![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article reads like a cut-and-paste from the AlterNet story. Its only corroborating links are sources citing the same article. As such it lacks NPOV. If there's no objection, may I suggest additional citations for verification? It might be worthwhile to include the published responses from a few individuals identified with this Digg Patriots group. DocHolliday ( talk) 05:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
(indent reset) I've attempted to add a relevant piece of information to this story, specifically regarding how Ole Ole Olsen came by the information in the first place, which was by having unauthorized access to a hacked Yahoo account. This information is detailed on my Wordpress blog, along with visual evidence as to the hack. Unfortunately, when I try to post this link to the external links section, it gets nullified because of it being my own blog page. Any suggestions? (I don't have ads on my Wordpress blog, and I'm aware of Wikipedia's nofollow tag, so it's not as though I'm trying to cash in on any expected traffic boost.) Can I please get an editorial decision as to the inclusion/exclusion of this story, NewsJunkiePost Implicated in Computer Hacking to Breach Diggpatriots Yahoo Group, as a viable part of the overall story? Thanks! TheRJCarter ( talk) 20:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Although the Yahoo group was apparently shut down, there is a an active Facebook page and Twitter account for the Digg Patriots.
Also, the following sentence is not supported by the AlterNet article. "Founded in May 2009, the group had made over 40,000 contributions to Digg." There were allegedly 40,000 posts in the Digg Patriots Yahoo group, however there is no indication how many contributions were made to Digg.
Proposed edit: "The Digg Patriots are a group of US conservatives organised to promote news stories and opinion articles on the popular social media website, Digg. After an AlterNet article published on 5 August 2010 raised allegations of censorship of the site's front page, Digg announced an investigation." DocHolliday ( talk) 21:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I have a hard time believing that this topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Significant coverage? No, very limited actually and much of it just reporting on the alertnet allegations. This article should be deleted, placed on someone's user page until the issue develops, or be reduced to a sentence in the main article on Digg. Lord of the Ping ( talk) 10:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Apologies. I'm still fact-checking the original AlterNet piece.
The sentence "Digg is 'by far the most influential social media site,' with 25 million page views per month - around a third of the New York Times," is incorrect. As of January 2010, pingdom.com reported that Digg gets approximately 340 million page views per month. Looking at the traffic that other social media sites generate, it may be true to say Digg is "an" influential social media site, but it is not "the most influential." Obviously, that statement and the incorrect page view stats should be fixed.
Also, I notice the paragraph related to ScienceBlogs starts with "ScienceBlogs noted that Digg Patriots had particularly targeted for burial a range of websites they disapproved of." That's not correct. An anonymous blog hosted at scienceblogs.com written by "Mike the Mad Biologist" merely includes a cut-and-paste quote from the original AlterNet article. Further, at least two of the individuals allegedly targeted by this group have taken the investigator to task for this unsubstantiated claim. (See MrBabyman's comments on The Drill Down and J.D. Rucker's Social Blade Show referenced above.)
While we're waiting for a decision on whether or not to delete this article, may I suggest we delete this 'Science Blogs' paragraph? DocHolliday ( talk) 16:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Or is it brain damage? The name is unimportant. I have a thought on further edits, and I need your input. Specifically, "The company's only official statement regarding the AlterNet investigation was that it is 'certainly an interesting look into the lengths people will go to create the Digg™ experience they think is best.'"
I'd like to emphasize this point.
The problem is this evidence was presented to Digg™ some thirty days prior to the AlterNet article. Yet, having all the evidence, Digg™ dismissed it. Why? DocHolliday ( talk) 22:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to delete the paragraph beginning with "The AlterNet story alleged the group primarily aimed to vote down 'liberal' political stories, but "also targeted non-political content... " It doesn't make sense to repeat allegations for which no evidence was offered. The "lead investigator" was asked point blank on The Drill Down "Where is the hard evidence." Their take on this right-wing bury brigade controversy can be summarized in one line: "To call this an investigation seems a little far-fetched." (Time index 27:00 The Drill Down) I'd like to include that quote along with the company's response at the top of the 'Alternate Investigation' section. Comments welcome DocHolliday ( talk) 18:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I've never used Digg, never mind Digg v4, so it could be good or bad or all manner of things. But, if this vandalism carries on, I'm going to ask for action to be taken against 166.137.140.236. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 23:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Grayshi points out that oan editor with conflict of interest should recuse himself from editing. I recognize now that my preference for truth over what others have claimed is in conflict with Wikipedia (see
WP:V, which states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth . . .") Based on
WP:COI ("Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.") and my ultimate value of truth, I cannot honestly agree that interest in Wikipedia's aims are greater than my interest in truth, and I must therefore recuse myself.
Just so others interested in truth can understand, I am not and never have been a member of the Digg Patriots or the Inevestigators. My knowledge is based upon even-handed investigation, gaining information from both sides and deciding on that. DocHolliday has done an admirable job trying to make the first sentence close to the truth while maintaining verifiability, but one would have to delve into original research to point out that even the Investigators admitted only a handful of the DiggPatriots actively participated in any organized burying efforts--and that would be pretty odd if the group was formed for that purpose!
They also confirm that most of the traffic was about other things...how discussing childrens' school, illnesses, etc., is for some nefarious purpose, I can't comprehend, but to "verify" this case, the DiggPatriots would have to release their personal e-mail to the public. Sorry, but if Wikipedia is going to be a "release or smear" rag, I want nothing to do with it. I'm already disgusted by the way Ole Ole Olson and company have sent around (to third parties) private e-mail from innocent people. Note to those who want to post this info--those are verifiable points, as the "Investigators" have admitted smearing innocents in their haste to release info. Anyone who has read their statements and watched the BannedOnTheWeb/TheDrillDown/SocialBlade videos knows this.
Cheers!
24.213.186.138 (
talk)
16:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
While a somewhat interesting story, I'm not convinced this group is notable enough to have a separate article. They received a brief spurt of news coverage, most of it from online sources, but not the kind of long-term coverage that would indicate notability; this is really a story about Digg, and should be merged into that article. This article is brief enough that merging it in wouldn't overwhelm the Digg article or extend it to unreasonable lengths. Robofish ( talk) 23:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
People who spend a lot of time on political discussions have long held that you can recognize the DiggPatriots by the terminology they prefer and the propagandizing nature of what they advocate. The similarity of their screen-names (preferences, for example, for "stars and stripes" words like patriot, american, freedom, and liberty) is also a known method of identifying them. They have been referred to by some as a "conservative version of anonymous" but all of this takes place in web-discussion environments that wikipedia does not allow as a "source" for obvious reasons. 98.203.19.162 ( talk) 16:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Digg Patriots. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Digg Patriots. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Digg Patriots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)