Talk:Boing Boing/Archive 1

"Response" section
I have moved this here for discussion:


 * While Boingboing.net is a very popular and influential site, it has also attracted a somewhat mixed response from the online community, with some attacking the site for what they see as its smugness and insularity. The site has been frequently parodied, and individual contributors have been parodied as well. The blog xenisucks.com, for instance, began as a parody allegedly written by Xeni Jardin herself before abandoning this angle and becoming an ongoing series of posts openly attacking her personality and latest doings.

Lots of weasel words and unsourced statements here. Further, it is a variant of the "Criticism" debate from May 2006 on Xeni Jardin and Cory Doctorow. This needs to follow the consensus guidelines established for that article. Jokestress 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I hadn't known about the whole controversy. I was trying to write about the controversy without taking any obvious side, but it seems I may have been too vague. Unfortunately I'm not really sure how to be more specific without bringing in a lot of links, which might give this topic more attention than it deserves. Multiverse 23:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Multiverse


 * No problem. As I mentioned on your talk page, it's a complex issue. The article can have something like this:


 * In addition to professional accolades, Boing Boing readers have expressed a range of responses about the site. Published source one says "___" (footnote). Published source two says "___" (footnote).


 * There has been a lot of discussion about what constitutes a notable and reliable source in this case. Most blogs are not notable enough, but if a blog or site has been quoted in a reliable published source, whatever was said in the published source is acceptable. And don't worry about adding citations. Articles like this need them so others can confirm the information is reliable and verifiable. If you have questions about a source or comment you'd like to add, just put it below, and we can all discuss it. Jokestress 00:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster
Why is there a link to the F.S.M. from the BoingBoing page? Admittedly the FSM and Pastafarian movement has been featured on BoingBoing, but they talk more about the Pirates Of The Carribean ride than they ever did about FSM. So why the link? - IanM. July 09, 2006.


 * Agreed, I was just coming in to ask that myself. Unless they had a big hand in inventing it, I don't see the need for the link, so in accordance with the "Be Bold" policy, I'm going to remove it. Kat, Queen of Typos 12:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sean Bonner
I'm not associated with BoingBoing in anyway. So what if they write about me from time to time or post submissions I send in, I'm an active reader of the site. Are people who are actually familiar with the site not allowed to edit it? Sean Bonner 01:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are allowed to edit this article. I removed the tag with the strange implication that you shouldn't be. Jokestress 02:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So is Doctorow. But, it seemed like people should know where his interests lay. A google search (site:boingboing.net "Sean Bonner") shows Sean 213 times. John Batelle the 'band manager' only shows up 3 times. Dstanfor 04:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To be fair, it's Battelle (two T's)- it generates 163 hits. But your point stands. Bonner is often referred to as friend (http://www.boingboing.net/2004/10/29/sean_bonners_dispatc.html), buddy (http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/01/xeni_get_your_gun.html), "Boing Boing pal" (http://www.boingboing.net/2003/08/13/sony_ericsson_t616_r.html), etc. He (and Doctorow, like you say) is allowed to edit the page, but he has a clear personal relationship to Boing Boing's editors and--to the extent that they promote the gallery he owns--a financial interest in the traffic they drive to his site. 68.40.181.69 04:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * my mistake on the spelling error. Dstanfor 06:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Superdickery
Anyone reading this page might be interested in knowing that Superdickery is up for deletion. It's been mentioned on Boing Boing twice. samwaltz 19:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion is closed. The article is being kept. samwaltz 14:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

boingboingboing
just wondering if we could get a mention about the boing boing boing podcast that boing boing does??

will —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.112.17 (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Worldchanging Interview
The worldchanging external link has essentially nothing to do with Boing Boing. I personally tend to find Cory Doctorow ridiculous, so I am going to forgo editing the article, but somebody might want to go ahead and move the link somewhere more appropriate. Maxerickson (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

NYT cite
If there still are any questions about notability or reliable sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/business/media/07link.html?ref=business http://www.flickr.com/photos/violetblue/2648129618/ (You may have to google "poof you're unpublished" if nytimes.com gives you the usual "sign up" crap. Or try http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/07/business/07link.php) 77.183.102.45 (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Violet Blue Controversy
This seems like an oddly minor factoid to put up on Wikipedia. It reads likes a breaking news story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.226.146 (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the content was:
 * Sex blogger Violet Blue has, in the past, been regularly mentioned in Boing Boing, including a being the subject of a Boing Boing Boing interview. On the 23rd of June 2008, Blue posted on Tiny Nibbles that all posts making mention of her had been deleted from Boing Boing, without explanation.

Two relevant links on the topic
 * http://eve.vox.com/library/post/violet-vanishes.html
 * http://valleywag.com/5019738/blogger-completely-deleted-from-boingboing-archives

Since the consequences of covert content removals and subsequent refusal to comment about the issue would be severe for the reputation of boingboing.net, yes, it's rather notable within the scope of the blogosphere, and thus notable for the article.

The issue can be sourced (independent people wrote about it), and it can be verified (via the google cache link in addition to the other pages). It is part of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy not to leave out notable disputes of the article's subjects, legal or otherwise.

While I object to the single-purpose account User:Norquist9 calling it "(removing vandalism.)" - I agree that this shouldn't be included until everyone has had a chance to clear things up. They might currently be bound by a legal gagging order, for example. Let's hope so. 77.183.102.197 (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, the above line appears to be factual. It should stay.

It should stay.

76.114.208.230 (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we please hear from Norquist? You are so insistent on its removal that you're willing to go 5RR =).


 * As user Ben Burch wrote in his comments on the Violet Blue entry, where you were also attempting to force this issue for whatever reasons, Yeago -- "Not a notable event in the career of a barely-notable author." And by extension, not a notable event in the lifespan of an 8 year old blog with tens of thousands of entries, most of which never mentioned Violet Blue. She wasn't a Boing Boing contributor or author, and she still has the ability to blog anywhere she likes. So what's the news here? The fact that Blue's own boyfriend, "Wikiwikimoore" (aka Jonathan Moore) was so promptly involved in forcing this content into the Boing Boing entry says a lot. So no, it shouldn't stay, it's ridiculous that there are 5 total sections to the Boing Boing entry and this non-news, forced by non-neutral parties for conflicted reasons, would be one of those 5. Norquist9 (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, whether BoingBoing had a total of 6 or 6^1000 blog entries doesn't change the fact that many sources unrelated-to-the-author are bringing attention to this event, and also, that they are conveying the emergence of a pattern of discontent with the way BoingBoing contributers handle things. Granted, these sources may not stand up to the notability test and that is what is up for discussion here.
 * Assuming we find these sources legitimate, the fact that her boyfriend (party and not parties, as you indicate) was the first to add the content is immaterial and easily mitigatable. Also, the fact that it is a section is also mutable (which I happen to agree with).Yeago (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: Please don't assume I have whatever reason other than my own assessment. That's frowned upon here.


 * Strong Keep If this is editorial Orwellism, at somewhere with BB's perceived reputation, then that's highly notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this is an inconsequential detail added for self-promotion by Ms. Wendi Blue's boyfriend. It does not belong here. --BenBurch (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * digg, valleywag, the la times, metafilter, etc all disagree with you on this matter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.222.89 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, just because BF added the material doesn't mean its barred forever. Could someone please do some legwork to see if these blogs are in any way notable and worthy of citation in this matter?Yeago (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It becomes notable when it has been published in a paper journal that is a Reliable Source. Not until.  Noise in the blogosphere is not how we edit Wikipedia.  go read WP:RS Now, stop edit warring.  --BenBurch (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:RS doesn't cover notabilty (and also never mentions paper sources as being the only allowable sources, and the latimes is used as a source in roughly 2000 other articles and seems to meet the requirements of WP:RS) please read WP:NOTE "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [10])." it is simply enough for the the matter to be verifiable, which this is. Also, There is a section for the boingboing TV segments which are less numerous and more recent than the articles that were deleted.
 * BenBurch on http://www.democraticwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1734 you say you are a friend of the porn actress who used the name violet blue who was involved in a legal dispute with the person in question here over that name. "Violet is a NICE person. I consider her a friend. She is currently working on her post-porn career now; She's in beautician's school." And you have been involved in editing wikipedia articles on their disputes previously.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.222.89 (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your criteria is *way* out of whack.Yeago (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)PS: I am not edit warring.

FYI: As of 11PM Jul 1 it is front page at latimes.com. Maybe lots of unnotable things end up there. I don't follow the publication myself.Yeago (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the referenced item not in the Los Angeles Times paper as an actual sourced and factchecked news story (and not in the print edition), it's a blog post in the online blog of an LA times contributor. The only sources in his blog post are Violet Blue and one of her friends. Re commenter above: "There is a section for the boingboing TV segments which are less numerous and more recent than the articles that were deleted." -- Um no. There are about 200 of the tv segments, and as far as i can see from non violet blue sources less than a hundred posts mentioning blue were removed, out of tens of thousands of total posts. Also, she was never an author or contributor to boing boing, she was simply mentioned in posts by a boing boing editor. Norquist9 (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This business of 'not in print' is getting out of hand. Please see the opening line in Verifiability. The fact is a mainstream newspaper lent their front page to the matter (this is a web story, no wonder it is online-only).Yeago (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeago, respectfully, I didn't make the "in print" rule, Norquist didn't make the "in print" rule. That rule was made here long ago and underpins this whole project.  In fact it is controversial to say anything about an otherwise-notable blog like this one based on things said or done in that blog that are not in print at all.  Now;  Go get this morning's LA Times print edition (your library will absolutely have it) and if you can find this article in it anywhere (even buried in section 3) then its suitable for inclusion here.  Otherwise, when the protection comes off, I recommend removal of the section, pending discussion with the other editors here.  Or, if we can reach a consensus before that we can ask for an admin to make the edit using the editprotected tag.  Thanks so much!  --BenBurch (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, well in that case please remove the 100,000 or so references to CNN. Slate.com, TheOnion, and the NYT online will also be unsuitable for reference here. Could you please start on this soon? There is a lot to be done.Yeago (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that the guideline on reliable sources is just that, a guideline. Editors are encouraged to use common sense when applying it in order to verify content or demonstrate notability. Where a content dispute has emerged as the result of a source where the reliability is in question, it is important to stop editing or reverting and reach consensus first. If an agreement cannot be reached between the editors involved, please use the reliable sources noticeboard to gain further feedback and resolve disputes. Please note that online reliable sources are not excluded per the policy on verifiability, and that the cite web template should be used when referencing them. Hope this helps, Gazimoff Write Read 20:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I withdraw my objection to sourcing. Put it back in.  :-)  --BenBurch (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A note: Boing Boing has released a statement here:. Details given include two tidbits; that Violet Blue has never been a direct contributor to BB (as reported in the NYTimesBlog) and that the removal of content occured well over a year ago. Now, an opinion: so far, this seems to be an event burbling through the 'blogosphere' as they call it. While blogs commenting on blogs may well be reliable in some circumstances, this seems to still be breaking news and I don't feel enough detail is out there to call it notable yet or for us to present a balanced view in this article. I would suggest we keep it out of the article for now, but perhaps continue to work on elements of it here on the talk page until we can establish a consensus on if/what should be included about this event. --InkSplotch (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmm, I suppose I disagree . Meh, we'll see what happens now. Although, if it became prominent enough for Boing Boing to formally respond in their blog, I'd say its already got its neck above the water. Glad it clarifies the fudges in the latimes.com article.Yeago (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC) But for how long? That, to me, is the measure of notability here.  Will we forget this by next week? Or will every mention of Boing Boing in press articles start carrying a qualifier "Boing Boing, which has drawn fire for charges of censorship previously..." We need to be careful not to leap on this because it's news, but wait until its better established as a notable event. --InkSplotch (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I certainly think as a section its rather silly. Perhaps a one liner would suffice, for the reasons you mention.Yeago (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Perhaps a one liner would suffice" Agreed. 71.201.76.109 (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC) <-- that's me. Failed to sign in. Austinmayor (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that this hole section be reworked. Where there still seems to be a lot of talk about what it might be that Violet did; It seems both in the main stream press and on blogs the debate that this caused has little to do with Violet and more to do with weather it was ethical to delete the content. Examples: Wikiwikimoore (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080704.wgtfridayreads0704/BNStory/Technology/home
 * http://www.zenarchery.com/2008/07/01/that-violet-blue-thing-boing-boing/
 * In due time. Its still working itself out. Meanwhile, how do those links stand up to the notability test? I'm not familiar with either source.Yeago (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not trying to rush things, just seeing what people think about a different angle. As for notability there should be no issue with theglobeandmail.com as it is a respected news paper. For zenarchery.com I don't know what the guide lines are or notability on blogs, should it be based on the popularity of the blog, or the credentials of the blogger, or both. I am totally happy to wait till there are more main stream news articles about this topic. Wikiwikimoore (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikiwikimoore, you are Jonathan Moore, Violet Blue's romantic companion of about 2 years. Why are you still inserting yourself into this discussion? Oh, right, because Violet's asking you to push edits here that benefit her. You should just recuse yourself from this, and from Violet's entry, and let impartial editors who do not have a COI handle this. What you are doing is unfair and unjust, and it is bad for Wikipedia. Norquist9 (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I agree. Good notable link. Norquist, we've all read your arguments and we're in the process of dealing with the issue you present. There is no need to spam them again and again.Yeago (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikiwikimoore/Jonathan Moore is a principle in the instant issue/controversy/clusterf'k and his contributions to this talk page should be recognized as driven by a personal agenda.
 * My comments, by contrast, are motivated only by my deep commitment to the truth and an unquenchable love for Wikipedia and its mission. Austinmayor (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please keep the high-horse hyperbole to a minimum. While its true his edits should have special oversight, there is nothing in WP guidelines that bans his contributions so long as he displays knowledge/application of WP tenants. He has been open about his identity and has sought the help of others in making sure his contributions are within bounds. If you really must go on this tangent, please do so at the COI discussion BenChurch created. We are going to settle the matter there.Yeago (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The controversy had three parts, really: 1) whether it's ethical for a popular online resource to delete previously published material (arguments that it's okay for Boing Boing to do this because they are a blog do not really fly, because in fact Boing Boing is an "LLC" -- a company, not a personal blog), 2) Whether it was ethical or hypocritical for Boing Boing in particular to do this, as they have a history of attacking other web sites for doing similar acts, 3) Whether their handling of the situation made matters worse. The PR News publication had an entire article just on #3, essentially using it as an example of how poor public relations decisions can hurt a business. --68.50.104.183 (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I brought the section up to date, including the BB posting and analysis of it. But I really am not sure that this belongs in the article at all, and won't at all be offended if the whole section, or just the part I added, is deleted.  --BenBurch (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a great summary of the situation from a reliable source here: http://www.prnewsonline.com/news/topstory.html I'm not sure the speculation about why they deleted the posts is all the warranted. It seems like the more information that comes out, the more it seems the motivations were personal.  Also, there is a second more apologetic statement from BB:http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/18/lessons-learned.html I think that between these two sources, the quality of the section could be improved. 76.91.90.112 (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Most people and places have a "controversy" section.  Any controversy that makes The New York Times is pretty noteworthy.  I would question the NPOV stance of people trying to remove controversy of this magnitude. --TheCynic (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I also vote keep. The link to the Prnews article I posted is broken.  Here is the link to the archived version: http://www.prnewsonline.com/digitalpr/casestudies/dpr11933.html 76.91.90.112 (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes by Doctorow
I've made two changes:

1. Reverted to trim out the snotty stuff about the Bush administration, which comes from a hyperbolic email exchange in which someone wrote to me to tell me off for criticising Bush on BB. A cursory glance at BB or any of our archives will make it abundantly clear that the Boing Boing's primary occupation has little to do with the Bush administration or US politics in general. There's an order of magnitude more material about, for example, the possibility that sasquatches are real, than there is about US politics. NPOV suggests that the article should be concerned with accurately reflecting the subject matter, not pursuing an email flamewar after you've ended up in your opponent's killfile.

2. Cut "substantial" which does not represent NPOV. Substantial compared to what? If someone wants to criticise the amount of advertising on BB, then create an entry about blog advertising that contains metrics for advertising based on surveys or research, then link BB into it. Impressionistic terms like "substantial" have no business here.

Cory Doctorow

0600h GMT, December 3, 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorow (talk • contribs)

You have to laugh at his double standards: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/02/04/responding-to-your-c.html

You mean a copyfightin' activist who owns Disney stock (you know, the corporation that gets copyright laws changed to keep ol' Mickey under their control long after it's author has died, as well as stealing Kimba the White Lion and making it The Lion King) has double standards? I am shocked. Shocked, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.198.137 (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nationality, place, scope?
I quickly read the article and I can't find what should be obvious at first sight imho: where was the zine published? What are the spatial boundaries and point of view of the website's editorial? Is it a USA production? A canadian one? Or from somewhere else? It is not precised on the boingboing.net either. I'm afraid my comment is applicable to many other articles on en.wikipedia. Quite often it is implied by the writers that something is "american", or so I assume. 109.0.198.225 (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Section on censorship
The section on censorship has recently been removed, restored. Its also been picked up in BoingBoing's twitter feed. So I guess we should discuss it.

The sourcing pretty week with a blog post, a forum thread and another two blog posts. Disemvoweling and the Violet Blue incident both have better sourcing.--Salix (talk): 07:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's fair to say those items with citations to blog posts, forum threads and so on don't belong. The language of that section is unencyclopedic and angry ("literally stripping out the vowels of any comment a moderator had taken exception to"), and seems to be childish ax-grinding spilling over from comment threads there. The section omits (and would as-is, obscure) other, more well-sourced criticisms of Boing Boing from over the years. Wardner (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with both of the above. The tone sounds like "get a load of what they're up to now!" -- seems POV or at least unencyclopedic. Yes, the sources are poor. A couple disgruntled users posting blogs and message board threads could be found for just about any site. To me anyway, it's entirely UNDUE. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  16:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)