Talk:Ars Technica/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

DRPIZZA?

There is another DrPizza on ArsTech. He is a User of Wikipedia: 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 [talk | contributions] 06:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

He likely got it from your user page [1] here [2] which references both your livejournal here [3], 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 [talk | contributions] 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? —The preceding unsigned comment was 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 [talk | contributions] 00:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want a reference, you can start here [4]. 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 [5]. Comments from Caesar here [6]. 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 [talk | contributions] 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 [talk | contributions] 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 [talk | contributions] 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 [7], 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 Wikipedia policy regarding autobiography. [8] 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. [9][10] [11][12] [13][14]

[15][16] [17][18] [19][20] [21][22] [23]

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. [24]

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 [talk | contributions] 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 [talk | contributions] 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. [6]) seemed wrong and couldn't be proved, so I removed that. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 00:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Unintended Consequences.

A word of caution. Before you write a vanity article on yourself, your group, or your company, remember that, once the article is created, you have no more right or ability to delete it than does any other editor. More than one user has created a vanity article, only to find that, in the normal course of research, other Wikipedia editors have found new material that presents the subject in a less-than-flattering light. Generally, such material will be added to the article, providing it is verifiably true and noteworthy — to the chagrin of the original creator. So, before you create a vanity article, you might want to ask yourself if there is anything publicly available in your past history or that of your group or company that you would not want included in the article — because such material will probably find its way into the article eventually.

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: [25][26][27][28][29]

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: [30]

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: [31] 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: [32]. 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)

So what's the point of having a criticism section? In looking at entries on Wikipedia for other news sites, and especially technology new sites, it seems that a "criticism" section is the rare exception rather than the rule. In a number of search, the only other site I found with a criticism section is Slashdot. This smacks of someone having an agenda. What gives? Reindeer Flotilla 18:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, one user recently decided that same thing, and took action, removing the entire criticism section. I wrote this user and asked him not to (he also apparently removed all criticism from the Dell page). I am hoping that that is the last incident of that sort. The Slashdot page does have criticism in a fairly fleshed out form. The rest of the page is also information-packed. Anandtech, on the other hand, has very little information, and no criticism section (though Anandtech coverage has been criticised many times for having serious errors in measurement and for having lots of glitches with flash images acting strangely and the site being slow (as a result of too many ads/inefficient design, etc). No one has taken the time to add such a section, but one day someone may. Tom's Hardware has only one criticism point, though complaints regarding that site abound in recent years. I did a quick lookabout for TechReport, and didn't even find an article. Wikipedia is obviously never complete. That does not mean we should "make all things equal" by removing information from some articles to match their less complete brethren.--216.227.82.35 17:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You could at least make an account instead of hiding behind a IP address. Yeah I removed the Dell criticism ALMOST A YEAR AGO. Meanwhile you want to consider on some weird crusade... Most of the so called critisims of Ars are by the werido's that take issue with the opinions Ars has and more importantly the posters IN A PUBLIC FORUM have.--Evil.Merlin 20:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, I could call myself Slight Modification of Arthurian Character. That way everyone could know that I wasn't just some anonymous person. In any case, my IP would be a better indicator of who I am anyway, wouldn't it? I'm actually less anonymous this way :). BTW, I am not trying to make fun of your particular account name. Nor do I think people should use their real names anyway (due to some people's inability to deal with those of a different opinion). But it seems silly to claim that I am hiding when the alternative is me having some pseudonym.

If opinions posted in a public forum were what was being listed in the criticisms, there could be a link for every topic created on ArsTechnica and every other forum on the Internet. It seems that your comments regarding "weirdos" may be a good example of why some Ars front page articles that cover controversial topics upset regular readers who want the latest processor architecture article by Hannibal, or Charles Jade's Keynote coverage, or Siracusa's critique of Mac OS X 10.x. People with opinions "not conforming" with the standard are "weirdos". Those weirdos then apparently rush over to Wikipedia to falsely accuse the Arstechnica community of treating them like weirdos. Hmmm....

When I went to leave you a message asking you not to remove the criticism section, I was surprised to find someone claiming the same problem with the Dell article. I didn't check dates to look for recidivism. I just saw a trend based on the two very similar cases.--216.227.82.35 23:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not using an account, it is very difficult to track your edits and actions over your IP since your IP changes frequently as the History shows. Tsetna 14:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Less complete brethren?" Don't you mean less agenda-ridden? Hiding behind an IP address and not having the courage to register a nickname so you can be accountable for what you do really undermines your whole argument and agenda.

So you are saying that I should call myself "Caribou Fleet" and that would be courageous? How exactly is that not "hiding"? My IP has changed maybe once in the last month. Obviously, I have an agenda. You, of course, are a neutral party. Feel free to ignore the fact that the last two people other than me to restore the criticism section have nicknames. Oops.--216.227.82.35 07:23, 12 June 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 [talk | contributions] 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)