Talk:Digg.com suffers user revolt

Digg Back Up

DragoonWraith May 1, 2007, 11:52 PM PST: Hey, I don't have an account here, so I don't know how things work, but Digg is back up. They've apparently decided to let the code continue, despite the cease and desist letter.

As far as I understand, Digg never got a C&D, they took it down on their own accord. terinjokes | Talk 22:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

HD-DVD Code

If your editing this article please do not post the 16 digit hex code --Voodoom 05:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia is being pounded with the code... users are getting creative. WN Admins, my suggestion is to help out the WP admins. The code, BTW, is 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00. terinjokes | Talk 22:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it disgusting that you aren't allowed to talk about a prime number. But the laws the law I geuss :(. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a prime. 81.153.124.63 07:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Composite numbers are of very little use if I understand thi corectly. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I would post it, but there goes my adminship if so! --TUFKAAP 23:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Its actually on here, in a very obscure place, f you know where to look. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Original

I am attempting to connect to digg.com and its either off line or overloaded, but either way I cannot get to it anymore. DragonFire1024 05:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Digg founder concedes: [1] --67.52.12.146 06:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"possible hacking"

article doesn't say whose speculation this is or what it is based on. –Doldrums(talk) 07:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not hacking. That's how Digg works. The title is incorrect. GreenReaper 07:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The code surfacing at Wikipedia /wikimedia sites

Added a brief mention. Perhaps another reporter would like to check the IRC chat situation?HG 17:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

need to move end of article

Now the last 2 sentences lack a clear referent. These sentences refer to digg and so need to be moved up, prior to the en:WP para. HG 18:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm disturbed by the blanking of the hexi-whosi-whats-er

C'mon, so this got out. This is the news source that anyone can write. But apparently it is not if you cannot write that.

So the Motion Picture Association makes changes to react to the leak.

What was it, Wikimedia is not censored? hmmm -Edbrown05 03:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well aprently its illegal to publish it, so the wikimedia foundation has to obey the law of the jurisdiction its in. Unfourtanatly thats the US. (I'm fairly disgusted by the whole thing though. seems pretty anti-free speech in my opinion). In other news, someone tried to register a user account under that name and he was renamed. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what he was renamed to? --57.69.9.19 14:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Renamed User Bawolff ☺☻ 00:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Actually it appears (based on the 'pedia talk page) that the foundation doesn't care if you post it. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to wikipedia

{{editprotected}} There should be a link to w:AACS_encryption_key_controversy#DMCA notices and Digg.Smallman12q (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I agree there should of been a {{wikipedia}} box, but i'm not sure if it is appropriate for it to be added after archive. user:Bawolff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.82.136 (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Not done too late, cannot be added after archiving. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

---

{{editprotected}}
The existing link to wikipedia is WRONG. The targetted section has obviously been archived by now, and it's in Archive85. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Tempo-di-Valse, i'm not sure your dismissal of the previous request should be based just on an interpretation of "{{editprotected}} after being archived"... The {{Archived}} in the story states that adding {{editprotected}} to the "talk page" (or is it the "Collaboration" tab?) is the way to go about corrections. And IMO links too, as Smallman12q requested, since they "correct" an ommision, and are not actually content, but metadata, and only affect the formatting (and "dynamicity") of the text. Or were you treating both requests in an "all or nothing" way? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done; archive conventions prevent us from editing articles for content, and I believe that adding a new link that did not exist originally falls under content, which is generally anything more substantial than spelling corrections, punctuation and categorization. Microchip08 (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is being requested here. There are some things we can do, and others we can't. If this is about the link in the Sources section, there's no reason to change it, as the Sources section is a record of where information was drawn from. --Pi zero (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

There are two requests; one to add w:AACS_encryption_key_controversy#DMCA notices and Digg somewhere, and one to modify the "On Wikipedia's situation, see:" external link to point to the archive (or at least a permalink). Microchip08 (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A permalink on the "see:" might not be inappropriate. It would need to be chosen very carefully. --Pi zero (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Addition of a Sister links section... I'm not sure that's actually excluded either. The archive policy isn't some arbitrary rule; it protects the "snapshot in time" of the article, and a Sister links section doesn't seem to me, off hand, to be part of that snapshot. The difficulty when this was discussed in 2009 may have been that we were still using sister boxes in the Sources section, which made their status rather unfortunately ambiguous. Now we use a separate Sister links section, which the style guide explicitly notes is not part of the sourcing for the article. --Pi zero (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The permalink would simply point to where on wikipedia the content is actually archived now, which is explicitly kept "for future reference". And if it ever gets moved, there will most likely be a redirect to find it; the link as included in the wn article just links to the highly volatile WP:AN page, and IMO only experienced editors would be able to track down the relevant section from there. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 09:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

"I believe that adding a new link [...] falls under content" -- well, sorry, but that's subjective. I, for instance, am more inclined to disagree with that stance. Should i ask for more input, at, e.g., Water cooler? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 09:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This isn't Wikipedia, where the least decision is expected to become a topic for bitter dispute. Nor is this even a dispute; it's an amicable discussion of how best to handle a point of applied policy. (Not one I have time to investigate further just at this instant, but the discussion is marked, and it's not like it's going anywhere.) --Pi zero (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Why should it be bitter? It's just a minor dispute on the meaning/definition of a term, since content is ambiguous ("2.Subject matter; substance" would exclude links IMO, while "3.The amount of material contained" wouldn't). I'm just seeking further input, since it may very well be the case that i'm mostly wrong and i should accept your POV. Also, i'm seeking a better place for such a "debate" since it might be meaningless HERE, after you mentioned the option of using Sister links instead.

Then, in this talk page only my own request would remain to be considered. Note that it hasn't yet received any response, and it doesn't require anything be added to the contents. I've further commented on it above, if you missed that bit. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be bitter; we're all the same page (er, no pun intended, not sure whether a pun occurred or not).

There has been some response; I've made some remarks, above. I'd add that my concern on the permalink is whether it's more appropriate, for our archival purposes, to link to the Wikipedia archive or to a specific revision of the page itself; the latter is evidently more stable and probably more informative. The question of a sister-links section, when I get a chance I hope to explore in terms of what has and hasn't been done in that regard with other articles in our archives. --Pi zero (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's a worthy subject for consideration. Also, since it [*] is a bit more complex than a mere dichotomy, and [*] should have site-wide implications, i am preparing to open it up for discussion at WN:Water cooler/policy, which i've recently discovered. Update: Here's the link to the section i started there. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Done — After a great deal of reading and a fair bit of internal discussion with myself, I went ahead and changed the link to the Wikipedia source. My rational is this: while normally a source link wouldn't change (it's an archive of what the sources were at publication, and isn't suppose to be updated), the Wikipedia "source" should never have qualified as an external source in the first place. First off, Wikipedia isn't reliable enough to be a source (and they say the same thing about us;)). Secondly, rather than being a source, it should have been a simple interwiki link in the article. At best, it should have been in something like a related articles section.

Because it was improperly used in the first place, I treated it the same way I would a broken interwiki link; I fixed it. This is a unique situation and shouldn't be used as precedent in future discussions of this type. The vast majority of the time, the simple answer is this: "sources can't be updated after archiving". As for the insertion of a separate link that was discussed above, nope. The answer to that request is cut and dry: too late by far. That counts as new content and can't be inserted.

P.S. Amusingly, the link Joker Free4Me provided to the Wikinews watercooler is broken due to regular archiving of that page. — Gopher65_talk 02:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)