User:GRuban/DailyDot

Two days ago, deleted some content and a lot of references to The Daily Dot in a series of edits, the main reasoning for which was Major BLP concerns, questionable source reliability, and also doesn't support that being a 4chan alternative was the original intent.. I disagree. Let's take the reasoning in reverse order.
 * "doesn't support that being a 4chan alternative was the original intent": Well, that's a direct quote from Brennan in the Daily Dot article. "free-speech-friendly 4chan alternative", marked as such in both our and their article. Or if the complaint is the "original intent" bit, the article supports that as well: "8chan’s founder, Fredrick Brennan, created the site in response to what he sees as the ongoing and vast loss of free speech on the Internet". Here are other sources that back that it was a response to 4chan.
 * "questionable source reliability" This seems to mean that The Daily Dot is not a Reliable source. Well:
 * We have an article on it, that says it was founded in 2011, by professional journalists, and has a large staff of professionals, some of which have their own articles.
 * It's used in 200 Wikipedia articles, including other BLPs, and clearly in a way that treats it as a highly respected source in its field:
 * Andy Carvin: "The Daily Dot recognized Carvin as second only to ..."
 * Ron Wyden: "... Wyden was named one of the top ten most influential activists of 2012 by The Daily Dot."
 * Amelia Andersdotter: "Awards: Top Ten Internet Activists of 2012, The Daily Dot"
 * Those are just from the first few. Clearly it's opinion matters, even for BLPs.


 * The Reliable sources noticeboard which had a discussion about this very question and considered it reliable.
 * But of course that's all Wikipedia, we're not a great judge, we go to other sources. Most important is whether other Reliable sources consider it reliable. Let's look at some of the canonical "reliable sources" and whether they rely on articles from the Daily Dot.
 * New York Times: "It was described as ... by a columnist at The Daily Dot. ... according to The Daily Dot. ... The Daily Dot points out ... Read the full story at The Daily Dot." "What We’re Reading... recommendations from New York Times reporters and editors, highlighting great stories from around the web... The Daily Dot" "Read the full story at The Daily Dot." "The Daily Dot did the Internet a favor by compiling the best memes in one place." "... a writer for The Daily Dot, says ..." There are many more.
 * Washington Post: By Ramon Ramirez, The Daily Dot November 4, 2014 (repost of a Daily Dot story, complete ... and about Gamergate, in fact!) (Another repost of a Daily Dot story, complete) (Another repost of a Daily Dot story, complete) "The Daily Dot even published ... Per the Daily Dot, it’s meant to..." There are many more.
 * Los Angeles Times: "...he told the Daily Dot that..." "Writes Daily Dot's Aja Romano:..." "Miles Klee, writing at the Daily Dot... "As the Daily Dot reports..." There are many more.
 * Chicago Tribune: "...in a piece for the Daily Dot, Anne Thériault argued that...""according to The Daily Dot, which interviewed him..." "...as the Daily Dot's Patrick O'Neill reported..."
 * That's the most important bit. Even if no other Wikipedia article used the source, and if WP:RSN disagreed, and if our article about The Daily Dot said it was founded yesterday by a 10 year old, with the top newspapers in the country regularly relying on its content, it would still be a highly reliable source. Fortunately, they do agree. The Daily Dot is a perfectly reliable source for this content.