Talk:Hackaday

Full Disclosure:
I'm the Managing Editor of Hackaday.com. I understand the possibly biased nature of my editing this page and for that reason I have worked to better organize the page and augment the information provided rather than substantively changing it. It is my hope that readers of Hackaday.com will assist in fully fleshing out this entry. Szczys (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks for disclosing your COI. Note that enthusiastic users of your site may also probably have a COI (although a lesser one) so care will need to be taken by all. On the upside, Hackaday isn't political or anything that would cause major controversies, so true WP:NPOV issues are unlikely. The biggest problem is that wikipedia requires everything to be WP:Verifiable from WP:RS and newspapers and magazines generally don't write much about non-controversial geek blogs. Thats going to keep the information that is allowed in the article to a pretty low threshhold. If you are are aware of articles written by reliable sources (not other blogs etc) you could list them here, which would provide a resource for editors to use to flesh out the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Should this page be Moved?
When the site started out about 10 years ago it featured 1 article per day. This is the reason for the name "Hack a Day". For many years we have published far more than one article per day and the way we refer to ourselves has changed to "Hackaday". This has been the case for at least 1 year if not several more than that. With this in mind I feel the article Hack a Day should be moved to Hackaday which is now just a redirect. Szczys (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Website Title
On the main page at hackaday.com, the title at the top of the page says "Hack A Day". The title tag in the HTML however says "Hackaday". I thought I'd just point out that this could cause confusion. Perhaps if you want one of these to become 'the' one and only title, you should make sure the website is consistent. Danieljabailey (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there needs to be some consistency in what the site is shown as over at Hackaday. Perhaps you could deal with that at your end Mike? Fraggle81 (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't make it easy do you Hackaday though? You refer to yourself as either far too often: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Hack-a-Day/136115233068429, Sees you use Hack A Day.Twitter sees you use Hackaday:https://twitter.com/hackaday but then the logo at the top of every page says Hack A Day. You really need some brand consistency. Narom (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

✅ page has been moved with a redirect at the old title. Probably should get the site logos and such cleaned up though. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Featured by media section
The following comment was posted to my talk page by I am copying the comment here, and replying here so that others may contribute to the conversation.

Hi, You recently deleted a number of references from the Hackaday article citing WP:RS, however I believe 6 of the entries you removed to be in error.

Specifically links to Joystiq, Gizmodo and The Register. Rather than revert or talk on the article, I felt it best to raise this directly with you given the current COI situation on the article (FD: I read Hackaday).

Though Joystick, Gizmodo and The Register are all blogs, WP:RS and WP:V specifically exempt professional outlets self declaring as 'blogs'. All three are commercial entities employing professional writers, and all three have significant circulation and/or Alexa ranking (eg Register circulation is 350,000 per day (per WP), Gizmodo Alexa rank is 483 (per WP)). Would you consider reviewing your edit on this basis?

FalconZero (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

First, thanks for discussing this instead of immediately reverting. It helps things to get off on the right foot. Second, the register deletion was inadvertent. I will revert that bit. Third, I have several objections to the section/content in general
 * A single blog, saying "hey this is cool, go check it out" isn't really of lasting encyclopedic value. No substantial commentary/content about the hack, or the site is in those links.
 * I find it difficult to qualify the above as "getting picked up" or "gaining traction" or "featured" as the current text used. Again, a single transient hat-tip is not really notable, thats just the way the blogsphere works in general.
 * Due to the prior issue (lack of any "meat" content in the secondary sources), we are essentially using the source to comment on its own activities. That is WP:PRIMARY based WP:OR. To invoke WP:RS (to source the fact that a blog picked up the story) we would need a third source saying "Secondary source X commented on hackaday story Y, saying Z". That is separate from using those sources to cite something that those sources actually say, but as I noted above, they don't actually say much.

In any case, we can see what others have to say, and start an RFC if needed to resolve it. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Another example of some Wikipedia editor's stupidity
Hackaday has been deleted. Wow!

It should have at least been a redirect to this page, since many people have noted that Hackaday is synonymous with Hack A Day. No - it was deleted. It was pointed out in the deletion discussion that the two terms were equivalent and redirects would solve the apparent conflict of there being two pages. But no - it was summarily deleted.

Now there is no redirect and no response to a search on "hackaday" other than Wikipedia telling us it doesn't exist.

Could someone please recreate the page and redirect here as an intelligent resolution would suggest. I have no interest in creating an account right now just so I can have permission to do so. 99.245.230.104 (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It was deleted intentionally, because this article should be a redirect to that article. It was done for technical reasons to make room for the move. Maybe next time don't immediately start insulting people when you don't know whats going on. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

COI hatnote explained
It is marked COI, because the editorial decision in section header, order and layout was made directly by the organization's representative and it remains as done back then in SPECIAL:Diff/614141694 Graywalls (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC) You also should consider that the managing editor from the organization itself created the page before it was deleted for technical reasons to create place to move the pre-existing alias page. Hack A DayUser_talk:Szczys Graywalls (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand why it is marked for COI. But the hatnote states "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.". I have read the article, and I don't see any problems regarding that. Can you point to specific policies that are violated in this article? I don't really see the point of this hatnote otherwise. Dwaro (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to have a specific policy violation within the contents to be seen as possible COI. When sections like Accolades are added by the COMPANY itself, to highlight what it wants to be seen, that is a COI. Graywalls (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, that is a COI. How do you want to address this issue? It seems pretty trivial as your complaint is only about a single sentence. Dwaro (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding hackaday.io only on their voice unduly favors the presentation of view from Hackaday, given the amount of voice they already have in the article and very little third party contents. When the article is written in the tone "[w]e at Hackaday have been writing about amazing feats of hardware sorcery found throughout the broad community. ", that says it is written on behalf of Hackaday and thus making it like an announcement for Hackaday. due weight concerns are different from whether the information is reliable. See concern raised by Gaijin42 also. Graywalls (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that due weight and reliability are not the same. I agree that the source is written in a promotional way. But this does not need to be reflected on WP, the information from that source can be written in a neutral tone. It is a large part of their history and organisation and should be mentioned imo. I still don't see how it violates WP:DUE Dwaro (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hackaday Prize
removed some information about the Hackaday Prize. I'd like to discuss this.

Some years the prize was featured in independent sources, which are still mentioned in the article. Some years weren't, and you removed those. Considering that it was featured in media like the BBC and the IEEE Spectrum, it's not just a paragraph made out of primary references. For the sake of completion, can we add the subsection years too? I don't see a good reason to not add them and I think it does improve the article. I have read WP:ONUS and I disagree and it don't think that it violates WP:IINFO either. Dwaro (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The ones that were mentioned in those sources were left in place. Other ones only sourced only to the article connected source Hackaday, given the length of article, that is being dedicated to the presentation from that source's presentation is excessive as it will snowball into rattling off every prize issued BY THE organization. Wikipedia is not a webhost and such information is better left on their website. Similarly, a magazine's long list of editor's choice and such that only references that magazine shouldn't be included. This is the edit in question, I imagine. Per WP:SPS, if it's noteworthy enough, a reliable source other than than the source of prize would have discussed it. It's a due weight issue, because including those lends disproportionate weight of the article space to the presentation of contents by this magazine, thus making it more like an extension of their own page. Graywalls (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not that much information. And it's not representing a subjective viewpoint of Hackaday, only facts about the prize from a primary source. Wikipedia is indeed not a webhost, but just 4 bullet points is a very little amount of information and I don't think the policy was intended for this. You argue that it's better left to their website, but at the same time the purpose of Wikipedia is also providing summaries of information based on reliable sources. I think it is beneficial to the Wikipedia reader to complete the list of prizes. In case you still disagree, I'm opening a WP:3O. Dwaro (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm saying rattling off a list of prizes given by the company that only references the company and/or the recipient creates a situation of tooting their own horn giving the stage excessively to presenting what the company wants people to see. Alternatively, we could just say the company gives prizes and give an example or two of noteworthy ones covered by non-blog sources that is totally unrelated to Hackaday and not use the list format so we can get away from the mentality of there's one or two, so might as well populate the rest with connected, primary source referenced information. I think WP:3O is a fine idea, but please don't canvass outside of Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)