." The Webby Awards are, by contrast, hardly a controversial organization. They are clearly not a scam - unless you want to accuse their auditors Price Waterhouse, the New York Times, the Mayor of New York, etc. (see above), of being part of a fraudulent scheme. Nor are the accusations notable in their own right (see below).

• "Due to the fact that website participants have to pay to be judged, and pay to attend their own awards ceremony, The Webby Awards are widely criticized" (cited to an opinion piece in a Chicago Tribune tech/web column).

Analysis: The source does not support the claim. "Due to the fact....." The Tribune does not attribute the entry fee as a cause of the criticism. Putting the argument in the text is simple symnthesis. The article does mention that a single source, the not-very-reliable Gawker.com, criticizes the awards as a "scam" over the entry and attendance fees. So Dario D. has found a shock-gossip blogger who shares a misunderstanding of awards ceremonies, but does that make this material encyclopedic? The Tribune quickly dismisses Gawker's complaint as "overharsh on the awards, which do seem to try to maintain integrity." There is nothing at all in the Tribune article to support the claim that the Webbies are "widely criticized" - it mentions two critics who (in the words of the headlin) "pour vitrol".

• .."also as being a Whos Who scam'"

Analysis:This falsely implies that the Tribune talks about the awards being a Who's Who scam. In fact, the Tribune does not mention it at all. The comment is attributed to two rather unreliable blogs, sfist (part of Gothamist)[76], and thomashawk.com[77]). sfist is clearly sore that the webbies charge to enter - another source that does not understand contests. But it does not say they are a Who's Who scam. Rather they mention that an unnamed "prominent blogger" said so. The Thomas Hawk blog is simply a word-for-word copy of the sfist listing. So, in total, we have a single anonymous author, quoting an anonymous speaker, in a tech blog, saying that something is a scam. On the other side we have 2,500+ articles in major publications describing the awards, which Price Waterhouse audits. It doesn't even pass the reliable sources threshold to mention the blogs, much less the WP#WEIGHT concern to feature a single wild accusation out of thousands (millions if you include unreliable sources like blogs).

• While the Webby's send out fliers to website owners, claiming to be "the Oscars of the Internet",

Analysis:This is uncited and seems to be original research, based on a paper flyer the editor received (see above)

• a core problem remains that

Analysis:Unsourced. It is pure opinion to call something a "core problem", especially without a citation

• that the Webbys do not inlude a vast majority of websites

Analysis:Unsourced, but logically true and irrelevant. Few contests involve every single competitor in the world. We don't have 3 billion women entering Miss Universe or twenty million artists entering every juried art show. For the author to claim that as a "core problem" is WP:SYNTH again, and not very good synthesis. 8,000 entries in one contest is actually quite a lot, and the Tribune piece gives it the opposite criticism, that it is not very exclusive (i.e. too many websites).

• "and therefor are secluded into only awarding websites that have paid to be judged."

Analysis:Apart from not making any sense in logic or English, this is more unsourced speculation / opinion. The reason they are "secluded" (probably he means forced, not hidden away) there is no explanation or logical relationship between not including the vast majority of websites and being forced to charge a fee. Presumably the Webbies charges a fee to cover operations costs and salaries, not to deal with a dearth of entries.

• "There is nothing 'top' about the Webbys," wrote Gawker Media impresario Nick Denton, calling them a "scam" with awards "bought by contestants, who are charged application and attendance fees.

Analysis:utterly not permissible to quote a blog to call a legitimate business organization a scam. Including the exact quote and pointing out that someone actually wrote it does not solve anything. The misleading cite to the Chicago Tribune confirms only that the Gawker author said it, not that it's true. In fact, the Tribune dismisses the quote in the very next sentence as "overharsh" and says the organization tries to maintain integrity.

That's all. There is zero useful content (and a bunch of POV / tendentiousness / bad behavior ) involved in the attempt to disparage the organization. We can't let junk like this accumulate here, and given that it's defamatory content intended to harm a business (see above) it really ought to be summarily removed.

Sorry for the length, just covering all the bases here. Thx, Wikidemo (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I am 200% certain that you are personally involved with the Webbys (though that is my personal assumption, not final accusation). Just the fact that you can generate such a vast, encyclopedic volume of crap (excuse me; "fluff") against every... last... word... in an article is evidence that you are so desperate to defend these awards, that you will go to no end (as you have done) to repel all truth spoken against it. And now, since getting the 3rd opinion was not enough for you (and nothing ever is), now I will seek a 4th opinion.--Dario D. (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been a fourth, fifth, and sixth opinion already, you just aren't listening. If you manage to canvass and forum shop your way to finding another supporter it will not change anything. The material is not suitable for the article for the reasons outlined above, which should be obvious to anyone with common sense or some understanding of Wikipedia content policies. You are on an absurd mission to discredit and drive business away from a legitimate institution. Face the fact, the Webbies are not a Who's Who scam and Wikipedia is not a platform for airing theories like that. Please come to your senses on this and stop wasting your time and others. Wikidemo (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw this at 3O, and thought it looked familiar. It should, because I gave the third opinion the first time. You're basically saying you'll keep changing it no matter how many people say it should remain. I've requested the article be fully protected, and suggest you take it to WP:MEDCAB or formal DR. Resolving disputes centers around reaching consensus; saying outside opinions are wrong because they differ from your own isn't going to solve the dispute. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if my disagreeing with your edits sounded like a put down, but you simply made a bad call here. There's no way it's appropriate to defame (and I don't use that term casually here) a business as a fraudulent operation based on a blog rant. I'm doing it the right way here, trust me. You'll see that I filed an AN/I report (where I explain in more detail why I thought reverting was so important) and the administrators warned him he would be blocked if he continued to edit war. I didn't say I would go against a real consensus, just that forum shopping by fishing for 3rd opinions does not trump policy or generate a legitimate result. There is no consensus for his material anyway - he's misrepresenting the discussions to say otherwise. Perhaps five people have reverted this to date, I'm just the one who took the thankless task of keeping up with it. We're dealing with a problem editor. The dispute will probably be resolved by administrative action if he keeps it up. Please don't encourage him. Wikidemo (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, your distortion of reality here is as amazing your defiance (and relentless energy) in keeping this up, against all the editor's opinions against yours. First of all, of three total Third Opinions we got, two were against you (though they suggested that the accusations section be toned down somewhat, which I did now), and only one was completely in favor of reducing the section to a footnote, IF I couldn't make the wording correlate better with my citations. (which I've now done) I don't see the need to comment on any other points in the above statement, because I assume any editor can see for himself that they are not grounded by anything. Example: "There is no consensus for his material anyway - he's misrepresenting the discussions to say otherwise." I see. And people are supposed to believe that because of what, exactly? This kind of accusation is really commonplace for Wikidemo, and I urge other editors to not get caught up in claims that are not backed by anything.--Dario D. (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am simply protecting the integrity of the project against improper content. Tendentious, uncivil WP:SPA editors who want to edit war over bogus material they want to add to the encyclopedia are just that much more work. I've had to take the time to demonstrate in detail why the proposed material is wrong, although it's obvious. Most informed commentators have agreed. Wikidemo (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment from the peanut gallery: Wikidemo is giving me the impression of having a deeper interest than "simply protecting the integrity of the project against improper content." I see nothing tendentious and uncivil about Dario's participation in this talk page. I see a consensus among all participants here that a criticism of the Webby awards should be included, as a short sentence or at least a footnote, because the source is reliable. Ascribing to others the motivations of defamation and axe-grinding seems incivil, to me. I do agree that some edits Wikidemo reverted have a problem with bias, and apparently Dario agrees also, but can't you guys agree on the content of some criticism and leave it at that? Dario seems to be making a good faith effort to do so, but Wikidemo seems intent on whitewashing this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't encourage this editor. You obviously haven't read the history very closely. I am not "whitewashing" anything. There is nothing to whitewash. I have agreed to some criticism proposed as a compromise (even though it does not belong), and I have even added some myself. He has used Wikipedia as a platform for defamation against a business, with a stated intention of doing so. This is a tendentious editor with a single purpose here, and I am a long-term productive contributor. Don't lump me in with that. 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

AN/I case

Two more reverts, and some further incivility, from this user after I started this section. This is now an Administrators' Noticeboard case. Link here (or, if it's been archived, here. Wikidemo (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute w' "Wikidemo" Constantly Deleting All Criticisms

I would like to discuss this here, before filing an arbitration request, since they won't consider your claims until you've discussed the issue. Now, I presume that negotiating with Wikidemo on this is utterly useless (he/she has been deleting all criticisms ever made for as long as I've known about the Webbys), but that's the procedure. Wikidemo, please let us know how the following is "inappropriate derogatory information", as you stated in my User Talk:

Due to the "pay to enter" policy, The Webby Awards are widely criticized as being a scam,. . While the Webby's send out fliers to website owners, claiming to be "the Oscars of the Internet", a core problem remains that the Webbys do not include a vast majority of websites, and therefor are secluded into only awarding websites that have paid to be judged. The Chicago Tribune cites:

- "There is nothing 'top' about the Webbys," wrote Gawker Media impresario Nick Denton, calling them a "scam" with awards "bought by contestants, who are charged application and attendance fees."

The Chicago Tribune is repeatedly cited (which in turn cites Gawker in its article), and those claims are true and accurate. If you see individual flaws, point them out, and suggest deleting those details; not the whole darn thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.164.208 (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It is true that there has been some criticism of the webbies for their pay-to enter policy and also their proliferation of award categories. However, the criticism, though it truly exists, is minor and unfounded per every legitimate source on the subject. Nearly every industry award in every field works the same way as the Webbies, and most other awards as well - wine competitions, golf tournaments, architecture awards, product packaging honors, you name it. They charge a fee to enter, accept corporate sponsorship, have lots of categories and minor awards, and use the award ceremony and process to support the sponsoring organization. The Chicago Tribune columnist makes clear he feels this way too, and concludes that the awards are legitimate. You are again trying (under several new WP:SOCK accounts, I should point out) to add scattershot, discredited rants by non-notable bloggers claiming that a legitimate organization is a "scam." The webbies are a long-lived professional award that has gotten a tremendous amount of coverage in the world's major publications. Adding nonsense from WP:FRINGE bloggers throws the article out of balance. This is very similar to your last assault on the article, which involved similar tactics and lapses of reason. The last I had left the article, I included a brief statement that the organization had been criticized for charging entry fees. Even that was reverted by another editor as being a WP:WEIGHT problem. Whatever your reason is to try to discredit this organization, you need to back off.Wikidemo (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I do not agree with most of that at all. To begin, if the media is criticizing something (as the Chicago Tribune and Gawker clearly does - and I'll mention in a second how the Chicago Tribune is clearly NOT siding with the Webbys in ANY sense), you can by all means state what those criticisms are on a Wikipedia page, so long as you're naming your sources. If those examples of other criticisable organizations you mentioned are indeed being criticised out there as well, then people can (and do) mention THOSE as well. Why not? The point of a criticisms section is to make the reader aware that there are questionable flaws that need attention, and those flaws are almost NEVER agreed upon by 100% of people. (but you're obviously on the disagreeing side, and are stretching yourself mighty thin to defend the Webbys, as you've been doing for as long as I've known about this page - oh, and please provide a link to where you added your own criticism. Considering how aggressively you hover over this article that I've observed, deleting people's criticisms very often within 30 minutes, I would be extremely surprised that you actually offered a criticism, unless it was purely for the sake of trying to draw a compromise in desperate situations, so that you aren't banned from the article). - Another thing: the Chicago Tribune is certainly not siding with the Webbys in any sense. The entire purpose for the article's posting is casting light on its flaws... and what they say at the end in favor of it is quite simply a thought about what IS useful about the Webbys: the fact that we learn about unheard-of sites from it. That's it. Quote: "But even the bloated Webbys site (webbyawards.com) serves the primary function of such efforts for average users: Pointing us to new and intriguing destinations that can jostle us out of our Internet ruts." How is that in favor? It simply points out that the Webbys DO have a use - but not the one you're claiming, which would debunk the fact that the whole article is all about pointing out Webby criticisms, and even throwing in its own complaints. In that way, it's not even an opinion article: it's mostly citing facts and reporting news about OTHERS who are complaining. - In light of that, I am reposting the complaints for the time-being, because I believe it to be very necessary, and because you've been FAR outweighed by all the people who have ever posted criticisms, and thus don't deserve to have your stance assumed as a default here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.164.208 (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting this tendentious editor again. The only difference between this[78][79][80][81][82][83] and last time[84][85][86][87] this editor and various WP:SOCKs[88][89] attempted to claim this organization is a scam is that now the editor is piling the accusations on the coatrack of a misinterpreted Chicago Tribune news blog that disagrees with some random vitrol in the blogosphere, whereas last time the editor coatracked the criticism off a misinterpreted scambusters listing repudiating the vitrol (not to mention WP:CIVIL violations, personal attacks on me in article space, and a misguided WP:RFAR[90] in which the editor argued with the arbitrators and tried to file a complaint against the arbitration committee). There is no "other side." A few random blog postings, debunked by the more serious media, critical of the Webbies,are not reliable sources and, as a weight matter, do not outweigh thousands of news stories from major publications. I won't even get started again on the bizarre accusations and confrontational behavior from this editor. If the person persists I assume there will be a checkuser and possibly blocking. Wikidemo (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm drowning in fluff, and I see you have no further grounded claims to back your argument, and have said absolutely nothing to discredit mine above, which remains unanswered. No matter - we've both stated our cases, it's obvious that neither of us will budge, so now I'm filing an arbitration report.

Third opinion

• It's sourced to the Chicago Tribune, which would qualify as a WP:RS. I'd say put the section in. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I won't accept that material for the reasons cited. It misrepresents and contradicts the only reliable source it cites, most of it is either unsourced or based on editorials in tech blogs, it is a glaring weight problem, it contains opinion and analysis, and it is an NPOV violation by a tendentious editor who has been trying for months to insert this material using socks. Please do not encourage problem editors here. The Webby Awards are obviously not a scam. In reality, and by all accounts, they have been the premier event of the web design industry for the past twelve years, the Cannes Film Festival so to speak, the main event. Anyone near the industry can tell you that. There are 2,500+ articles (see above) in major publications (CNN, Time, Fortune, New York Times, Forbes, etc) that describe the award and support 5-8 related articles. Yet there are are a handful bloggers - for the most part tech bloggers, who are notoriously contentious - calling it exaggerated names based on a misconception of how awards ceremonies work. The criticism is in substance that they charge an entry fee, they do not consider people who do not pay to enter, and there are so many awards categories that a great many entrants are rewarded with an honor. But that's how nearly every contest and awards ceremony in the world works, Cannes included. The source here is Gawker, a "snarky" gossip blog, and a self-published blog called "thomashawk.com". Some material is original research and not cited at all (flyers preclaiming it the "Oscars of the Internet", that the "vast majority of websites" are not included and that this is a "core problem", etc). The Chicago Tribune is a source for only two things in the paragraph: that the Webbies are "widely criticized" (the article does not say that, and concludes that the criticism is wrong) and that a certain quote appeared in Gawker - something that adds nothing because we can figure that out for ourselves by reading Gawker. The Tribune quoting Gawker does not make Gawker a reliable source. The Tribune goes on to say like every other reliable source that the Webbies are not a scam. There is no reason to include the Gawker quote. Earlier I had added a simple statement that the Webbies had been criticized for charging an entry fee and having many categories, but even that was removed by another editor on weight grounds. Why include an entire paragraph, sourced to a single article out of 2,500, that mentions that false accusations were made about the subject here? Reliability of sourcing is only a threshold. We do not print everything that has a source. The standard for inclusion is relevance, neutral point of view, and encyclopedic value. One can source about almost any person or company of any size in the world that someone speaks ill of them on a blog. There is no value at all, and it is harmful to our attempt to describe things neutrally and accurately. Wikidemo (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(comment by Dario D.) Thank you for your opinion, Jeremy. To refute Wikidemo's above argument, please see the section just above this one; the paragraph that begins with "Oh, I do not agree..." And to answer the beginning part of the above argument, 1) I have already stated that I do not use Socks (you can do an IP check on all suspected accounts. I only login via Dario D., and if I am not logged in, then it reports my IP address), 2) I have no biased interest in the Webbys (my interest is a basic humanitarian protection for people who think the awards are fair and balanced, and pay between $100-$400 just to have their websites JUDGED, and then another hefty fee to attend their own awards ceremony), 3) Wikidemo, you have ever sounded EXTREMELY biased toward the Webbys, 4) Cannes entry is free, and any contests/awards that want you to believe that they are all-encompassing, yet are extremely exclusive, are next to have a Criticisms section if sources feel like criticizing them... You cannot presuppose that one evil justifies another, and cancels out the fact that reliable sources are criticizing even one of them, 4) don't claim that the Webbys judge non-paying sites, because they did not judge MINE (not that I *ever* wanted to participate), and they quite obviously award celebrity-related sites that did not pay to enter for publicity, not fairness - point being, probably 90% of the net is not judged (at least), and people need to know that the whole thing is being criticized, 5) might I add again how incredibly desperate you sound to keep this (obviously valid) criticism off the Webbys page... --Dario D. (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You won't stop, will you? I've reverted this nonsense yet again. The material is completely inappropriate for reasons I and other editors have explained over the past couple months. Please cut it out. Wikidemo (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Now you are getting outrageously out of hand. I say the exact same thing to you, but with 3 main differences: 1) NOBODY has spoken against my Chicago Tribune criticisms, except you, 2) we did a Third Opinion, and the assisting editor was in favor of MY argument, and 3) your removal of my edits is without an agreed-upon foundation, whereas mine are backed by the above. --Dario D. (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The above is a complete misstatement of the history of this article. "We" did not do anything. After being told, universally, that his edits were improper, this long-term tendentious editor canvassed and forum shopped until he found one person to offer an uninformed opinion that he believes to support his inappropriate efforts. If this were a peripheral issue and the editor were operating in good faith the default in such a case would be to remove contentious material like this promptly pending any dispute resolution. However, he is accusing a legitimate institution of being a fraud with an avowed purpose to drive business away from them; hence there is an issue among other things of using Wikipedia as a platform for defamation. I have reverted the inappropriate material from this yet again, and will shortly prepare a summary of the issue. Wikidemo (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fourth opinions

I'm more then willing to believe the webby awards are open to criticism from reliable sources, or even a scam. However, I don't see any such reference. One article from the trib, which just quotes views from a few blogs, is at best a footnote to the article. There are thirteen articles in the NY Times alone that reference the webby's, and not one is critical of the award itself. The critical wording proposed is way out of line with reputable source quotes, or anything I could find searching the web. --Work permit (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Another request was posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Wikidemo, the third opinion page doesn't work for canvassing; the person who gave the third opinion in the previous section likely saw it on the list of pleas, like I did, and responded. I happen to agree, the source qualifies as reliable. Even if the sources used by the Chicago Tribune are blogs, if that newspaper found the criticisms worthy enough to comment on, then it's worthy enough for Wikipedia to comment on – but only briefly, keeping in mind the undue weight principle. I don't believe the subject deserves an entire section devoted to it, but it's worth a mention, or even a footnote as Work Permit recommends above.

Three people have now weighed in with outside opinions. I hope that is enough, and you guys can get past this. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment / proposed resolution

Actually, eight or ten people in total, perhaps more, have commented over time and in various places: three from third opinion board, several administrators from AN/I, some people from ArbCom, and assorted people here in article and talk space. There seems to be general agreement that the proposed material is inappropriate but that the Tribune is a reliable source for saying that the organization has been criticized by some bloggers for charging an entry fee (and also as being nonselective). See the proposal below, with which I can agree. It's still a weight problem - a single reliable source mentions criticism, and thousands of reliable sources describe the event without mentioning that sort of criticism - but it's not untrue, and if it will put this to rest it's a fine resolution. As I have tried to make clear by objection is not to the existence of criticism, or the use of the Tribune as a source. It's the specific content, not supported by any source, and the attempt at defamation. Wikidemo (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, 1) First, I see you are inventing people who agree with you, to try to tilt the scales against all the Third and Fourth opinions, and invalidate their consensus. 2) Second of all, the ArbCom never had anything to say about "the proposed material (being) inappropriate". All they did was say that we needed to get a Third Opinion before filing for Arbitration - and so now we've got 3 third-opinions, and they weigh drastically in my favor. 3) Third, whatever "assorted people" you're talking about certainly didn't outweigh those in FAVOR of having the criticisms, even by a third. 4) You say, "a single reliable source mentions criticism, and thousands of reliable sources describe the event without mentioning that sort of criticism." Relying on a logic like that is like saying there aren't any happy people in Africa, because the news only reported them three times last year. It doesn't change anything: the fact is that there is criticism being reported by *extremely* reliable sources out there, and people have the right to know about that. The goal of Wikipedia is to provide "the sum of all human knowledge", and this is part of it. 5) Finally, you also say: "See the proposal below, with which I can agree." You say that as if you didn't write it... I just wanted to state that I'm getting tired of your foul, diversionary tactics to make other editors think you have everything your way (how can you think that???) and that I'm a purple goblin surrounded by a tornado of exactly the same crap that I'm accusing you of. For the record, all I have ever brought to this argument is what I believe to be correct, fair, and beneficial to the knowledge of Wikipedia readers who might fall prey to the sum of these criticisms. My perception is that you have a profound bias toward protecting the Webbys that is yet to appear logical, and I, as a perfectly balanced human being toward this issue, am yet to understand it.--Dario D. (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Your poor behavior here is not worth a response except to say that you're wildly misrepresenting the record, including material that's on this very page, and I'm adding yet another warning on your talk page for continued incivility. 23:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as I suspected. This is the third time you've left my argument completely undisputed. - And OH BOY, it's time for another of Wikidemo's "warnings" on my talk page! [theme song] I don't see how these aren't considered harassment.--Dario D. (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to respond to obvious errors I have already refuted, particularly when you are misrepresenting what people said, accusing me of sockpuppetry and calling me "foul". This is getting really tiresome. If you continue along this line you will almost certainly be blocked sooner or later. Wikidemo (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible compromise: A one-liner describing the controversy at the very end of the History section

The Chicago Tribune article is an opinion piece, but it is a reliable enough source, and gives a summary of the critical viewpoints, so I think it can be used with care.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that Dario's proposed edits are way over the top. A one-liner describing the controversy is plenty, and it should not be given its own section or be in the intro text, as this gives it undue prominence.

How about:

"The Webbies have been occasionally criticized for a lack of selectivity, and for charging participants an entry fee."

I think that is more than enough to cover the controversy. It does not need it's own section, and it does not need more than that. Comments? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no objection to that statement, and in fact had earlier added a somewhat similar statement [91] that was later removed as a weight / sourcing problem[92] (now arguably overcome by the Tribune article). Nothing wrong with reporting that criticism exists. If the other editor will agree to let it remain at that maybe we can unprotect the article and go about other things. Wikidemo (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

perfect. Its more then enough weight--Work permit (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not sit well with a statement so plain, in the face of an issue that challenges the entire validity of the awards (it also only covers a small portion of the issue). Saying "The Webbies have been occasionally criticized for a lack of selectivity, and for charging participants an entry fee," is like saying, "Hitler is sometimes seen in documentaries, telling his forces to kill less than 1% of the Jewish population. That's a small amount, right? So it doesn't need its own criticism section, right?" It just doesn't justify what is happening. I think the issue deserves a normal criticism section, like any other article on Wikipedia. (see below section) --Dario D. (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please note - For the record I did not write this proposal, and I have no idea why this person goes to such uncivil[93] and bizarre[94][95] lengths to claim I did, Godwin's Law notwithstanding. - Wikidemo (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought you had implied that you wrote this.--Dario D. (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Compromise attempt

It's good that everyone is discussing the concerns here. I liked what I saw above, but it's not completely neutral. Might I suggest a one-line statement:

The organization has been criticized for charging entry fees for participating websites. (citations from Slate and the Tribune)

It doesn't need to be a whole section for all of this; on the other hand, saying "occasionally" isn't neutral wording (neither would be including "often" or "heavily"; let's keep it adverb-free). There's been a lot of {{editprotected}}'s above on stuff not related to the controversy section; it would really be good to have something hammered down so it can be unlocked. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly agree to that as a compromise, and hold any concerns I have about it. Wikidemo (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I made an above comment on why I think a 1-liner is hardly fair to this issue. Since I can't link to the comment itself, and since it's getting nearly impossible to find, I'll repost it below, just after this comment. Also, see my proposal here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Webby_Awards#Proposition_2_.28by_Dario_D..29_Heavily_Refined_Criticism_Section) --Dario D. (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not sit well with a statement so plain, in the face of an issue that challenges the entire validity of the awards (it also only covers a small portion of the issue). In my opinion, merely saying "The organization has been criticized for charging entry fees for participating websites," is almost as subtle as saying, "Hitler is sometimes seen in documentaries, telling his forces to kill less than 1% of the Jewish population. That's a small amount, right? So it doesn't need its own criticism section, right?" It just doesn't justify what is happening. I think the issue deserves a normal criticism section, like any other article on Wikipedia. You only toss criticisms aside without a section if they do not attack the very core of what the article is all about. Extreme weight issue. These criticisms aren't complaining about some leaking faucet in the Webby's bathroom; they attack its very existence. - (Again, I recommend seeing my proposed Criticisms section linked above.) --Dario D. (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your concern, but keep in mind that content length =/= amount of criticism. A lot of the longer section is direct quotes, but using direct quotes isn't really necessary. Also, we're a bit short on sources, having two editorials talking about this. If this had wider attention, say Dateline NBC doing an expose on it, it would be much more well known. That's the difference between this and Hitler. Some articles have a criticism section, Hitler probably has half a dozen articles based on facets of criticism. It really comes down to how wide the criticism is. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

JeremyMcCracken has explained it well. Regarding the Hitler analogy, I'd first point to Godwin's Law and caution you to be careful about that. I'd also point out that this analogy is absurd. You have two blogs and one opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune that criticize the Webbies, and that's it.

This is a take-it-or-leave-it compromise. Frankly, there is so little coverage of criticism of the Webbies that it is a stretch to put it in the article at all. I thought a one-liner was fair, but if we want to adhere strictly to Wikipedia policy, there is not enough notable criticism to even put that in. (The blogs don't count at all as per WP:SPS, so all we have is a wishy-washy mildly-critical opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune. Talk about WP:UNDUE...)

So, it's your call Dario: Compromise on a one-liner, or adhere strictly to policy and don't include any criticism. Take your pick. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This has gone on long enough. All of us who offered third opinions are in agreement that mention of criticism is desirable, but only a short 1-liner or a footnote. Wikidemo can live with it. I suggest that Dario live with it as well, and all of us can get on with our lives. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise... but first I want to point out to Jaysweet that there are no blog citations at all. There are two sources cited: The Chicago Tribune, and Slate (a Washington Post magazine), which is also viciously critical. If that changes things enough, I would prefer having a much shorter Criticism section than none at all. A mere note at the bottom of the History section is acceptable, but considering how little people like me read history sections (who cares about history, anyway? The Criticisms are attacking the now)... well, let me quote again how I put it above: not having a Crit section just because it isn't more widely criticized would be "like saying there aren't any happy people in Africa, because the news only reported them three times last year. It doesn't change anything: the fact is that there is criticism being reported by *extremely* reliable sources out there, and people have the right to know about that" with as much exposure as any other criticisms section, I personally think. And I personally do not see this as an undue weight issue, for the above-mentioned reason: both of the cited sources go after the very core of the Webbys, and challenge their very validity. - But again, if others do not see the citations as being weighty enough to warrant even a short Crit section, I'm still more than willing to compromise to what the majority wants, and mention something in the History (or elsewhere).

By the way, here is a Photoshop mockup of what a small Crit section would look like, aiming specifically to carry less weight:

http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/6476/webbysrf7.jpg --Dario D. (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: Wikidemo always deleted my modified intro to the article that said: "The Webby Awards is a pay-to-enter international award honoring..." How is saying that it's "pay-to-enter" not more true than truthiness itself? What OTHER kind of award is it? A human being's default definition of "award" is that you don't have to pay anything - you assume your works are freely honored by will of the committee - so it only serves people right to understand that this is not a *normal* type of award at all, which is the reason for this entire dispute in the first place. I would think that it's just as fair as any of the articles out there that begin with "the X is a free service" or "the X is a free-to-attend gathering", except that this one happens to be embarrassing to the Webbys, since they do not fit the default definition of an award service, which is to give the awards freely (maybe even with prize money).--Dario D. (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Dario D. proposal and the Jaysweet proposal, above in this section, both are verifiable and faithful to reliable sources, except that "vast majority" is an unclear superlative whether cited or not. I will accept any consensus others would reach on the exact wording and whether to emphasize the material by giving it a section heading. Had this been the proposal from the beginning it never would have been an issue. "Pay to enter" is problematic because it is a meaningless designation that serves only as a foundation for the criticism section. Our job is not to embarrass the Webbies. But the entry and attendance fees aren't anything hidden or shameful. Nearly all awards in every genre are pay-to-enter (as I mention and cite in my discussion, above) so using that adjective as the primary identifier in the lede serves only to attempt a negative comment without providing useful information. There would be nothing wrong with a properly sourced mention of the fees in the body of the article, perhaps in the "Awards granted" section. Wikidemo (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll go out on a limb and say that it doesn't have to be a one-liner, but with two sources that are opinion pieces, it's pretty hard to go beyond that without fluffing it. I don't think an ultimatum should be delivered, and strict adherence to guidelines doesn't require cutting criticisms out. Certainly, these are valid sources. With only two of them, however, there's little left to write. If I over-generalized things, maybe you can make a one or two sentence proposal that's more specific without being overly specific. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a 2-liner or more crit section could suffice, but I'm actually also quite happy with this 1-liner here. I feel it's fair enough and balanced enough, without overdoing things... but if you or anyone else would ever like to add to it, that's completely fine with me. That's what Wikipedia is all about. :) So, is this done? --(talk) 19:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like an okay compromise, if somebody would like to draft it.

As far as some of Dario's comments, it all comes down to WP:UNDUE. Again the Africa analogy is inapt, because there are more sources out there than just a couple of opinion pieces talking about unhappy people in Africa. And the "pay-to-enter" in the intro is uncalled for because it is an obvious attempt at a disguised hatchet job. It would be like if the intro text to Dick Cheney read: "Dick Cheney is the face-shooting current vice-president of the United States".  ;) Yes, it is true, but that detail is not central to what the article is all about, at least not according to the majority of reliable sources (I know Dario feels differently)

I hope the 2-liner thing sticks. :) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's my draft: (by the way, Jaysweet, I find it difficult to do a 2-liner without repeating what's already been said in previous drafts, but if you or anyone else can think of a way to expand this, that's fine with me. I'm under the impression digging up old phrases is a no-no, as I thought this was a weight issue, and that keeping it super small was key... unless I misunderstand you):

Criticisms

The Webbys have been criticized for their pay-to-enter and pay-to-attend policies, and the fact that they do not judge most websites before distributing their awards.

--Dario D. (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not bad at all. I don't feel great about the wording of the last part -- is it an established "fact" that >50% of the awards have no judging whatsoever? I liked "lack of selectivity" better, but I see why you want to be more explicit.

On the plus side, I think this covers all of the necessary points without being inflammatory, and the length seems appropriate. Good work! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You could simply say "and for lack of selectivity" or "and for not taking most websites under consideration." Wikidemo (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I like Wikidemo's second on there; the wording is better. How about "...and for not taking most websites into consideration before distributing the awards." JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That looks fair. Wikidemo (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that. So, here's another take (below). We all seem to be in agreement, so how do we get the page unlocked, and this added now?: --Dario D. (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

The Webbys have been criticized for their pay-to-enter and pay-to-attend policies, and for not taking most websites into consideration before distributing their awards.

If Wikidemo signs off that he agrees to this, I'll go to WP:RFPP and ask for it to be unprotected. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Well, he said "That looks fair" above, and so I made a draft of what he said looked fair. (unless I'm missing something here)--Dario D. (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fine by me. Thanks all. Wikidemo (talk)

All right everything's done. We went from accusations of bad faith and COI to a very good compromise. See what happens when we work together? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Update

The editor advocating for the "scam" claim has twice now re-introduced it,[96] supported by a rather aggressive new column in Gawker[97] (an opinion piece in a non-reliable source. Among other things, the column says they were "were always a joke" for "Internet fanboys and fangirls", were "ridiculous". Reviewing the above, it is clear that the proposal to have Gawker call the Webbies a "scam" and to call them a "pay-to-enter" award in thelede, were both edit warred over extensively (14+ revert cycles, last revert here[98]), and we agreed to the above compromise version. The fact that Gawker posts an even more strident hit piece this year, accusing its founder of being a "no-talent" self-promoter with an "iffy" film career, does not give justification for going back on the understanding to avoid reprinting these things in detail. There is clearly some discontent with the commercial direction the Webbies took in later years, and attendant cheapening of standards, and that is fairly reflected in the compromise wording. However, the Webbies were (and are sourced as being) a major event that was taken seriously by much of the Internet industry and community at large, particularly in its first few years. Wikidemon (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The above is just statement after statement of your own personal opinion. I see almost nothing that's even worth refuting, because you're just making claims. Gawker is an extremely well-respected source (they're the same company as Gizmodo and Lifehacker), and their (long) Wikipedia article doesn't even mention anything about ANY kind of unreliability. Also, on my talk page, you pretentiously (and falsely) say: "We have already agreed to leave that out. Please do not renege on your agreement, and don't edit war." How on EARTH have I agreed to leave out an article that wasn't even written until very recently? The other editors even recommended that I elaborate more on the original Crit section (just without the original sources), but I specifically chose to keep it short.--[ Dario D. ] 20:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The citations to support those statements can be found in the extensive discussion, above. Last year, after considerable trouble and fuss, as well as administrative intervention, we agreed to the sentence in the section immediately above: The Webbys have been criticized for their pay-to-enter and pay-to-attend policies, and for not taking most websites into consideration before distributing their awards.[14][15] We considered and specifically did not agree to the quote you wanted to insert,[99] attributed to the Chicago Tribune: "There is nothing 'top' about the Webbys," wrote Gawker Media impresario Nick Denton, calling them a "scam" with awards "bought by contestants, who are charged application and attendance fees." This year you want to add instead: Gawker calls the awards a scam, saying about them, "Among the inside crowd, the Webby Awards were always a joke, a masquerade where Internet fanboys and fangirls played dress-up and feigned the red-carpet rituals of Hollywood's real ceremonies. But somewhere along the way, the organizers figured out that this goofy charade could be milked for profit." If we rejected having Gawker call the Webbies a scam last year, and you agreed, what is so different this year that you want to back out of the consensus? There is no point arguing that this particular article[100] is a reliable source, that's pointless. To start with, the story is from Valleywag, the notorious Silicon Valley gossip blog, not Gawker. But the lack of reliability is plain from the text of the article. Reliable sources don't call the founder of an organization talent-less in a hit piece on the organization.Wikidemon (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Dollars involved

If reliable sources could cited, it would be appropriate to include information on the submission prices, attendance prices, and/or overall budget of the organization running the awards. The submission/attendance prices, in addition to being of general interest about the topic, also provide useful context in understanding the criticism described at the end of the article. Someone in a 2008 comment above mentioned that the organization took in over $2 million, and gave out 119 awards. This probably-non-RS webpage said 2001 submissions had a $75 fee, and this 2012 bloggish post listed fees of $150-$495 in various categories. Agyle (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Launched by World Wide Web Organization?

Apologize in advance for the double-posting. I posted the same question on Talk:List of Webby Award winners but haven't gotten a response yet. The list page says the Webby Awards started from 1994 and the first two-year's presenter was World Wide Web Organization. As far as I know, this description had been mentioned on the Webby Awards page (i.e. the parent page), but deleted at some point and there is no external source to back up. If so, I will scrap off WWW Organization from the list page (i.e. the sub page). FYI: I am translating the Webby Award page from English to Japanese. Your response would be much appreciated. --Mis0s0up (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Meaning and significance of Nominee, Honoree

I notice that many people/organizations/sites tout their being a Webby honoree or nominee, and some Wikipedia articles include this like it's significant (e.g. Technorati, Door Number 3, Timo Hannay) though it's not clear if this if this just amounts to filling out a form and paying a fee in the less popular categories; categories seem to generally have up to 5 nominees, from which a webby award and people's choice award are given, and may list a variable number of additional "honorees". I'm not sure if there's a reliable source on what these terms really mean, or that cover the reality of how they're selected (i.e. is "honoree" something of a rubber stamp, or are many entrants excluded from even that status). The current section "Nomination process" seems to be based only on what the Webby awards say (i.e. no secondary sources are cited), and doesn't use these terms, though presumably the "short list" means "nominee". Agyle (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend you to insert a sentence about Honorees like this: "Less than 15% of entries in the Webby Awards are deemed Official Honorees.", according to the Webby Awards official definition. Top 15% or less means significant or completely nothing. It's totally up to readers. But at least you can show the fact that there are too many honorees every year. On the other hand, top 5 nominees are truly honored in some categories - same as Academy Awards. I wish I could edit the page, but English is my second language, so I refrain from direct edit without proofreading. --Mis0s0up (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Webby Award. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119003246/http://www.webbyawards.com/press/press-release.php?id=185 to http://www.webbyawards.com/press/press-release.php?id=185
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110815040513/http://www.webbyawards.com/press/speeches.php to http://www.webbyawards.com/press/speeches.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

See also Wikipedia talk:Webby Awards

---

Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 05:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning Wikipedia

What's wrong with mentioning Wikipedia in the article? Guaka 19:17, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The comment that was deleted was about Wikipedia, not about the Webbies. It didn't belong in this article. Markalexander100 21:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that. But why doesn't it belong in the article? Guaka 00:06, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you mention Wikipedia, then you'd better mention some other winners and nominees, too. Kent Wang 00:15, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But why doesn't it belong in the article? Because the article is for information about the Webbies, not for information about Wikipedia. The info might be worth putting in the Wikipedia article, but I'd wait until we actually win something. Markalexander100 06:51, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 05:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)