![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Notability: The website in question is a relatively obscure site similar to reddit. This page was created because of a thread on that site, not because it is especially notable on its own.
Iæfai ( talk) 01:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
TBH, Mea Culpa, I posted the need for the article on Voat you refer to above. However - while I feel the need for the article is valid (as seen below where someone else has posted) due to events unfolding on Reddit, I feel as a Voat user it would have been a conflict of interest to post more than a basic factual stub as a basic holding page, knowing media and others are starting to research it and the Reddit freedom of speech "controversy".
I'm NOT really a Reddit editor mind you but I have been around long enough on the Net to know when "something is happening" to warrant a stub which then may or may not grow as needs and events unfold.
It may be that in a few months we propose a merge into /reddit under a "controversy" heading or the site goes viral enough to warrant a full article.
If you happen to be a neutral party, please feel free to verify sources, add in the below and otherwise edit/monitor the page.
(I'm a little impressed you found that post if you found this article by chance and went from there... :) ) Akitora ( talk) 14:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Does an article in Washington Post make it notable enough? http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/02/18/the-reddit-exodus-is-a-perfect-illustration-of-the-state-of-free-speech-on-the-web/
Or another article on UK Metro? http://metro.co.uk/2015/02/19/people-are-leaving-reddit-over-free-speech-concerns-5069491/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.150.140 ( talk) 18:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The second article is a syndication of the first article so it's out.
The first article isn't bad but glosses over the fact that Voat started as a side project for some guys well before (a year really) the events described in the article - the "exodus" was in fact true but the site was old before that as the Git repository (github.com/voat/voat) shows. Akitora ( talk) 12:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
But yes - they help. I'm not adding the first yet as more primary sources (not self-referencing that is) are needed. Akitora ( talk) 12:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
So, we are seeing the site have more influence and it has a steady flow of new users, after /r/fatpeoplehate was banned today especially. However, we do need third party sources on that last edit made. Self referencing isn't something we want a page like this to be wiped over. -LQN2 ( talk) 19:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Source 4, which was cited twice in revision history in reverting edits, appears to be from an unreliable source (Wired.co.uk). The statement it refers to is clearly the reddit administrators' version of events, which remains controversial. The current statement, "after Reddit banned five of its subreddits for harassment" cannot be considered to be neutral. Should it be deleted, or should more reliable and unbiased sources be sought out to make the article more neutral? 76.0.105.220 ( talk) 02:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Reference 8 is Microsoft Translator. My attempt at removing the referring sentence broke the References so I Undid it.
It seems like the site is nothing but a clone of reddit. So what's the difference to it? Please explain this in the article. -- Fixuture ( talk) 18:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
>Voat's functionality is not a 1:1 to how Reddit works.
>Voat's source code is written completely from scratch and is not based at all on Reddit's code.
Short List 1. Less rules. 2. Positive towards Freedom of Speech. Allen750 ( talk) 11:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Ged UK: I'm not sure why the "alpha" status paragraph was removed - it complies with WP:ABOUTSELF as far as I can tell. Can you explain your reasoning? 104.156.228.163 ( talk) 16:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion here indicates many people think this article is not covered by the standard Gamergate topic ban. In spirit I agree and nothing has been done about TRPoD editing this article so I'm going to begin editing it as well. Just leaving this here for future reference to show that I am acting in good faith and common sense tells me there should be no problem with my editing the article and I do not feel as though I'm violating the topic ban. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 06:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Voat was/is a target of Bitcoin spam attacks: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikileaks-is-now-a-target-in-the-massive-spam-attack-on-bitcoin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.92.227.215 ( talk) 14:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Hyperboreean: See the History tab for why I reverted your changes. Considering how short the article is based on 30 other sources, using one source to insert paragraphs of new content is not appropriate. Also, some of the claims could open Wikipedia up to legal action. I did leave "distrust" as a reason for termination of web hosting alongside "politically incorrect content", as that was cited in other sources, as well. If you would like to make more drastic changes, could we discuss it here? Willhesucceed ( talk) 17:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Willhesucceed: I saw: "An isolated, contradictory source is not enough to justify inserting paragraphs of new content. Also be careful of libelous claims.". Your claims are disingenuous and contradicted by the very sources (plural!)you deleted. The notion that anything I added was slanderous, when I mostly added quotes is laughable. Furthermore, your insistence to present "political incorrectness" as the reason is flat out refuted by a direct source I'd provided and you buried. If you'd bother reading the article, or for that matter looked up German law, you'd have found that illegality was the compelling reason and not "distrust". If you have an axe to grind against anyone, that's strictly your business. Patently false and misleading statements on the other hand are beyond the pale. I'm not a frequent contributor and I may have added too much info, but you could have asked me to summarize, cut and condense, or done it yourself instead of maliciously vandalizing a page. -- Hyperboreean archer ( talk) 18:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
This article may be noteworthy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2016/02/09/windows-10-data-tracking-spying-levels/#2e1092bc7aa9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.155.55 ( talk) 21:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Saturnalia0: Hello. From The Guardian:
He says his provider, hosteurope.de, told him that they cancelled his contract because “we have received significant information that the content on your server includes political incorrect parts that are unacceptable for us” and that they had to take action “due to the fact that we cannot keep bond of trust to you as our customer”.
This is taken from Voat's own post, and other sources also repeat it.
This extremely awkward phrasing says to me that this is as much about poor English as it is about political correctness as a term for euphemistic language. The only quote using this phrase comes through Voat's original post, so this doesn't seem like an entirely neutral descriptor. Many sources picked up on the phrase, but I haven't seen any which provide any explanation of how that applies or what it's supposed to mean, and most just vaguely attribute it to Voat for simplicity. Since, as multiple sources point out, German laws are more restrictive, it's far from clear that the phrase "politically incorrect" used in the email to Voat means the same thing as "politically incorrect in common US usage, and context strongly suggests otherwise.
Rather than lean on these sources which are mostly quoting the host through Voat, those sources which actually quote the web host directly seem more informative. The Venturebeat article, for example, explains in some detail that the host denies that this was about political correctness, which shouldn't be entirely discounted. If we explain that Voat says the web host used the phrase "politically incorrect", we should also explain why it's more complicated than that, but... why bother? Is this really important for readers to know at this level of detail? If so, why? I don't really see it. Grayfell ( talk) 21:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The site is down... sort of. It looks like it has been for about a day, but https://preview.voat.co/v/all is still up as I type this. Let's wait until a reliable source says that the site is truly defunct instead of merely having a prolonged outage... this is a relatively long outage, and it isn't exactly surprising, but still, there's no need to rush. Grayfell ( talk) 03:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The wiki says that the Q migration happened on Sept. 12 2018, but that's not true, it happened earlier.
It was actually on the 11th, not the 12th, and reddit banned the MDE subreddit and the splinter subs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agrijavi ( talk • contribs) 02:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm more than a little bit concerned that this page makes no notice of the common and rampant anti-semitism present on Voat.
71.212.96.141 ( talk) 13:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)foo
Perhaps https://voat.co itself is a better representation of this.
71.212.96.141 ( talk) 13:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC) foo
voat.co is not closing, its moving to a new domain https://taov.co this has something to do with the old sponsor (PIA VPN) owning some rights (probably the trademark or code)
DerElektriker ( talk) 15:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The original founder of Voat (Atko) recently launched https://flingup.com Here is a link to the announcement, straight from the source: https://flingup.com/thing/13367 Perhaps the article could be updated with this new information. Digi2k ( talk) 17:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)