Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:11, 4 June 2006

DRPIZZA?

There is another DrPizza on ArsTech. He is a User of Misplaced Pages: Last_avenue. —This unsigned comment was added by 69.228.43.9 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC).

Where'd you get that? —Last Avenue 06:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

He likely got it from your user page here which references both your livejournal here , and your email address as " drpizza at cwazy dot co dot United Kingdom (UK)", and the use of "Last Avenue" on Ars Technica on IRC. Are you a different DrPizza than the one Registered at ArsTechnica (DrPizza aka Peter Bright)? Tomservo3000 09:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There are indeed two. There's me (Peter Bright) who posts on the forums as PeterB and has written occasional pieces for the Ars Technica front page (as DrPizza), and there's the livejournal guy, who I think is registered on the Ars Technica forms as eddie694 (according to http://drpizza.livejournal.com/46578.html). We are not the same person. I wonder who was DrPizza first? DrPizza 22:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right. I didn't start using DrPizza until 2004. Then I realized there was already another DrPizza. —Last Avenue 23:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

x_X. I had it first! (e.g. http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=drpizza&start=350&scoring=d&) DrPizza 14:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

POV?

"Also, members tend to gather into subgroups based on political philosophies discovered through debate in the "News" and "Soap Box" fora. This includes founders and moderators of the site, who have been known to take punitive action against those who express their opposing views as fervently as the moderators or majority of the population (which leans strongly to the "left" in political opinion), or question the fairness of moderation."

Is this fair? Doesn't this need a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.109.95 (talk • contribs)

It's from the same IP as the other POV stuff, so I'm removing it. —Last Avenue 00:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want a reference, you can start here . It's the typical nonsense vitriol you'd expect of a teen-oriented bulletin board, but it speaks volumes about the maturity of the people on Ars on the whole. More reference here . Comments from Caesar here . This seems to be an issue with people on the whole. Vote to leave as is, or combine into a "criticism" subhead. Hamilton burr 11:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Combine to Criticism subheading, then. —Last Avenue 20:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to resolve this in this fashion. Thanks for the feedback as well. Also, thanks, Hamilton, for your excellent recommendation. —This unsigned comment was added by 205.231.146.195 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC).

if you actually spent time reading through some of the forums, you see this to be true, which is why it was added. There is a broad spectrum of political philosophy demonstrated on the site. But if you actually count the different posts, and the "swarming" behaviors, even in the "News" forum, you can see that the posts are at least 80% to the "left", as far as U.S. political views are measured. Gun Control, various religious and scientific topics, and plain old politics are not only ranted on from both sides, but people attack each other verbally. The entire site is a constant political conversation. If you want sources, a simple search for moderator "warnings" should turn up plenty. I doubt the moderators would even deny that most in the forums trend towards the left. —This unsigned comment was added by 205.231.146.195 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC).

And of course not; the mods probably know most lean to the left, but that doesn't mean This includes founders and moderators of the site, who have been known to take punitive action against those who express their opposing views as fervently as the moderators or majority of the population (which leans strongly to the "left" in political opinion), or question the fairness of moderation.". —Last Avenue 21:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I did spend some time reading through the forums, and the 'entire site' is definitely not constant political conversation. Sure, the Soap Box is, but that's what is is for. —Last Avenue 21:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The news forum ends up being plagued with personal attacks whenever a controversial issue is brought up. These often do not get moved into the "anything goes" forums. Also, I haven't looked at who wrote it yet, but I am glad someone else went digging on the site, as the comment regarding "Site Admins" being allowed to engage in personal attacks without consequence is very telling. I failed to mention this when editing. —This unsigned comment was added by 205.231.146.195 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC).

This is deliberate; the news forum (unlike the Lounge and the Soap Box) does not require subscriptions to post to; as such, discussions are never moved from the News Forum to other locations. As for being "left"--get real. Acknowledging climate change does not make one a "leftist". DrPizza 15:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

ArsTechnica is a great tech site, but calling a spade a spade is not POV, and removing it is no service. If you want to modify the text to sound more neutral, take a shot. But it is an aspect of the community, easily verified. —This unsigned comment was added by 205.231.146.195 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC).

This criticism section is completely unsubstantiated. You can pick and choose any isolated post and try to infer some sort of far-fetched theory, but it proves no trend of behaviour and its placement on this page is dubious at best. Anyone who's spent any amount of time on Ars knows that these accusations and such are simply not true. Just to pick a point, if you read through the Subscriptors forum , you'll find hundreds of successful interactions with subscriptors and somehow one bad exchange makes for a systemic pattern of abuse by the site's administrators? Clintology 20:21 Easten 03-28-2006

These entries are properly documented. Please see Misplaced Pages policy regarding autobiography. Kristi ski 19:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how they are properly documented. A single data point is not sufficient to demonstrate a trend. Especially when those posts do not even support the claim being made. DrPizza 21:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There are multiple data points there, and they do show a trend. For example, look at this multi-month flamewar spanning at least 20 threads and involving that kind of stuff by people on every side.

Which of the four points of criticism do those support? Anything involving APK cannot reasonably be described as representative of the site as he is something of a special case. He responds extremely poorly to criticism (no matter how legitimate), instead flying off the handle. He's pulled similar stunts at various other message boards too, such as 2cpu.com and ntcompatible.com. The problem ain't Ars Technica.

Are you sure? Here's a thread where a number of people, including moderation staff, are involved in everything you're disclaiming. Without any provocation. The fact that moderation staff contributes to this type of ridicule rather than closing the thread supports the criticism claims in the article.

Quite sure, yes. The only difference so far as I can tell is that various other forums where APK has been an "issue" have chosen to delete many of the threads, whereas Ars does not. And in any case, it still is not substantiation of the claims made. Remember, the four specific criticisms are: (1) "left-wing" posting in the News forum and the Soap Box by the founders and moderators (not an issue in any APK thread), (2) personal attacks and distribution of personal information (criticizing APK's awful software and factually inaccurate postings does not qualify), (3) difficulty of subscription cancellation (again, not an issue there, as APK has never subscribed), and (4) an excess focus on politics and/or science. The only one of those where that thread even comes close is #2. To claim as you did that it is "without provocation" is simply lying. It is not true. It is not even close to true. APK's first posts on the forum were to post spam ( http://episteme.arstechnica.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=12009443&m=937096103 http://episteme.arstechnica.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=12009443&m=106095103 http://episteme.arstechnica.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=12009443&m=451098103) and off-topic material ( http://episteme.arstechnica.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=12009443&m=165093103 ). When requested to stop he responded by attacking others and creating a number of sock-puppet accounts. DrPizza 15:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

APK aside, the links simply don't support the four claims being made. The first claim is wholly unsubstantiated (no links at all). The second claim has a single link with a non-violating action (posting pictures that people have already published of themselves has never been seen as a contravention of the rules). The third claim is complete misrepresentation (no-one was banned for "bringing up" any issues of subscriptions being hard to cancel, as is plainly clear from the linked thread). The fourth claim is again wholly unsupported. There are no multiple data points, and no trend being shown. DrPizza 14:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How is this multi-month? THe whole thing only lasted about 72 hours... —Last Avenue 03:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It is understandable that being one of the site administrators, you're going to want to minimize criticism of your website. but that does not mean the criticism should be removed from the article. There is verification. Please reference the wikipedia section dealing with vanity articles. WP:VANITY Kristi ski 00:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How does this count as vanity? —Last Avenue 03:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not the first time you have tried to change this article to cast a more favorable light on the site. This article achieved a sort of balance at one point, with both acknowledgement of the site's value to it's readers, and the criticisms that any popular site might attract (for example, Slashdot is very often criticised, frequently by fans of the site). This is not something to be ashamed of, per se, and editing an encyclopedia article to make the site look more attractive is not acceptable. This is not an advertisement, it's information. If someone adds information relevant to the topic, it should not be removed. Some of your editing for clarity was excellent, and there is nothing wrong with that. But removing parts you just don't like is not the way to improve this article.

However, some of the other claims made (Bringing this up on the forum has been seen to result in a permanent ban. ) seemed wrong and couldn't be proved, so I removed that. —Last Avenue 00:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A few individuals keep reverting back to inferior versions of this entry, despite the fact that the Talk entries below show that much of the disputed material is baseless. There’s also little concern for accuracy here. The latest revisions of April 16 are ample evidence: someone has re-introduced inaccuracies that were fixed in previous versions. "Regular columns include Game.Ars, Science.Ars, Linux.Ars, and Mac.Ars"—that is incorrect. Those have not been regular columns for a long time and have been replaced by blogs. Why does this inaccurate material keeping returning?

Also wrong is the descript of the site being similar to Slashdot or Digg. Slashdot is most known for user-submitted links to other sites, and is a community-style blog. Ars Technica does not accept user-submitted stories. Digg doesn't even "report" stories, but rather is a user-driven link filter. The comparison is bad, and I have replaced the reverted text with what came before, since it was more accurate. As a reader of all three sites, I’d say that calling them all the same is incorrect.

Now to add to the inaccuracies, there are “criticisms” which are unfounded, and obviously laid down by someone with an axe to grind. The first criticism (“Members gather into subgroups”) is without any proof (no link). I have modified the accusation to be more objective.

The claim that "Forum moderators and site administrators are not required to adhere to forum rules" links to a post by Man with no Head as "proof," and yet this individual is not a moderator at Ars, and hasn't been for years. Also, there is no explanation as to how posting a collection of links to threads on the forum would even constitute such an infraction. I am removing it, as have many people before.

The claim that “Subscriptions are very difficult to cancel, especially after a political dispute with the moderators.” is false. The “evidence” linked is from a user named “Brutus,” which invites the obvious question as to whether or not this “Brutus” had the intention of defaming the site, which is run by a guy called Caesar. Also there is nothing in that account about “political disputes with moderators.” A quick look at the support forum shows that cancelling is very easy too:

The claim: “The Ars "faq" page covering "how to cancel your subscription" is blank” is wrong. The page is not blank. Additionally, there are also instructions on how to cancel here:

The claim that “Bringing this up on the forum has been seen to result in a permanent ban” is obviously false. The user in the “evidence” thread, “Knelix,” posted two months after the thread in question, here: Tsetna 16:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Since these baseless claims have been proven FALSE and being added maliciously with no stake in reality, I'm removing the criticism. --65.161.188.11 20:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Clintology (clintecker@gmail.com) 18:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Tsetna, please sign your comments. Maramba 15:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Tsetna, the claim that "Game.Ars, Science.Ars, Linux.Ars, and Mac.Ars... have not been regular columns for a long time and have been replaced by blogs" is incorrect, as you can clearly see here: . Journal.Ars is distinct from Columns.Ars, and only the Nobel Intent and Opposable Thumbs wholly replaced their Columns.Ars counterparts. There isn't even a Journal.Ars equivalent of the Linux.Ars column. That information has been added to the "Front Page" section I added. Please do not remove future references to Columns.Ars subsections in error. Debuskjt 23:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Debuskjt, thanks for the clarification, you are correct! Really though, also Mac.Ars is just Infinite Loop now, but your point about the Linux column is well taken. I won't mess with your changes, but I'm sure someone will come along soon and erase them all, and we'll have even less accurate information than what I tried to add. Tsetna 19:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

ArsTechnica author activity in this article

While the contributions of related parties are always welcome, the seemingly endless attempt to keep anything truly negative from being referenced is not. This is no different from Congressional staffers removing criticism of their employers, or some corporation trying to improve it's public image by adding "alleged" to events that are documented as having occurred (for example, if GE were to change "disposed of PCB's in the Hudson and Housatonic rivers" to "allegedly disposed etc.. etc..).

Looking through the forums, one can see that "Clintology" (who removed criticism) is a moderator in the forums.

I am not a moderator. I am a forum user of 5 years and currently a staff writer. -- Clintology (clintecker@gmail.com) 18:45 May 10 2006 (UTC)

Last Avenue initially seemed to try to avoid notice as someone who was connected with the site (i.e. the Dr.Pizza thing).

Because, I wasn't DrPizza on Ars Technica. A few months after I chose 'DrPizza' as a name, in 2004, I remembered to tell people that I was NOT DrPizza on Ars Technica. —Last Avenue 00:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead of trying to suppress criticism, they should be spending their time adding to the information available. The criticisms almost all (maybe all, have not cruised through all the revisions) had references attached. Therefore, I am replacing some of the ones we already found earlier, and in fact, Last Avenue at one point had organized these quite nicely.

This is retarded. How is taking out PROVABLY INCORRECT STATEMENTS (otherwise known as LIES) considered "suppressing criticism"? People keep putting the lies back in. How would you expect Ars staffers to respond? We've posted links proving that certain statements are untrue, yet they keep coming back anyway. Why is this? —Jeremy Reimer

New Section for Front Page

I added a new section to discuss the purpose and various pieces of the Ars Front Page, as well as moved criticism of the Front Page out of the OpenForum section and into the Front Page section. This needed to be done, as various editors here tend to strongly confuse the Front Page and the OpenForum, as well as the News Desk, Ars Columns, and Journal.Ars. They are all distinct from one another, and the distinction needed to be explained.

My additions to the article need to be fleshed out and edited for clarity. Also, criticism on this page needs to be strongly amended with further citations and for fairness. I'm beginning to have a feeling that this page is being monitored by a disgruntled ex-member, particularly since the majority of the article was simply criticism before my addition, and any attempt to edit or balance criticism is reverted. If no one is going to bother to at least find one citation for the first criticism, it needs to be permanently removed. -- Debuskjt 23:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I also added a new screenshot, since the old one didn't show Journal.Ars. -- Debuskjt 23:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

From the article history and discussion here, I would say it is more likely that there is just a reaction to the Ars Technica author activity in the article. Just for clarity, what is your involvement in the site, and why would you know more about the Front Page/OpenForum/News Desk/Ars Colums/Journal than the editors? Maramba 18:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read the website for six years, if that qualifies me for anything. For the record, there are no "editors" at Ars per se. I think you mean writers, and AFAICT the only staff member on Ars who actively edits this Wiki article is Clint Eckers. I'm not saying I know more than them, but there was a complete lack of actual information about the website before my edits, and the few previous attempts that had been made were either reverted or are now obsolete. Debuskjt 18:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

The user Maramba is vandalizing this article. He continually reverts to inferior versions and never defends his changes. Now he has added the same link to this article in three different places, and all three uses make no sense in context. Thus in instance number one, the criticism about “Soap Boxing” on the front page of Ars Technica, he links to a personal journal as “evidence.” The personal journal is not the Ars front page and those entries are not front page news reports. Anyone who actually reads Ars is well aware of this. For the accuracy of the rest of that claim, see above.

The second use is in the alleged “punitive measures” against some people section, but I have read the entire thread he links as evidence, and there are not punitive measures taken at all in the thread. For the accuracy of the rest of that claim, see above. The third use is in the very next criticism, about forum moderators not needing to follow the rules. Again there is no evidence in the linked thread along these lines, unless he’s picking up on the ad hominem angle, which isn’t there (and even a reader in the thread addressed that point). But his context is wrong here, too. The journals are not the forums, and they’re not the same thing.

Maramba, since you’re going to nag people about not signing their comments, how about you defend your changes or answer any of the dozen rebuttals in this Talk section? Is your only concern vandalism? How about the other handful of you doing the same? Tsetna 13:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, my reversions were to correct vandalism done by Ars Technica authors and site owners. Please check the revision history. This article is not an advertisement. Maramba 17:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Your reversions did not correct the article, but brought back more of your own unjustified additions, plus other material that has been thoroughly discredited. So is this your admission that you will not discuss the material under debate, regardless of several people now pointing out inaccuracies in the article? “Advertising” is a red herring. My last edit left in criticisms that were accurate. The argument that this article is not advertising does not carry with it the automatic validation of any and all criticisms. You should be able to defend your additions and your edits. Tsetna 19:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the article to a previous stable version after vandalism by Jeremy Reimer. The same individual who is both an Ars Technica writer, and the person responsible for an entire page of obnoxious comment spam as seen here . Maramba 02:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The previous version was not stable. All of the criticisms are under debate (lengthy debate, above, which you continue to ignore). You also know that who Jeremy Reimer is has no relevance for whether or not the criticisms under discussion are valid or relevant criticisms, as opposed to invalid or inaccurate. And now that you have linked some thread from a totally other site, it’s starting to look like you merely have a vendetta (and that you are “APK”).Tsetna 13:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we take a closer look at Tsetna. He continually removes *any* criticism, valid or not. I suspect he is involved and/or is a contributor to the site. His IP address (Boston area) supports this. Dave-G 16:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop with the dramatic. I have not removed all criticism. The only criticisms I remove are those that have been shown to be invalid, listed above, and I have re-phrased more of them to be NPOV. I can see that you, like Maramba, won’t debate facts, but toss about quite irrelevant matters. Are you going to bother with actually debating these issues? I have followed the advice on WP edit wars and have now tried to discuss this in Talk on more than one occasion, but it would appear that there is no interest in meeting a happy medium. Also, do you know that Sock Puppet accounts are forbidden at Misplaced Pages? WP:SOCK Tsetna 17:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would a Boston location alone suggest that he is a staff member of Ars? And it's a two way street. People should be held accountable for any criticism they have, but no one has really required that in this article. If you are going to question Tsetna's involvement at Ars, you should reveal your own history with Ars as well (and the same goes for Maramba). Wiki seeks to be neutral, and a negative bias is just as damning as a positive one. Debuskjt 20:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If you look at other website articles, like, for example, Digg, they have a simgle criticism section. Going through the history here, it looks like someone (trying to minimize criticism of a for-profit website) broke it up as it applied to different sections of the website. Tsetna (who I suspect to be an ars editor) removed the most damning criticism (including the accusations of plagiarism) except for one token item. Dave-G 17:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OMG, this is ridiculous. It is very obvious at this point that editors at ArsTechnica are hell-bent on removing any criticism from this article (only the "undocumented" criticism, according to them). Of course, there was documentation, in the form of links, some of which seem to have disappeared. How convenient. I think at this point, I am going to have to go back, dig up the juice, and add it back to the article. Since I last visited this page, there have been at least 20 edits, mostly by some Ars Editor or fan who has been trying to remove or re-arrange criticism, or labelling it "allegation". Most of these "allegations" previously had reference links. As soon as one of these "independent truth-seekers" leave, another appears. Before it was Last Avenue, then Clintology, now it seems to be "Tsetna". Was he assigned to this task by Ars? (UNSIGNED)

Dave-G, your facts are wrong again and not every attempt at accuracy has to be blamed on OMGARS! Why not try instead looking at the debate? The last version I edited , contrary to your inaccurate accusations, had three criticisms in it including the plagiarism. As well, that you refer to criticisms as “damning” shows you are not editing with Misplaced Pages’s three main “rules” in mind: WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Everything in the article should be verifiable by a reliable source, neutral in point of view, and nothing should be original (nothing cannot be unverifiable in research terms). This article should not be a positive “advertisement” but it is also not an attack advertisement, either. The problems with some of the criticisms, in case you wanted to know:

• “Members gather into subgroups based on political philosophies discovered through debate in the "News" and "Soap Box" fora.” This criticism suffers from verifiability problems. It’s general as to be true (what forum doesn’t have cliques?), but empty of a reliable resource as to be dubious. I left it in the article because it seems obviously true on some level. “This includes founders and moderators of the site, who have been known to take punitive action against those who express their opposing views as fervently as the moderators or majority of the population (which leans strongly to the "left" in political opinion), or question the fairness of moderation. “ This is a strong claim, and like WP:RS notes, “Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.” There is none presented. Maramba provided a reference , but it shows no punitive action, no majority viewpoint on Ars Tech, and no questioning of moderation.

• “Forum moderators and site administrators are not required to adhere to forum rules with regards to personal attacks and/or posting personal information.” The reference does not make sense. The post reveals no personal information, links to other threads posted by god knows who, and Man with no Head is not a moderator at Ars. It is a rule at Ars that no one may post personal information, too , in terms of phone numbers, addresses... where are they in this reference?

At the time of that posting, MWNH was a Moderator of the Battlefront (though not on the Lounge). In that same thread he apparently posted a picture of APK, but there's no way of knowing if it was a spoof, a picture APK provided on the fora, or a picture from APK's public website (and is thus not privvy to the privacy clause. I personally remember when the links were posted, but I don't recall what was in the picture. (Posted by Debuskjt)

Or to put it another way, there's no actual evidence that anything wrong was done. Posting a picture of someone on Ars has never been against the rules. The only forbidden thing is posting private information (have you seen anyone moderated for some other form?), which cannot include anything that can be found on the internet by definition, like you say. RE: Man with No Head, my point is he's not a moderator now, so why does an evidence-free "link" to something that happened more than four years ago with someone who is no longer on their staff merit including in this article? Tsetna 18:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• “Subscriptions can be difficult to cancel, especially after a political dispute with the moderators.” Provided reference does not meet the reliability standards of Misplaced Pages, because it is clear the writer has “an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report” WP:RS. There is no oversight on Amazon reviews, and anyone can spoof a review. They are not reliable. Secondly, the “citation” says nothing about political disputes. Thirdly, the forum is full of people cancelling subscriptions easily:. And as I have illustrated already, the criticism that “Bringing this up on the forum has been seen to result in account suspension” is demonstrably false. The reference refers to a user who still posts (obvious not banned).

And (UNSIGNED), the links are all in the history. Tsetna 23:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Updated comments: Rearranging words does not solve the problems outlined above, and putting them in language made to give them the appearance of facts does not solve the problems. See WP:V: “3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.” Also see WP:WEASEL, about using “words or phrases that smuggle bias into seemingly supported statements by attributing opinions to anonymous sources.” Tsetna 15:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverting to Inaccurate Revisions

This has to stop. We keep reverting back to inferior descriptions of the actual site because everyone is trying to one up one another on the stupid criticism. It's ridiculous. Leave it, keep it out, whatever, but it's turning into nothing more than a pissing contest. I've reverted back to a version that's more accurate about the website, and before everybody (216.227.123.168) loses their ever loving minds again, at least think about reworking the current article before you bring back inaccurate information (such as comparing Ars to Digg or Slashdot).

And the criticism was broken out into two sections because the vast majority of the criticism is _not_ about the Ars website (which should be the focus of this article), but about the Ars Technica forums. They are distinct. Maybe there should be two separate Wiki articles so people who get banned on the fora can vent their frustration with edit wars there. Debuskjt 02:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the constant reverting should stop. However, let's keep in mind that it was the removal of criticism with documentation that created the back and forth. As far as splitting the article, considering the Ars format of each article creating a discussion, I don't see how splitting it would be the answer. Obviously, you have a problem with comparing it to Slashdot or Digg. But besides the independent forum activity outside the main articles, the format is very similar. A news page is created from aggregated sources, which is selected by editors. Then people comment on it. Like Slashdot, much of the fun of the site is reading through the discussion, rather than digesting the tidbit of news. Ars has more in-depth reviews, but Slashdot technically has reviews as well. This is nothing more than normal variance in the same field of website.

I don't feel Ars is anything like Slashdot or Digg, and just because they are in the same industry does not make them apt comparisons. For one, Slashdot and Digg are largely user driven communities, and Ars is not. You could possibly compare Journal.Ars to Slashdot, but that is only one section of the website. It would be like saying Google News is similar to CNN because you can find Reuters articles via both while completely ignoring how and why the material is presented. Debuskjt 13:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Referring to "people who get banned on the fora", maybe you would like to document that. It seems that criticizing ArsTechnica means hating it. I most certainly don't hate Ars, and somehow I doubt Dave-G or Maramba or Kristi ski do either. It's not a conspiracy. For another reference, see http://en.wikipedia.org/Slashdot. Many of the same sorts of criticisms. Are those all "banned users" as well?--205.231.31.238 06:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Here’s an idea: why don’t we discuss the criticisms for once, instead of playing silly revert games? I have made a good faith effort to address this, but it keeps being ignored. Others have come before me to receive the same treatment (OMFG a conspiracy!). The existence of a link next to a “criticism” does not equal a citation. No criticism has been removed that had reliable documentation that met Misplaced Pages’s standards. I have documented the objections above, in detail. The article is now stuffed again with material that does not meet the standard. Do you guys really expect links to irrelevant pages that have nothing to do with the criticisms they “document” to count as documentation? Is this Misplaced Pages or usenet? Tsetna 13:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Besides criticism based on Slashdot's neutrality, I don't see any criticisms of Slashdot on Misplaced Pages that are comparable to what has popped up in this article. Mainly, I see nothing pertaining to how Slashdot does or does not moderate its comment and how it handles its subscription policy. If anything, it strengthens my conviction that the OpenForum section of the Ars article should be broken out. As for "Referring to 'people who get banned on the fora', maybe you would like to document that."--pots and kettles. Anybody who questions the negative bias of parts of this article have been most often accused of being Ars staff, even though the Ars staff have been very open in their involvement in this article (Clint, Jeremy, PeterB haven't tried one to mislead anyone). The only thing it has led to is Last_Avenue being wrongly accused of being Ars staff. Clint even had to point out that he wasn't a moderator on the fora, but just a front page writer, because of the accusations being thrown at him. What is everyone supposed to think? Especially since my request for others to disclose their assocation with Ars (and not just those who question some of the current criticism) went completely unheeded, even though it was demanded of me as soon as I started contributing something besides criticism to the article. Debuskjt 14:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Referring to Tsetna's comments that "Vandals refusing to use talk", the only vandals I have seen here are ArsTechnica apologists (so far, all members of Ars or writers or contributors or moderators or what have you). We had discussion quite a bit in this section, before "Tsetna" even arrived to start removing criticism, links, etc.. His timing is somewhat suspicious, considering that as soon as we resolved the page, arriving at compromises as to content and layout, he came in and began ripping things out, I assume he is yet another "Ars representative" who was assigned this task.

Speaking of discussing things through talk, I tried to use the compare function of the history of the Talk page, and saw very little explanation accompanying Tsetna's changes.

At this point, it has been repeatedly shown that members of the Ars community have tried to remove all serious criticism of the site in this article, and think it should be another angle to advertise through. It is not. Meanwhile, the response from some Ars members has been to accuse all other contributors to this article of being a former member of Ars, known as "APK". Having searched through some Ars Forum content, I am getting the impression that "APK" was accused of spamming or something, or peddling some bogus product. I suppose that a really intent spammer might want revenge for being banned. He would, however, have to be extremely dedicated to his task to keep up with all of this whitewashing.

In closing, I would like to state for the record that I do not have a regular account at Ars, though I created one to research claims made in this article. I have for many years been a regular reader of Slashdot, ArsTechnica, Anandtech, and more tech sites than I care to admit :). I have no personal vendetta against ArsTechnica. I have to say that I am disappointed that Ars, even after KristiSki's note on Autobiography, seems determined to keep this article from saying anything that might be construed as negative. --205.231.31.6 00:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Tsetna, speaking of "defensible", you keep changing the posting re: plagiarism. Whether or not someone says it was a mistake, or they apologized for it, copying someone else's work without attrib. is plagiarism. And the fact is, the original author did "post" about the event, which makes the line of criticism defensible. There is nothing inaccurate about that crit. line, and I didn't even write it.

You never “resolved the page.” The Talk between the middle of March and the middle of April shows no resolution, only people giving up in edit wars. I am not willing to give in just because it is easier to not be accurate.

If you “saw very little explanation accompanying Tsetna's changes,” you aren’t looking very hard. A simple search for my name on this page will show many paragraphs of explanation and defense. I have documented every major change. You can debate them there, although I’m sure you won’t.

It’s funny you complain about people calling you APK when your response to edits is to accuse everyone who doesn’t agree with you as an “Ars member.” You never bother to argue for the inclusion of any of this uncited or miscited material, as Misplaced Pages requires you to do, it’s all smoke and mirrors.

Actually, I said that it seemed that all people who contributed to or restored the criticism section we're accused of being "APK".--205.231.31.6 18:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I improved the criticism to make it more accurate. When you have bothered to defend your reversions, which you are required to do, I’ll spend more time defending my edits to you.

Your edits appear to be nothing more than removing criticism, along with the links, which you have at times explained away as not being true examples of the events described. Well, for one, the subscription problems link did document the problems the subscriber had experienced. Of course, any link providing "evidence" to you is suspect because "Amazon comments are not an official source". Never mind the fact that millions of people use it to relate their product experiences. That would be like saying that resellerratings.com should be ignored when making purchases. After all, those people are all jaded. Defense of my "reversions" back to edits made by others is not required when they previously defended their additions. In fact, some of my additions were later documented by another editor, for which I am grateful (Ars search can be a bit slow to respond).--205.231.31.6 18:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What “subscription problems link” documented what problems? The links and what they supposedly document do not match. I would appreciate a more exact citation so I can understand what you are talking about, but I have addressed this far below starting at “The link needs to be relevant, verifiable, and directly to the point.”

Regarding Amazon user reviews, this is a Misplaced Pages issue. Do you believe that we do not need to consider WP:RS? Do you believe that the Amazon link counts as a reliable source according to WP:RS? I don’t understand your point about millions of people using Amazon reviews. The usefulness of user reviews is not under debate. Whether or not one review represents a reliable source of information is under debate, and I fail to see how an anonymous and obvious mean-spirited review counts as a verifiable source, according to Misplaced Pages’s standards. See WP:V: “Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.”. Does Amazon user reviews have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? No. There is no fact checking. There’s another problem as well. WP:V urges us to ignore self-published information, which is what a user review is. If “self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources,” then self-published reviews are not acceptable, either. How can they be? Finally, WP:RS cautions against using sources that show “an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report.” Is there presence of bias or an agenda? Let’s look at the complaint . Says that Ars stories are “always controversial and full of venom.” This is an obvious exaggeration. Ars stories are neither controversial or venomous “always.” Claim: “The forums are beyond disgusting with nothing but trolls and cliques.” Another obvious exaggeration. It goes on... the review impeaches its own authority by the broad exaggerations that are used in attack the site and its readers. The purpose of the review is to discredit the website in the strongest terms, which raises questions about its reliability as fair, impartial, or fitting for an article that is supposed to be of encyclopedic quality.Tsetna 21:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Upon closer examination, I see that the criticisms about “political disputes and cancellations” and “brining this up results in a ban” are contributions of Tomservo3000. That user has never defended those additions, although more than one user has questioned them in Talk or in the edit summary (On-no and Last_Avenue). Thereby your claim that your reversions contain previously defended material is false to at least this extent (possibly more, possibly not: I have not yet looked), since these things have never been defended in this Talk section. This is why I keep insisting that people use Talk. Tsetna 22:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You aren’t being very accurate. Even the author says that “doesn’t technically qualify as plagiarism,” and you can read in the post that there is a dispute as to how much was linked or not. My version, which did not remove the criticism, was more accurate, and preserves the specific feel of the incident. Tsetna 13:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the link again, it becomes obvious that my reversion of that point and defense thereof was not totally accurate. Therefore, I will change that part back to something that is correct, with a better explanation.--205.231.31.6 18:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

To help you out, the largest section in Talk I have written begins "Dave-G, your facts are wrong again." Tsetna 13:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, apparently there are quite a few people whose facts are wrong, according to you. Despite the fact that many of those facts were documented. As for people giving up the "edit wars", they hadn't given up for very long before you showed up, and they had also been willing at times to actually compromise (for example, separating the criticism section from the main section) without demanding that it all be removed. You seem to be intent on removing any real criticism, while leaving in a few "minor items" to make it look balanced.--205.231.31.6 18:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I help it if the article is full of errors? My concern is accuracy. I have looked into all of these issues, and I applaud you for finally looking into one of them yourself (the plagiarism thing). I do wish you could drop the pointless attacks on me and anyone else who disagrees with you now that you can see that I was correct about the one issue you looked into. If I am so wrong, show me and everyone else. This is why I keep directing people to Talk. These are substantial issues to be discussed. We cannot reach a consensus if I’m the only person willing to discuss them. Show me I’m wrong with an argument that is made according to Misplaced Pages guidelines and I can accept that.

I do want to insist on a basic point: something isn’t necessarily documented just because a link is present. The link needs to be relevant, verifiable, and directly to the point. Take this criticism, for example:

• “Subscriptions can take up to 4 weeks to be activated.” Look at the link. It links to a “Subscription Support & Service” forum. That is not documentation! It should be removed. From that same section:
• “Subscriptions can be difficult to cancel after a political dispute with the moderators..” Please, look at the link. There is no mention of a political dispute at all, so the criticism as written isn’t even remotely accurate. And as I explained already, the link as a source does not meet the reliability standards of Misplaced Pages. It is clear the Amazon writer has “an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report” WP:RS, among other problems. There is no oversight on Amazon reviews, and anyone can submit a review. In my opinion, this criticism is unfounded, and should be removed. If it is not to be removed, it should be noted that the forum is full of people cancelling subscriptions easily:, and the highly questionable nature of the citation should be highlighted. Next criticism:
• “Bringing this up on the forum has been seen to result in account suspension.” Look at the link. There is no ban or suspension mentioned or threatened. And my research uncovered the fact that the user still posts, so he is not banned or suspended, nor is there ANY evidence he ever was . Who can defend this criticism?

In closing, these criticisms are extremely dubious. They should be removed. This is how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. See WP:V: '“3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.” ' A reliable source and a link are not the same thing for the reasons I documented extensively. Tsetna 21:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

New Section for discussing "Whitewashing"

I am adding this section hoping to discuss why it is inappropriate to whitewash the article by answering the criticism before the criticism even starts. The latest attempt, again most likely from Ars itself, tries to use the FAQ page at Ars (where they admit to having opinions) as a way to explain away any criticism of biased editorials on the Front Page. The criticism was very plain and easy to understand previously, as many Ars fans are fans of the technical coverage, and have complained about "Soap-boxing" on the front page. Ars coverage of freedom of the press issues, digital privacy, consumer advocacy, and intellectual property reform are not really controversial within the technical community. I will leave "definition of science" out, since this is a euphemism referring to the frequent "creationism vs. evolution" and other political debates.

Activity had died down in this article, surprisingly, but unsurprisingly the very next edit was an attempt to corrupt the criticism section yet again. What I find funny is that the editing/whitewashing of Misplaced Pages articles by Congressional staffers was widely criticised, and rightfully so, but apparently it is ok for Ars Staff and very fervent fans to do the same to an article discussing a Tech news website.--65.219.212.128 13:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Subscriptions can take up to 4 weeks to be activated." - Citation 11 is a link to nowhere.
• "Subscriptions can be difficult to cancel after a political dispute with the moderators." - Citation 12. This link proves nothing of the sort. The user doesn't like the politics AND had a problem canceling their subscription. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that they're related from thie citation
• "Bringing this up on the forum has been seen to result in account suspension." - Citation 13. The thread in this citation does not match up with this quote. The user had a problem canceling their subscription and their emails were not getting delivered properly. The issue, as far as I can tell, was resolved appropriately. Where is the indication that this user was suspended?
• "The Ars Technica OpenForum "FAQ" page covering "how to cancel your subscription" was blank until recently." Citation 15 - I'm not sure how a link to the "Canceling your Subscription" FAQ is proof that it was once blank. Could someone clear this up for me?

I thought this was Misplaced Pages where citations and sources meant something. This discussion thread is FULL of rebutritions to the lies being spread in the article and no one seems to care. Why does the FALSE information keep getting added back in? Could someone please try to rebute my thrashing of the "Criticism" sources above? I think you'll find it difficult since most of them are lies, exxagerations, and purposefuly harmful. I am again removing the UNTRUE information as per my rebuttal above. --Clintology 15:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore:

• "Members gather into subgroups based on political philosophies discovered through debate in the "News" and "Soap Box" fora. Founders and moderators of the site have been seen to take punitive action against those who express opposing views as fervently as the moderators or majority of the Ars Technica population (which leans strongly to the "left" in political opinion) or question the fairness of moderation" -- Citation 7 points to a blog post by Ken Fisher on the subject of "Black Friday." In the comments, Ken had a debate with a few individuals about the historial and theological history of the event. It got a little heater and some users berated Ken a bit, but I see no evidence of what is said in the above quote. Perhaps the author can clarify. As it stands this quote is misleading and the source makes no sense.
• "Forum moderators and site administrators are not required to adhere to forum rules with regards to personal attacks and/or posting personal information." -- Citation 8 points to a thread where a Ars User (not a moderator) posted a list of links to threads written by a specific author. I'm not sure how this insinuates that Ars Moderators can break the rules. This is getting pretty ridiculous. Citation 9 is identical to Citation 7 and still doesn't make any sense in this context.
• "Forum moderators and site administrators may also be selective about the enforcement of forum rules regarding personal attack." -- 'Citation 10. This is a link to a thread where a user says they're leaving the forum for good. A few normal users, no moderators as far as I can tell, have some choice words for the guy. Again I don't see the relevance of the source.

AGAIN, it is ridiculous that this PATENTLY FALSE information keeps getting added back into the article. Do you people who accuse us of "white washing" even read the sources or just verify the existance of such and assume they're accurate? Of course all of these issues have been rebuked LONG AGO in this discussion thread and nobody seems to care. Hopefully my careful deconstruction of the misleading sources will help people understand why so many people have been removing the lies from this Ars Techica article so religiously. --Clintology 15:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, patently false. Whatever. I myself had visited some of those links earlier, and when they were first put in, none were dead. Now, you are saying some don't work. Quelle suprise!

Regarding members gathering into subgroups, etc., if you insist on further links, I suppose they can be provided. However, I am a volunteer in this matter. I don't get compensated for fixing links that "disappear" or going through Ars' slow forum search to dig around for more. It is not easy to search for an argument that is taking place between moderators, registered users, and founders.

If you are going to deny that the Ars staff get into seriously heated arguments over political issues, and people are flamed for expressing differing viewpoints, and those same people are ganged up on by little "cliques" that form at Ars and many other forums besides, then you are not approaching this article with a neutral point of view. You are understandably approaching it with a biased point of view based on your relationship with ArsTechnica.

Anyway, if you want more links, have the Ars staff speed up search results in the forums.--24.105.219.78 21:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You had better provide "more links" because the current ones don't prove jack squat. I've removed the unfounded criticism AGAIN I will continue to do so until someone can provide even a single shred of proof that they're true. This isn't some website where you can post whatever you want willy-nilly. If you have proof and citations that meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines, then you'd better offer them up, because otherwise this untrue information won't stay on this page.

The speed of the search has nothing to do with nothing, if you have proof then offer it up. You cannot put information on Misplaced Pages that is: #1 uncited, and #2 untrue. I'm perfectly willing to let this stuff stay on the page if you could offer up something, ANYTHING, to substantiate it, but as of yet you've been subversive, dodgy, and unwilling. You sound like someone who has an axe to grind with a particular incident and you're trying to spray mud all over Misplaced Pages. Please reread what I read above and what Tsetna wrote above regarding what sorts of citations and sources are VALID at Misplaced Pages. As it stands, invalid links and links to unrelated content are laughable at best. --72.49.174.60 11:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (Clintology)

You wouldn't be willing to leave the criticism on the page. I know I didn't add those links. I also know that when they we're added, they worked. Many revisions by ArsTechnica staff and much time later, they don't. You revert to the "you have an axe to grind" argument. If that were true, and all the people who have contributed to the criticism section had an axe to grind, then Ars must have inspired a whole lot of axe-wielding with Misplaced Pages fans. Ars staff activity has been to create an advertising outlet for the site (including some marketing which, if I had an axe to grind, I would have removed).

You say that citations are needed for everything on Misplaced Pages. I direct you to read the Slashdot article. In the criticism subheading, it mentions "Article summaries with typos, misleading titles, or errors" as being one of the criticisms. No citation. Of course, despite it not having a citation, it is an accepted part of the article because it is ACCURATE! The Slashdot community knows about it, just as the ArsTechnica community knows about aspects of almost the entire criticism section on this page. Nobody seems to be complaining about the listing of bias on Slashdot, either. Maybe the Slashdot editors aren't trolling Misplaced Pages trying to whitewash the entry on their website (I suppose they could be, but I'm not looking through that many edits to find out! :))

I almost didn't see your comment that "The speed of search has nothing to do with nothing". I agree. You are asking people to spend hours digging up citations (which somebody, can't remember who, already did). They should post them here, and you can remove them, or maybe all of a sudden the links go nowhere, or don't seem to point to the incident in question. Or maybe the forum person was a complete jerk. Or whatever the myriad of excuses will be. If the person is registered at Ars, it won't be noticed by the apparently unwatchful ArsTechnica staff that someone is searching for particular sorts of postings in the forum.

You can bemoan the cruelty of the world, and how it lets people put back accurate criticism which created depth in a formerly shallow self-promotion. You fight criticism as if it is a cancer on your body. "Trying to spray mud all over Misplaced Pages" - are you saying that other articles have been created/modified to "spray mud" on ArsTechnica? I've only seen any criticism listed in this article. Which can hardly be called spraying mud.

“65.219.212.128”& “24.105.219.78” The links do work, which is proof that you’re not even attempting to look at them. Can you consider actually looking at the evidence for once? I see you are quick to make accusations that are baseless. How surprising.

The problem is that they are not proof of what they claim to be. Damn, how hard is that to understand? Some of you are full of it, and you know it. See WP:V: “3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.”

So, you want to include it, provide an accurate citation. You act as though all of this is obviously true, but it’s not. Your opinions are not facts and your arguments should have something other than namecalling to back them up.

If you were truly interested in the accuracy of this article, you would read the lengthy rebuttals above and respond to them. Instead you make pathetic accusations and ignore the hard work of other Wikipedians, and, of course, you never bother to deal with actual facts. Tsetna 19:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed: "Over time, the site has increasingly focused on political issues, usually when related to science, and has taken a stance on many issues. This caused upset amongst some regular readers who value the site for some of its technical coverage but lack appreciation for biased or political statements on the front page (known to the Ars Community as "Soap Boxing," referring to the forum of the same name)." Because Citation 5 links to totally unrelated content. If someone could clarify how Citation 5 relates to the quoted text above, I'd be very interested to hear it. The authors of the other innaccurate stuff used the same "source" to try and prove some other unrelated point. Read above, since I've already covered this.

I'd like to back up Tsetna's comment about the previous poster's accusation that the "links don't work." No one ever said they didn't work, just that the sources don't make any sense when put in context with the "criticisms." They're totally unrelated! It's ridiculous! The fact that you're trying to put words into our mouths is just further proof that you're not reading any of the criticisms here in this discussion and just pushing your own biased agenda here. --Clintology 20:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone, "216.227.82.35," reverted the page again without responding to the issues with the content. I'm re-removing the unsupported criticism. --Clintology 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)