Talk:Boing Boing

This article, Boing Boing, has been edited by User:Doctorow, a person mentioned in the article. (This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

Changes by Doctorow

I've made two changes:

1. Reverted to trim out the snotty stuff about the Bush administration, which comes from a hyperbolic email exchange in which someone wrote to me to tell me off for criticising Bush on BB. A cursory glance at BB or any of our archives will make it abundantly clear that the Boing Boing's primary occupation has little to do with the Bush administration or US politics in general. There's an order of magnitude more material about, for example, the possibility that sasquatches are real, than there is about US politics. NPOV suggests that the article should be concerned with accurately reflecting the subject matter, not pursuing an email flamewar after you've ended up in your opponent's killfile.

2. Cut "substantial" which does not represent NPOV. Substantial compared to what? If someone wants to criticise the amount of advertising on BB, then create an entry about blog advertising that contains metrics for advertising based on surveys or research, then link BB into it. Impressionistic terms like "substantial" have no business here.

Cory Doctorow

0600h GMT, December 3, 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorow (talk • contribs)

"Response" section

I have moved this here for discussion:

While Boingboing.net is a very popular and influential site, it has also attracted a somewhat mixed response from the online community, with some attacking the site for what they see as its smugness and insularity. The site has been frequently parodied, and individual contributors have been parodied as well. The blog xenisucks.com, for instance, began as a parody allegedly written by Xeni Jardin herself before abandoning this angle and becoming an ongoing series of posts openly attacking her personality and latest doings.

Lots of weasel words and unsourced statements here. Further, it is a variant of the "Criticism" debate from May 2006 on Xeni Jardin and Cory Doctorow. This needs to follow the consensus guidelines established for that article. Jokestress 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't known about the whole controversy. I was trying to write about the controversy without taking any obvious side, but it seems I may have been too vague. Unfortunately I'm not really sure how to be more specific without bringing in a lot of links, which might give this topic more attention than it deserves. Multiverse 23:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Multiverse

No problem. As I mentioned on your talk page, it's a complex issue. The article can have something like this:

In addition to professional accolades, Boing Boing readers have expressed a range of responses about the site. Published source one says "___" (footnote). Published source two says "___" (footnote).

There has been a lot of discussion about what constitutes a notable and reliable source in this case. Most blogs are not notable enough, but if a blog or site has been quoted in a reliable published source, whatever was said in the published source is acceptable. And don't worry about adding citations. Articles like this need them so others can confirm the information is reliable and verifiable. If you have questions about a source or comment you'd like to add, just put it below, and we can all discuss it. Jokestress 00:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster

Why is there a link to the F.S.M. from the BoingBoing page? Admittedly the FSM and Pastafarian movement has been featured on BoingBoing, but they talk more about the Pirates Of The Carribean ride than they ever did about FSM. So why the link? - IanM. July 09, 2006.

Agreed, I was just coming in to ask that myself. Unless they had a big hand in inventing it, I don't see the need for the link, so in accordance with the "Be Bold" policy, I'm going to remove it. Kat, Queen of Typos 12:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sean Bonner

I'm not associated with BoingBoing in anyway. So what if they write about me from time to time or post submissions I send in, I'm an active reader of the site. Are people who are actually familiar with the site not allowed to edit it? Sean Bonner 01:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You are allowed to edit this article. I removed the tag with the strange implication that you shouldn't be. Jokestress 02:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So is Doctorow. But, it seemed like people should know where his interests lay. A google search (site:boingboing.net "Sean Bonner") shows Sean 213 times. John Batelle the 'band manager' only shows up 3 times. Dstanfor 04:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, it's Battelle (two T's)- it generates 163 hits. But your point stands. Bonner is often referred to as friend (http://www.boingboing.net/2004/10/29/sean_bonners_dispatc.html), buddy (http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/01/xeni_get_your_gun.html), "Boing Boing pal" (http://www.boingboing.net/2003/08/13/sony_ericsson_t616_r.html), etc. He (and Doctorow, like you say) is allowed to edit the page, but he has a clear personal relationship to Boing Boing's editors and--to the extent that they promote the gallery he owns--a financial interest in the traffic they drive to his site. 68.40.181.69 04:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

my mistake on the spelling error. Dstanfor 06:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Superdickery

Anyone reading this page might be interested in knowing that Superdickery is up for deletion. It's been mentioned on Boing Boing twice.[1] [2] samwaltz 19:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is closed. The article is being kept. samwaltz 14:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

boingboingboing

just wondering if we could get a mention about the boing boing boing podcast that boing boing does??

will —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.112.17 (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Worldchanging Interview

The worldchanging external link has essentially nothing to do with Boing Boing. I personally tend to find Cory Doctorow ridiculous, so I am going to forgo editing the article, but somebody might want to go ahead and move the link somewhere more appropriate. Maxerickson (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Violet Blue Controversy

This seems like an oddly minor factoid to put up on Wikipedia. It reads likes a breaking news story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.226.146 (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the content was:

Sex blogger Violet Blue has, in the past, been regularly mentioned in Boing Boing, including a being the subject of a Boing Boing Boing interview. On the 23rd of June 2008, Blue posted on Tiny Nibbles that all posts making mention of her had been deleted from Boing Boing, without explanation.

Two relevant links on the topic

• http://eve.vox.com/library/post/violet-vanishes.html
• http://valleywag.com/5019738/blogger-completely-deleted-from-boingboing-archives

Since the consequences of covert content removals and subsequent refusal to comment about the issue would be severe for the reputation of boingboing.net, yes, it's rather notable within the scope of the blogosphere, and thus notable for the article.

The issue can be sourced (independent people wrote about it), and it can be verified (via the google cache link in addition to the other pages). It is part of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy not to leave out notable disputes of the article's subjects, legal or otherwise.

While I object to the single-purpose account User:Norquist9 calling it "(removing vandalism.)" - I agree that this shouldn't be included until everyone has had a chance to clear things up. They might currently be bound by a legal gagging order, for example. Let's hope so. 77.183.102.197 (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, the above line appears to be factual. It should stay.

It should stay.

76.114.208.230 (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we please hear from Norquist? You are so insistent on its removal that you're willing to go 5RR =).

As user Ben Burch wrote in his comments on the Violet Blue entry, where you were also attempting to force this issue for whatever reasons, Yeago -- "Not a notable event in the career of a barely-notable author." And by extension, not a notable event in the lifespan of an 8 year old blog with tens of thousands of entries, most of which never mentioned Violet Blue. She wasn't a Boing Boing contributor or author, and she still has the ability to blog anywhere she likes. So what's the news here? The fact that Blue's own boyfriend, "Wikiwikimoore" (aka Jonathan Moore) was so promptly involved in forcing this content into the Boing Boing entry says a lot. So no, it shouldn't stay, it's ridiculous that there are 5 total sections to the Boing Boing entry and this non-news, forced by non-neutral parties for conflicted reasons, would be one of those 5. Norquist9 (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, whether BoingBoing had a total of 6 or 6^1000 blog entries doesn't change the fact that many sources unrelated-to-the-author are bringing attention to this event, and also, that they are conveying the emergence of a pattern of discontent with the way BoingBoing contributers handle things. Granted, these sources may not stand up to the notability test and that is what is up for discussion here.

Assuming we find these sources legitimate, the fact that her boyfriend (party and not parties, as you indicate) was the first to add the content is immaterial and easily mitigatable. Also, the fact that it is a section is also mutable (which I happen to agree with).Yeago (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: Please don't assume I have whatever reason other than my own assessment. That's frowned upon here.

• Strong Keep If this is editorial Orwellism, at somewhere with BB's perceived reputation, then that's highly notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this is an inconsequential detail added for self-promotion by Ms. Wendi Blue's boyfriend. It does not belong here. --BenBurch (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

digg, valleywag, the la times, metafilter, etc all disagree with you on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.222.89 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, just because BF added the material doesn't mean its barred forever. Could someone please do some legwork to see if these blogs are in any way notable and worthy of citation in this matter?Yeago (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It becomes notable when it has been published in a paper journal that is a Reliable Source. Not until. Noise in the blogosphere is not how we edit Wikipedia. go read WP:RS Now, stop edit warring. --BenBurch (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your criteria is *way* out of whack.Yeago (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)PS: I am not edit warring.

FYI: As of 11PM Jul 1 it is front page at latimes.com. Maybe lots of unnotable things end up there. I don't follow the publication myself.Yeago (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)