Talk:Newsvine

Untitled
I'm going to start adding stuff. Entry doesn't even begin to cover the complexities of the site; though, it was more than sufficent when Beta was around. RegBarc 03:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Newsvine In The News
Do we need to start a section about when newsvine has been featured in the news or discussed. Currently there is a mention about the discussion of newsvine on inside the net but it seems to stand by itself somewhat. Lee 14:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

History?
I don't know, I'd kind of like to see a bit of Newsvine's history written - not just it's features. --Oreckel 20:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see some history of Newsvine but I think we could also do with some notation of stories Newsvine has broken and other Internet-Events which have taken place on the site. -- Killfile

Fair use rationale for Image:Newsvine logo.png
Image:Newsvine logo.png 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is the Chat Lobby?
Is this feature still available in Newsvine? I can't find it. Ryanwiki 06:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Banning
Ok. I WAS BANNED from newsvine. I can demonstrate and PROVE that I was banned under three different monikers. I am an anti zionist and always advocated that we "cleanse" our government from these people and their influence on our foreign policy. After a couple of weeks, I was suddenly unable to post on newsvine and now recieve a "BLOCKED ACCOUNT" green text notification screen whenever I try. I contacted newsvine about it through the contact us link on their site and received a generic response thanking me for the contact but nothing after that. I can't believe that there are folks who deny this is happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.50.5 (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The Newsvine staff bans users arbitrarily, often without explanation. This is a feature of the site that should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.77.28 (talk) 23:26, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Look, if you can't cite a reference for this statement, I'm going to continue deleting. Without some sort of solid backup, this is a statement of opinion, not fact. Arak80 17:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Will Newsvine ban users? Yes, there are several users who have been banned to my knowledge. Sometimes there is some sort of statement about it, but usually the user simply disappears. Are the bannings arbitrary? The reason for banning has not been mentioned in any of the bannings that I was aware of, although sometimes there was non-specific mention of violations of the Code of Honor. However, there are many users who commit flagrant violations of the Code of Honor who are not banned, and there is even one user who was simply required to change her login name after having violated copyright, a crime which could have exposed Newsvine to litigation. Therefore, the bannings are arbitrary. Are the bannings sometimes political? The users who are allowed to commit violations of the Code of Honor are generally in one political camp, and several of the banned users were adamant opponents of that camp. One banned user was an experiment designed to test whether bannings were politically motivated: Jimmy Bilokonsky Unless the Newsvine entry in Wikipedia is intended to be an advertisement for Newsvine, it seems that it ought to cover aspects of Newsvine other than what can be found on Newsvine's own introduction pages. The other content of the Newsvine entry reads like a press release written by an employee of Newsvine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.77.28 (talk) 03:50, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, it should cover other aspects of Newsvine. However, the manner you have it presented on the article page is a statement of opinion, not one of fact. You cite several examples on the discussion page which should be included in the article. You should try writing up something like you have here in order to make it sound less like you have an axe to grind. Arak80 04:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be a lie to deny that I have an axe to grind, however, I have stayed with the facts. A little busy now, but I will try to incorporate the discussion points at a later time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.77.28 (talk) 07:09, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I look forward to seeing it. I don't participate on Newsvine all that much, but I do read it quite a bit and am aware of all the petty issues that float around that then turn into huge issues. Don't know much about banning though, so I think it would be interesting for other readers to see. Arak80 01:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hope you found my changes to be an improvement. There's an article on mobbing aka hunting on Newsvine itself which I just encountered which I am considering citing in the mobbing section, though I want to talk to the author first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.77.28 (talk) 05:35, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I used to be a member of Newsvine. I decided to delete my account after the guides and moderators demonstrated unfairness and inconsistency. I never received a suspension and I wasn't banned. I didn't want to be a part of a community where the members were not treated with even a bare minimum of respect. I watched as some members would be banned for trivial offenses (like mistakenly posting something to news when it was an opinion piece) while other members would rack up multiple suspensions for repeatedly violating the Code of Honor and the User Agreement. One person would get a day's suspension for a violation, while another person who made the same sort of violation would get a week, or a month's suspension - or get banned outright. There was no rhyme or reason to the moderation. It seemed arbitrary and capricious. The guides are combative, aggressive, and no help at all - and there's at least two of them who shouldn't have any position of authority whatsoever as they're completely incapable of performing their duties without being extremely hostile or blatantly biased. The moderating staff is not held to any standard of conduct and is unresponsive at best. Although Newsvine has - had? - great promise, until they improve their moderating and make it completely transparent and fair, it's going to continue to go downhill. That's the fault of staff, not the members. I honestly wish the site the best but I'll be posting elsewhere because of the problems with the site I've outlined in my post here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.236.241 (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

After 5 years, it's common enough knowledge by now that Newsvine arbitrarily bans users for no reason other than for their political views. Arak80 and Miapadi are being deliberately disingenuous with their straw-man demands for proof, but the proof is out there every day as one can visit the website and see what goes on. Dozens of people are banned every week for not following the TOC guidelines which is nothing more than an excuse to ban somebody because they don't follow the politically-correct line. And it's getting worse too as people find out how to get around IP bans and more and more of them re-register themselves. The site is turning into one big joke the same way the previous MSNBC-run forums did. This needs to be said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.149.9 (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There are two problems with that. First, what you call "common enough knowledge" is/has been disputed by people, from other users of Newsvine, to the site's moderators who make the decisions in question, to the site's co-founder and CEO. So it's a controversial claim. And it being a common perception doesn't make it accurate, just common. It was once "common knowledge" that the Earth was flat, but that alone -- had Wikipedia existed at the time -- would not have justified allowing that claim without a reliable source. Second, even if it were common knowledge, that doesn't meet the standards for Verifiability: "Verifiability on Wikipedia is the ability to cite reliable sources that directly support the information in an article." No reliable sources were ever cited to support the edits discussed above in 2007, so they were inappropriate. Finally, Arak80 and Miapadi's "demands for proof" were simply them informing another editor of Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability. They were doing their jobs and don't deserve to be personally attacked by having their intentions and actions maligned like that. Pwtenny (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Mobbing
I'm wondering if maybe mobbing belongs under the Community heading, since it is an aspect of the community itself's behavior, rather than an official feature of Newsvine (in contrast to bannning, which is an official policy, whether stated or not). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.77.28 (talk) 08:42, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits
Regarding several of my recent edits, including this one (which is representative of all of them), I remind users that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and complaints about Newsvine should be taken up at Newsvine, not here. The information is of dubious factuality, is highly opinionated, and is clearly not encyclopedia in nature. – Mipadi 20:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

All the information you approved of in the Newsvine entry is taken straight from Newsvine pages: are Wikipedia entries to be limited to the information supplied by their subjects? Newsvine is a community: is community behavior outside the realm of a Wikipedia entry? Newsvine is a moderated forum: is moderator bias outside the realm of a Wikipedia entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.77.28 (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Are insults really a persuasive technique? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.77.28 (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone comment on the reception of Newsvine? From what I've seen, it doesn't really seem to have captured the audience it wanted to, with most people sticking to big media websites or social news like Digg. This article seems a little thin. --132.162.133.156 (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't. Registrations went up in the last couple months, but many of those aren't actually new users. They're second and third (etc) accounts of banned users/trolls/what have you. I couldn't possibly estimate what pecentage are legitimate new users and what aren't, but it's obvious that this phenomenon is happening if you're a regular reader of user comments on nearly any article (but particularly political news articles). 76.28.195.113 (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me remind Miapadi that any complaints taken up with Newsvine have been completely ignored and you just want to sweep any criticism of the website under the rug to suit your own political agenda.

What you edited out I may bring back at some future point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.168.116 (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been undoing some edits by "173.73.149.9" recently and will continue doing so until this disagreement is resolved. The edits state as a fact that Newsvine is a politically liberal website that treats political conservatives unfairly. That claim is not supported by statements of the site's founders, current owners, active staff members, official statements on/by the site itself, is not a quoted claim by a cited outside source, and is currently the subject of an unresolved dispute. There is no consensus here. Unresolved disputes should not appear outside of sections clearly explaining their status with sufficient off-site citations to satisfy Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) guideline: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" and "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution." I suggest creating a "criticism" section where the existence of this dispute over Newsvine's alleged bias may be explained in a neutral manner, with proper citations to reliable sources. If that can't be done, my reversions should be considered permanent.

Since my edits are reverting this article to its state prior to this meta-dispute with no additions or other changes, I believe it should remain that way with no further edits on involving this issue until this meta-dispute is revolved. Please don't turn this into an edit war. — Pwtenny (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Pwtenny needs to understand he doesn't own this Wiki page. Until Newsvine becomes evenhanded about who it bans, there will be grievances expressed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.93.86 (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for verifiable information, not a forum for "grievances". Perhaps Newsvine itself is the better place for that. Information added here needs to be verifiable, from a Neutral Point of View, and ideally quoted from a trusted source and linked for a complete citation. Original research/opinion is a non-starter. The [consensus of editors] on this Talk page is that your edits don't meet any of those requirements. You may have noticed that most of the reversions are being done by other editors, and very few are from me lately. I welcome you to edit this article and any other on Wikipedia in accordance with the guidelines: Neutral_point_of_view, Verifiability, and No_original_research. Please read those articles. They'll help. -- Pwtenny (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Newsvine article about Wikipedia
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/01/23/2345924-wikipedia-your-source-for-inaccuracies Ottawahitech (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
Added this section to cover the above dispute. Edits have been made to the top most section (general description) replacing the words "community-powered" with "liberal". The new word does not conform to NPOV as it makes a claim from one side of an unresolved dispute both off and on Newsvine, doesn't present "all significant views" (such as people who deny this claim) and doesn't link/cite "reliable" outside sources for the claim. No justification for deleting "community-driven" has been provided, despite this appearing to be a completely neutral and undisputed description of the site.

Another sentence is being repeatedly added to the Commenting section that makes a claim, again about political bias, that is not supported by outside claims, is not cited, and is stated as a fact when it is also in dispute both on and off of Newsvine.

At best these statements belong in a "criticism" section, linking to statements on other publications by RELIABLE SOURCES discussing the issue. At worst, failing that, they don't belong here at all. Please do not add these edits back in until this NPOV dispute has been resolved. The article should remain as it was before the dispute for the sake of neutrality and expediency. — Pwtenny (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an edit war, Pwtenny. It's common knowledge out there that the conservatives get banned and as a past user I have witnessed it at hand, so your citing of "reliable sources" is nothing more than a red herring to get bogged down into further pointless arguments because you'll dispute them anyway.

If you don't like it then have this Wiki dropped because I will continue to have this edited back to what I believe is the real truth.
 * I've done by best to locate a citation for this claim but I haven't been able to find one. Do you have a pointer to one? -- Sailing to Byzantium  ( msg ),  19:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that Wikipedia is not about "the truth", per se, but about providing information that can be reliably verified. See Verifiability. I understand that you believe your contribution to be factual, but that's not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. (In the interest of full disclosure and adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines on potential conflicts of interest, I'll also add that I'm a Newsvine member in addition to my account here at Wikipedia.) David (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think unsourced material is true" and NOCITE "It requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." seem controlling. Do you have a source/citation, 173.73.149.9? -- Pwtenny (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Due to more questionable edits by the IP and no meaningful engagement here on the Talk page, the Newsvine article has been semi-protected for a few days via dispute resolution and RFPP. Hopefully that resolves this dispute and we can focus on improving this article in the short term, especially with the "New Newsvine" full site revision to begin beta testing perhaps as early as March. Thanks for all the work and help editors. -- Pwtenny (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You better padlock this thing FOREVER. Otherwise I will be back and change it back again. It's time the libtard lie of being "unbiased" be exposed once and for aall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.75.145 (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What's funny about the whole "conservatives get banned for stating their opinion" argument is that we probably get more of the inverse complaint at Newsvine. The bottom line is that almost everyone who gets routinely banned thinks that it is because the site's "ideology" (whatever it is) is the opposite of the user's ideology (whatever it is). As I've been saying since Newsvine started in 2005, we don't even have *time* to have an ideology. We have a Code of Honor, we try to enforce it consistently, and those who are caught violating it repeatedly are banned. End of story. -- Mike D. Mikeindustries (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

January-February, 2012, Vandalism
An IP editor made a controversial edit to the Newsvine article on January 12, 2012, adding statements that Newsvine was a "highly liberal" website and that discussing matters that "do not fit the liberal ideology" will result in being banned. Another edit was made by the IP the same day to replace "...staff works to keep the platform operating and evolving" with "...to censor the site,and to ensure that any conservative views are dealt with accordingly." (diff) These two edits were undone by another IP editor who explained in their edit, "Removed biased terminology", which appears consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. This set off a long string of edits and undoes over the course of January and February. While the controversial edits in January tended to change from edit-to-edit, they followed a consistent pattern of:

1. adding language stating that Newsvine was a politically liberal website, biased towards political liberals, and pejorative of political conservatives. 2. never adding links/citations to reliable sources for these statements 3. never explaining their edits to add this information 4. never explaining their edits to revert other editors attempts to clean up what looked like vandalism

Controversial, unexplained edits with Verifiability and NPOV problems continued throughout January, and into late February when I became aware of the dispute. I registered an account, made reverts of the controversial edits, explaining why, and asked the IP to join me on the article's Talk page to discuss the dispute. I also created a NPOV box on the Newsvine Article and created a NPOV section on the article's Talk page for our discussion. The IP refused to provide links to support their edits when asked by multiple editors, refused to discuss alternate edits that would satisfy Wiki guidelines, and promised to continue their edit war indefinitely.

At this point all the controversial edits became identical (mostly due to all editors using the "undo" link on each other) even though the IP of the anonymous editor began changing, not just across one ISP, but several different IPs. Another editor notified me that they had created a dispute resolution involving me and the IP, and after I explained the situation there, the Newsvine article was semi-protected on Feb 6 2012. The article came off protection on Feb 10 2012, and was vandalized on Feb 22, Feb 25, and Feb 26. I undid the first two and the editor who had created the Dispute resolution undid the third. All three edits in the past few days were done by different IPs but were identical "undoes", to each other and to the vandalism from earlier this month.

To long; didn't read: One person has been vandalizing the Newsvine article for almost two straight months using rotating IPs, refusing to discuss the dispute, with as many as 5-6 registered editors trying to keep the article clean, even after semi-protection. More needs to be done. Pwtenny (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

March "Newsvine is Liberal" discussion
As a pro forma discussion (because I really doubt the user is ever going to discuss this) I wanted to raise the attention about the edits that User:12.191.106.97 has been making. Repeatedly adding assertions of liberal bias in the body of the article and claiming that Wikipedia has a liberal cabal of editors who won't let the liberal tag stick to the article. After their re-insertion today I undid it and issued a final warning to the user. They proceeded to undo my undo and express disdain at the final warning. I proceeded to report them to AIV where they received a 48 hour block and subsequent to the block I reverted their undo (restoring the original consensus). Due to the fact that this "user" has returned on several different IP addresses to insert their claims of liberal bias (only to be reverted by editors in good standing) I propose that a consensus already exists.

The consensus being that compelling evidence that Newsvine is liberal has yet to be presented and therefore insertion by an editor not yet autoconfirmed be treated as drive-by vandalism and therefore subject to a subset of the exemptions regarding edit warring.

I ask for input on this consensus rule so that we can start using it to uphold the standards and quality of the encyclopedia in the face of single purpose editors. Hasteur (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyone who frequents Newsvine knows that at the very least, it's liberal/progressive leaning. And that's putting it very mildly. Anyone who would dispute that is either attempting to conceal the fact or is so far out of touch with reality that they should be under a doctor's care. B0bab0ey (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @B0bab0ey: The issue isn't what's suspected or known, but what can survive Verifiability and NPOV. Despite many independent requests, no one making the edit about Newsvine's political leanings has ever provided a link or citation. The consensus appears to be that the edit needs that, and without it, it's just vandalism at this point. Especially after this going on since January. -- Pwtenny (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that a consensus exists on this issue as Hasteur has proposed. There appears to be only a single IP editor making the changes mentioned, versus perhaps five or more non-IP editors who have done reversions based on NPOV and Verifiability. A few of them have been here on the Talk page and none have expressed agreement with the IP edits. The IP editor has been to the Talk page once or twice, but only to make statements such as that they will continue making these disputed edits indefinitely. Multiple editors have asked for a discussion and never gotten one. Many attempts to resolve the dispute and many warnings have been left on the IP's Talk page, to no avail. Pwtenny (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The IP continues to make the disputed edit, and even used one of their previous IPs this afternoon, the one that was just recently blocked. Not sure what else to even add to their Talk page, the way it is now. -- Pwtenny (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Fox News Example
This is in the second paragraph of the wikipedia page about Fox News. "Critics have asserted that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions, [5] and biased reporting.[6] Commentators, news anchors, and reporters at Fox News Channel have responded that news reporting and political commentary operate independently of each other, and deny any bias in the news reporting.[7]" Where is the reciprical of this on the newsvine page? If you people trying to defend removing pointing out the truth about newsvine because it can't be substantiated would bother to actually look at the site, usually a quick glance at the main headlines are more than enough. Here's some today: Manufactured Outrage: Obama Says The Word 'Thingamajig'; Conservative Blogs Explode In Outrage!!! 74 Votes | 168 Comments Grover Norquist Whines About Jeb Bush Abandoning The Anti-Tax Pledge (VIDEO) | Addicting Info 47 Votes | 63 Comments Romney adviser dismisses women's issues as 'shiny objects' 44 Votes | 74 Comments Obama...Just Not Ready to be POTUS 45 Votes | 296 Comments Can an anti-semite truly be a "real Christian"? 40 Votes | 100 Comments Romney Camp Defends Poor Job Record While Governor: He Inherited A Bad Situation

Are the powers that be at wikipedia really going to pretend this BS isn't verifiable? Okay, let's just assume for a second that you could actually find a competent person to go along with that blatant lie. Then where is the "critics say" disclaimer that you have on the Fox News page? Are you telling me you've verified Fox News is biased? Or are you telling me that its been verified Fox News critics says its biased? People would like the same standard for both sides. Either include critiques of newsvine on their page or remove the critiques from other pages. This isn't difficult people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igotbackon (talk • contribs) 13:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that no independent reliable sources have been presented that reinforce Newsvine being liberal. There's anecdotal evidence, but no independent reporting of it.  The Fox News example you give is sourced by multiple independent sources to back up the assertion.  Before you move forward, please consider how you present your argument.  What you have done here is attempt to use the fallacy "other stuff exists" to argue that because wikipedia is not critical of Newsvine we should not be critical of Fox News.  Your posting style suggests that you have a ideological motivation. You might find more reasonable editors at Conservapedia.  As such there is no change in the consensus as no reliable sources have been presented. Hasteur (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Back up the assertion? You mean like maddow? LOL, are you kidding? You claim the criticisms text on the Fox News page are backed up by mulitple independent sources. So I looked at them. maddow is listed...really? You people find maddow to be an independent source? So I assume Breitbart or Breitbart news is also acceptable, correct? I'm not attempting to use a fallacy. I'm pointing out you have an area for people to post criticisms about Fox News(with their unbiased independent sources LOL), and I guess if you people find them "credible" they are allowed to stay. Where is the criticisms area for newsvine? I'm not asking for wikipedia to be critical of anyone. I'm asking for wikipedia to allow the same type of area of dissent from what has been put forward on your pages. I think its both disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to hide behind the BS semantics people have used to rigorously defend newsvine from having dissention posted on their page whiule simultaneously not applying that same standard to the polar opposite of the political spectrum, like the Fox News page. Would you care to explain how its to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igotbackon (talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Rachel Maddow is a respected mainstream media figure and therefore a reliable source. I'm sure there are plenty of articles on Wikpedia that cite mainstream Fox News figures such as Sheppard Smith in similar situations. The documentary about Fox News is also a reliable source. Nobody trying to make the "Newsvine is liberal" edit has ever cited an outside source like that, much less one that's reliable. Like it or not, that needs to be done. If no reliable sources making that claim can be found, there's probably a good reason why. What you're ultimately asking for is permission to ignore rules that apply to all other articles and editors because your edits don't satisfy those rules. I have no say in that, but I doubt you're going to get it. If you can't make the edits you want to make that satisfy Neutral_point_of_view, Verifiability, and No_original_research, perhaps you should consider finding other edits to make to this article, or another article to edit. The Newsvine article is pretty thin and could use filling out, there's plenty of work to do other than this. -- Pwtenny (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Domain Was Originally 'Snatched'
Co-founder Mike Davidson used domain snatching firms to acquire the newsvine.com domain. He talks about it in his blog post "How to Snatch an Expiring Domain" that can be found here: "[...], I am the proud owner of a shiny new domain. A really really good one. [...] UPDATE #2: The story can now be told. The domain is Newsvine.com." This could be noteworthy enough to add to the article, and I think the blog post is a reliable enough source given the writer and context (see WP:NEWSBLOG). What do you folks think? --82.170.113.123 (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Newsvine revamped in 2013
A completely revamped Newsvine was unveiled on Feb. 7, 2013, making much of the current Wikipedia entry outdated. There was some controversy among members regarding the new version, with several pro and con articles (mostly con, I believe) published on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.169.242.135 (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Also, co-founders Mike Davidson and Calvin Tang are no longer with Newsvine

Sources of traffic, July 2013
A revision to this talk page made by User:FeralOink made the claim (in the edit reason) that "75% traffic is from India, 15% from Pakistan now" for Newsvine.com. My column analytics show 94% of traffic comes from the United States and I doubt the site overall is any different than that. Quantcast shows Newsvine.com ranked 135th of all US websites with traffic between 7 and 8 million people per month, US. To have 90% coming from India+Pakistan would mean Newsvine.com sees around 72 million people per month, which would make it about the 7th most trafficked site, almost as big as Amazon.com and quite a bit more visited than Wikipedia which obviously is not true. I hope that claim doesn't make its way into the Newsvine article itself. Pwtenny (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your website analytics eludes me, Pwtenny. Regardless, Newsvine was abruptly closed down without notice to contibutors in October 2017, so it is a moot point.--FeralOink (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Lack of verifiable references
The article body has only one inline citation. Adding verifiability templates so that somebody who has time can add more references.--Yammie2009 (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2016
Kckranger added "liberal leaning" replacing "community". I see no verification for that edit. The edit should be undone.

From:

Newsvine is a liberal-leaning, community-powered,

To:

Newsvine is a community-powered,

Bob Christenson 19:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC) The following request was added by
 * Yes check.svg Done — Andy W. ( talk ) 06:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year by Images
https://newyearwish.net/category/new-year-images/ Here is a collections of messages regarding Happy New Year with images. we are here to celebrate it. It is good time to tell world how much we are happy on new year.https://newyearwish.net/category/new-year-images/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedzulfiqarhai (talk • contribs) 05:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year
https://newyearwish.net/happy-new-year-2016-wishes-for-teacher/ Here is a collections of messages regarding Happy new year wishes to teacher as she starts learning us from write to read. He encourages us in school level and college then in University. Due to his guidance we got reputable and most suitable job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedzulfiqarhai (talk • contribs) 05:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2023
An Epitaph for Newsvine -- Mike Industries -- a blog that serves to add some information to this article. https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2017/10/an-epitaph-for-newsvine EReedJenner (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see WP:RS Cannolis (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2023 (2)
Suggest adding link to this blog by Newsvine founder Mike Davidson which is also a credible citation. https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2017/10/an-epitaph-for-newsvine

(I don't have time to read through all of the ins and outs of editing on Wikipedia, will trust whomever gets this message, if my contribution is helpful, to add it to the article in the proper manner.)  EReedJenner (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see WP:BLOGS. This is the specific and short section of Wikipedia policy on sourcing that refers to blogs. Read if you want to understand why we would not consider that blog reliable. Cannolis (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)