Talk:Wikipedia Review

Worthless or useful

Is this link, http://encyc.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Review_Moderating_Team, appropriate for the external links section? __meco (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I just posted on your talk page but I should have checked here first, sorry. I would say it most certainly is not appropriate, per WP:ELNO criteria 12. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Let's just wait to see if we can have at least a third opinion here. __meco (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tarc, basically every Encyc link is worthless. --Cyclopia^talk 02:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps

The lead should say more clearly that it's not operated by the WMF, although that is probably deduced from the infobox line "owner: anonymous". Tijfo098 (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to stick "independent" in the very first sentence, I don't think that would be a problem. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing bits

It seems odd that it doesn't say who owns Wikipedia Review, not even a pseudonym. It says who started it, but not all the in between bits. Is there some controversy about ownership? Even if there is, surely it is relevant and surely we could at least present the possibilities and then let readers decide. Thoughts? 123.243.134.238 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any controversy about ownership. But the topic doesn't seem to come up as far as I recall. Though there might be problems with citation according to Wikipedia's rules. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Link to URL doesn't work

Not from the box on the article page, nor from my home. Any ideas what has happened/is happening?

Bielle

Interesting. The home page address is currently http://www.wikipediareview.com/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi and the page says "Webmaster please contact support at hostgator.com". Looks like some issues there, watch this space.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ianmacm. I've emailed a couple of regulars there to see who knows what, but yours is the first response. Mind you, I only started this about 10 minutes ago. Bielle (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It is back again, so it was a temporary outage of some kind.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It was down most of the day yesterday – any idea what happened? 67.168.135.107 (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No idea, but as a rule Wikipedia articles should not get excited over outages at websites, as they happen all the time. Maybe WR will say what the issue was.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Domain expired

As of this morning (1/17/12) the site is redirected to a GoDaddy URL, as the domain was not renewed it appears. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe this is a deliberate political action which, although inscrutable, has something to do with Wikipedia's SOPA blackout. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If it were a purposeful takedown, I find it hard to believe they'd do it in a way that makes it look like a registration expiration, though. What is the point of a protest if no one knows you're actually protesting? Tarc (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say the same. This looks to me like someone either forgot to renew, or chose not to, not that it's SOPA related. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The domain name registration has been renewed, so I am fairly sure that the outage is by design. Perhaps the mysterious forces that control WR will clarify their political point if and when the site is back up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough then, only going by what my own eyes saw on that page. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

According to GoDaddy's whois, the domain registration did, in fact, expire yesterday. Maybe they renewed the registration too late or something? --B (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Click the link on that page which says "see underlying registry data". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see. So that fits with the theory that they got it in, but were just too late. It may actually already be fixed, but it can take up to 24 hours for DNS servers to play go fetch. --B (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Who knows this time round? Let's give it at least 24 hours, probably more.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've done a webcite of the current webpage[1]. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Renewed. The domain owner woke up. →StaniStani  06:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

grave-dancing

Seriously boys, grow up. I was just on the WR about 30 mins ago til it flaked out again. As noted above, sometimes it takes the DNS to catch up when there'd been an interruption. We don't need to rush to a website's article to scream "OMG INACTIVE!" the moment that there is a service interruption. Tarc (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously falls under WP:OR, but the site really is up and running right now. Then again, those who insist on changing everything to the past tense are just doing their own original research, so absent a reliable source confirming a demise, can we please cease the declarations of inactive status? Tarc (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

What does "Photobucket" prove? Where is a link to a live site? Edison (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm still getting the "domain expired" page, but will not draw any conclusions about it for a week at least. It is weird if the domain has expired, because there are usually plenty of e-mail reminders to the sitemaster.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I was stirring up something, I browse WR on occasion and the other morning saw it went to the GoDaddy site, and thought it was important enough to note here ont he talk page. Obviously if this is still the case next week, it may be a sign of a bigger issue. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, stop accusing everyone of gravedancing and trolling. There is no "gravedancing" going on here, people are trying to update Wikipedia in good faith. Please stop assuming bad faith and please stop making unfounded accusations just because this article is about a website you frequent. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No gravedancing? What about Prioyman's edit with the summary "Ding dong, the witch is dead"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Many seem to forget about "unless there evidence otherwise..." aspect of AGF; it is not a suicide pact. As noted above, I was logged in at one point yesterday, so it is there, just intermittent. Tarc (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's just as inappropriate to call it "defunct" as to call it "active." It's certainly not active. Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That a website is down for 3 days and there's 0 mentions of that in any WP:RS sources begs the question of its notability. Article is mostly WP:OR, although compared to most other "forum" articles, it's realtively high on the list of possibily meeting general notability criteria. Right after "blog in 2008 that got mentioned once in a newspaper article". Right up there with The Onion's "Area Man...". Hmmmm, wonder if Area Man has a BLP. Cookiehead (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there an alternate URL/IP address that will actually get people in if the main one doesn't work? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The site is hosted by United States Dallas Theplanet.com Internet Services Inc at 184.172.174.94 with three other sites.[2] I don't know of any mirrors. If they haven't renewed the domain name it could be a while before the site is back.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Only my 2 pence, an adjective like "defunct" would need a strong source, meanwhile "inactive" or [status] "unknown" might be fitting but only after two or three weeks of verified downtime (if the site's not there, saying so in a neutral way is not OR). Either way, mildly notable but small, "niche" websites like this one can and do go dark for awhile, then pop back up again, no need to be hasty. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think the site should ask the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for funding. The WMF has plenty of funds at the moment and should be happy to fund independent sites that help publicize the WMF's projects. Cla68 (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about grave dancing but Tarc did accuse me of trolling... not sure what that's all about I was just trying to update the article. Night Ranger (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review's website is still available and fairly easily. The registration with GoDaddy expired, but not the hosting contract with Softlayer, as such the content of the website is still there and there is some activity on it. I would suggest before marking it as inactive and the like, that we wait some time and see how the situation develop. All can access the website thru [3]. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That is just some IP's index of the site. It looks like This parrot is deadEdison (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

How does any serious website let the domain name expire? There are many e-mail reminders about this. A totally weird situation, unless you want to close down the site. It is a pity that there is still no RS about this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there an edit visible at that site since the domain registration expired? I looked at a sample and the were from 2011. Edison (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's run by and for an assortment of embittered banned users, cranks and trolls. It's in no way a "serious website" and has obviously been run with the level of competence you would expect from such a bunch. Prioryman (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Now, now, would you take kindly at Wikipedia being hypothetically similarly described as "run by and for an assortment of basement dwelling geeks, obsessives, and lost souls"?. Wikipedians should be the last group sneering at troubles of a volunteer site maintained by people running it out of pocket. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That's for sure. Cla68 (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction

I just made this edit.

1. Ordinal suffixes are a plague on humanity.
2. A Web page is different from a Web site.

The citation seems rather questionable and silly. The same can really be said for the entire article. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

An explanation from WR

Apparently "Selina" forgot to renew the domain name.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What evidence is there that this 184.172.174.94 is the "real Wikipedia Review" giving an explanation, and not just an imitator or splinter faction? Has any reliable source published anything about the end of WR, or about its supposed revival as an IP address? This fails WP:V. At this point the "official" site is down,and the person who previously registered is incommunicado (per the IP revival of WR). "Inactive" would be the most accurate description, based on the clear outage of their traditional site. No or is needed to note that the site is inactive with an expired registration. The OR is to claim it is "still functioning" because of some IP posting or Facebook page. Edison (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to play that game.. The official Facebook page of WR says that the IP address is the real deal. Tadaa. --Conti|✉ 14:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As does DomainTools. The claim that there has been a screw-up on the domain renewal fits the facts.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have tagged this article for rescue but

.. a user keeps removing the template (username having something to do with promoting Calloway gulf clubs), even though the guidelines are very clear that it should stay. From the ARS: "It is unhelpful, and possibly disruptive, to remove the rescue tag before a deletion discussion is complete." I think this is keepable and the excellent encyclopedic talents of the ARS may contribute to this effort.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The tag should stay. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The diff by the user who added it in the first place suggests it was added jokingly...--WR Reader (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is at AfD; if someone wants to add the "rescue" tag, they can. That's what it is for. I am going to replace it now, please leave it there until the AfD completes. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Rescue is for articles that are spectacularly bad, which this article is not. It could do with a cleanup, but so could many articles. The recent edit history has been marred by gamesmanship.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a perfectly valid use of the template, per WP:RESCUETAG. Even if Bali ultimate was being provocative by adding the tag, removing the tag at this point is needlessly disruptive. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What does the tag do, anyhow? I mean, apart from linking to the wrong AfD, of course. --Conti|✉ 20:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that is the true purpose of the tag. Shrewd move, well played, the game is afoot. I'd CU against ScottyBerg for it, who according to Mongo is a meatpuppet for those who don't love wikpedia. I've heard. No cites for this. Cookiehead (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

New site name?

Anyway, rather more importantly, have they now redirected the site to http://ilovewikipedia.com/ ? A recent edit suggested this, and it appears to be correct.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WR has turned over a new leaf and is for WP Lovers only now. Cookiehead (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

ilovewikipedia.com was created at GoDaddy today (20 Jan 2012).[4] There is currently no automatic redirect from the old name, and this may be difficult if "Selina" is dead or missing in action.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I hesitate to get involved in this discussion, but is there any indication that the domain in question is in any way "official"? Anyone could have registered the domain and made it redirect to Wikipedia Review. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As stated earlier on, I am prepared to accept that there was a screw-up over renewing the site domain name which led to GoDaddy pulling the plug on WR. In order to redirect the site, someone would have to identify themselves as "Selina" to prevent fraud. This situation does not seem to be part of a master plan by WR to deceive unsuspecting Wikipedians.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

http://184.172.174.94/~wikipede/index.php?showtopic=36276&st=20&p=294223&mode=linear#entry294223 – ilovewikipedia.com isn't the Wikipedia Review's new domain. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a workaround. The http://www.wikipediareview.com/ domain is still not working, and they may have difficulty reactivating it unless someone from the site can prove ownership.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"Original site", "second site", "third site", etc

A website doesn't cease to exist just because its domain name expired. A domain is just a way to give the website a neat address. "184.172.174.94/~wikipede" is still the second incarnation of Wikipedia Review. As far as I'm aware, the Wikipedia Review is still located on the same servers, and it hasn't changed hands (yet). This is different from the case of "encyclopediadramatica.com" vs. "encyclopediadramatica.ch". Instead, the WR case more closely resembles Facebook's change from "thefacebook.com" to "facebook.com". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Review&diff=472372144&oldid=472370390 – I've decided to remove the "third site" stuff. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

---WP:OR....WP:HUMORECTOMY. 71.67.117.116 (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Panic over?

Renewed. The domain owner woke up. →StaniStani  06:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The traditional address http://www.wikipediareview.com/ looks to be working again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Though wikipedia.org would have been more logical for a noncommercial site. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't you mean "wikipediareview.org"? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing... though it would be kind of a neat hack if they did somehow manage to get control of wikipedia.org. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Anything's possible. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Schism?

There seems to have been a recent "schism" whereby a number of former WR contributors have left (or been kicked out) and formed a new site called Wikipediocracy... the split was so acrimonious that WR even seems to have its own variety of BADSITES policy to ban all links and mentions of the other site. Can anybody find a Reliable Source™ so that this can be written up in this article? *Dan T.* (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is such a source, or at least, I don't know of one. The schism itself doesn't seem particularly newsworthy. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it will probably be eventually mentioned by someone in the media somewhere, but I haven't seen anything so far. Cla68 (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I periodically search for such mentions. None yet. Maybe our media person needs to send out a press release.→StaniStani^WPO  18:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You jest, but that actually wouldn't be a bad idea. Something like "New site dedicated to skeptical Wikipedia analysis. Wikipedia, the encyclopedia created by Larry Sanger (:-)), has become a cultural phenomena, yet too often escapes criticism despite its power. Wikipediocracy's goal is to build on the best practices from Wikipedia Review, in furthering critical examination. (etc, etc, etc)". It might be picked up by a "reliable source", and hence then usable by Wikipedia's rules. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

And there's now a press release: "Announcing a new Wikipedia criticism site" - "Wikipediocracy.com hosts articles examining Wikipedia's editorial failings and the governance flaws that lead to them, as well as a forum dedicated to criticism of Wikipedia's administrative culture." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Dead link

The site has not worked since yesterday. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The site is currently offline (screenshot), watch this space.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be back now, at least at the moment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do we need this Chicken Little shtick every time the internet hiccups? Tarc (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's because the patient has been in a persistent vegetative state since March.→StaniStani  08:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

but when will the plug finally go out? --InsidiousHourglass (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be down yet again now. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been checking it sporadically for the past week and I've been getting a "parked domain" message. Manning (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Has it really gone this time, any comment from the site?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Status is uncertain at this time. Maybe give it a few more days to be sure, then list as inactive or suspended would be more fitting than this random IPs "defunct" attempts. Tarc (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe give it until November 17th, because we're dealing with some unpredictable stuff here. At 45 days unpaid, in my experience, GoDaddy HostGator (the hosting service) dumps the content.→StaniStani  23:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

...And it's back up yet again! *Dan T.* (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

. . .

Down again. To save everybody some thrashing around, just paste this in your browser: http://192.254.236.99/~wikipede/ →StaniStani  00:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that a mirror, or is it (hosted at "websitewelcome.com") claiming to be "the" live site?

I'm unimpressed with Alison (talk · contribs)'s edit-warring over this (also see http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3799, where she makes it clear just which version is going to be imposed here on WP). The site has gone. We should report that. It might return, and if it does we can report that too. In the meantime, Wikipedia Review is a dead site, no matter what Alison would have us believe. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed with your lack of impression, Andy. Nowhere does it say in that comment as to "which version is going to be imposed here on WP". Nor is two weeks sufficient time to pronounce a long-term website as being dead and buried. So not so fast already - Alison ^❤ 21:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

And I think that link is just the host site's main URL, as WHOIS resolves to that. I doubt they're the actual owner - Alison ^❤ 22:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The domain name may be knackered at the moment but that site sure looks alive to me. — Scott • talk 22:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Scrub that, that post is dated 23rd January 2012. The most recent post on the site is 16th January. It's certainly not fair to call this site dead; at most all that can currently be said is that the domain name is messed up and it's in read-only mode. — Scott • talk 22:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Burying the evidence

This talk page is to discuss article improvement, not for charming soliloquies to Ye Olde Wikipedia Review. Tarc (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My guess is that there's a lot of accurate critiques in there (as well as 'outing' histories) that someone wanted buried. Think of all the rich material in there, with the whole Essjay scandal, SV's newspaper history (and Slashdot listing), and the Durova affair. Those were some "good times" and really interesting to be a part-of (and watch) but at the end of the day.... ... my guess is someone decided it would be a good idea that all that finally got buried, as did Wikiinfo. I doubt it will resurface. Though I have been known to be wrong, "at least once".  :) 193.239.220.249 (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC) No need to attribute to malice what can be explained by disinterest. There isn't much will to maintain Wikipedia criticism sites (I think while people often overestimate Wales's management contributions to early Wikipedia, they also underestimate the importance of his/Bomis's financial contributions). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC) re. the Wikipedia Review aspect of your comment: "Seth, you are a trusting soul".  ;) But that's why we love you. re. Wales: Has *anyone* estimated Wale's financial contributions (Bomis or otherwise) at all? Are you making reference to the over-arching presence of porn on Wikipedia? Splain pls thx.  :) 178.197.254.3 (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Well, just objectively, I don't think there's any material on Wikipedia Review which is playing a political role such that someone would go to any effort now to remove the site. Even the Arbcom leaks, which were perhaps the most significant postings, seem very rarely mentioned these days. Regarding "underestimate", I didn't meant a dollar amount, but that in the early days Wikipedia could easily have just disappeared if Wales had simply decided that Bomis needed to economize more on costs and projects. I was drawing a parallel between Wikipedia Review disappearing now, and the support given to Wikipedia during the dot-bust crash - reflecting on how sites are often much more fragile than one might suppose, and can be at risk from internal apathy more than external enmity. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Well, ok. Fair enough. You're the professional journalist, so you must know. Perhaps, then, nothing important ever happened there. 85.1.46.56 (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC) < stares into the lava lamp. "Nothing important ever happened there" > < stares into the lava lamp. "Nothing important ever happened there" > Oh, I'm not grounding the point in personal authority. And I didn't say "ever". But let's be realistic. NOW? The site has been moribund after the fork. Were there items which would be of interest to historians of Wikipedia criticism? Sure, I'd go along with that. Was there anything currently being referenced at all? There doesn't seem to be. Durova has left, SV's prior involvements are now old news, Essjay is history (in many senses of the word). If you think there's perhaps something shady going on, let's not argue back and forth. Just as a suggestion, try to get in touch with the site maintainers to get an archive of the content (the text can't be much), and let us know what happens. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC) re: "Something shady" and 'lol' on the back-and-forth. Honestly Seth? IMO, it's not worth the time to study, or rather, I, personally don't have the time. I clearly am willing to waste a bit of time observing the place has disappeared (and 'opine a bit'), but as for making a true study (and archive) of events there - um - I'm not really motivated, frankly. (For example, 'no one is paying me to do it' ). Such as opinions go: Do I think that shady-things transpire on the internet? Sure. Have shady (or at least 'some pretty weird') things gone-on on Wikipedia? I think so. If you disagree, that's fine with me. But I think there's an objective point of view (if I do say-so myself) that WR did (at least in its heyday) capture some interesting (even possibly shady) points (about this debatably-dodgy-or-not environment). I do think that there was some kind of 'political cleansing' of WR, a while-back. Like you, I don't want to get into a debate about it, but this is my gut-feeling. I do think that there was (and is) an interest in dampening-down-debate. In general, and not-only on WR (and extraneous to Wikipedia as-well). But yes, I do think that place (WR) caused havoc on Wikipedia for a while, it called people (and the entity-proper) out on the carpet. And after a while, (in my un-humble opinion), it was neutered. As, (in my opinion), WR has been neutered for quite some time, by now, the fact that it is gone, isn't all that big of a deal. In other words, I completely agree with you, or "You're right". Anything on there is 'old news'. Five-years-old news, as a matter of fact. IMO WR made it's largest impact between 2006-2008, when WP was at it's apex of being out of kilter. Wikipedia has been called to heel, a bit. Good old WP was pretty 'out of control' there for a while, and it's calmed down quite a bit - at least it appears so. To paraphrase you: "I'm not grounding the point in personal authority. And I didn't say (and I would never claim that)"I know everything". Take care Seth! 193.239.220.249 (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrators

I remember seeing Arbitrators with accounts in WR, is this true? 135.0.167.2 (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, it's true - Alison ^❤ 04:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to find a comment by an arbitrator in WR and use it as a source for the fact? That will seem odd though. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Not dead

Given that there are a number of other websites available that sprung up from Wikipedia Review, I don't think that it is accurate to call it dead. There are also mirrors and it seems likely that, if the domain name does expire, it will be restarted again soon afterwards, perhaps just with different owners. Maybe even the people who started it would gain control again, instead of the people that stole it from them. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It's Alive!

The website is back up. Most recent post there is the case of an Admin range blocking an entire ISP (or city?) in Indonesia. 124.171.36.228 (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it's working now. I will write about this in the article. Nataev ^talk 09:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to do a lot of coming and going, as people forget to renew the domain or hosting account and then belatedly do so later. Unfortunately, nobody connected with Reliable Sources cares enough to write about these comings-and-goings to let it be noted in the article. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

We could cite them themselves if they post some type of announcement. Zell Faze (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK

I can't find the DYK on July 8th. Does anyone know what it read and what happened to it? Zell Faze (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"Did you know... the Wikipedia Review is an Internet forum devoted to the discussion of Wikimedia projects, in particular the English Wikipedia and its content and conflicts?"

Seems like it was only there for two hours. What a difference a few years makes, hey? — Scott • talk 23:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow I can't believe we removed it from the Main Page like that. Thank you for hunting it down. I might ask that it be added to the DYK archives again since it doesn't appear to be there now. That's crazy. Zell Faze (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)