Talk:Digital Spy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Digital Spy article.
Article policies
Archives: 1

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.


Archive
Archives
  1. December 2005 – August 2006

Contents

[edit] GaySpy

And this is of what importance to this article considering that the other sections have not rated more than a mention let alone their own section, the paragraph reads like one of the overly-positive press releases DS so loves to copy and paste as news (complete with weasel words) and the references point straight back to Digital Spy.

So I've deleted it. Ramore

[edit] Media Coverage/Citations

And while I'm at it, I've removed the "Media Coverage" section because the citation flags have been there for months yet no-one has thought to cite their sources for any of the claims made (clue: there aren't any) and so the whole paragraph is just one big advert, and I've tidied up the DS:BB section to remove the sentence that required a source that has not been forthcoming. Ramore

[edit] The Forums

In 2004 a sub-forum was added to General Discussion called Chatter, for less serious topics. Chatter was once full of gaming threads such as 'word association' and such posts were banned because they took up precious server space. However, this restriction was lifted on the 16th of March 2006 after server upgrades.

On the 9th of April 2006, a few changes were made. 'Print Media' and 'Books' forums were added. Posts in General Discussion now contribute to a user's post count. Also, on the 30 April 2006, a World Cup 2006 forum was added. On the 10 June, this was changed to a Sports forum, with a dedicated Football sub-forum



I say this should be removed because

  • 1. DS has gone through many forum changes over the years - yet only these ones are listed
  • 2. They are only regarding General Discussion forums, and not even the main digital ones
  • 3. 'Tis unencyclopediaic

Anon Dude

Removed. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a request for a citation that Sky post to the forums - not sure how to prove this other than they have a number of accounts which they have asked the forum moderators to set up for them and looking at the forums it is quite obvious this is tread and a number of similar ones - http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=595184

[edit] References Question

Anyone know what the a b c links are in Reference 1, they don't seem to do anything.

Were they links to a section that is no longer part of the article?

pjb007 15:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

They are links to the three instances of that reference. See the little superscript [1] that appears throughout the article. The a,b,c jumps the page to those sections but on such a short article they all appear in screen at the same time so it's not as obvious that they are jumping to those sections Ydam 15:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

  • Could someone please provide some reliable independent sources regarding this forum? Wickethewok 20:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
A Google search brings up no hits [1], the only thing I can find are stats on the forums from Big Boards [2]. There is actually quite a bit there that could be added to the article. --tgheretford (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
If there are no proper independent sources for this website then why does it have an entry? Free advertising perhaps? 82.25.244.171 18:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Not exactly difficult to provide sources - it is one of (if not the) largest TV/media sites in the UK. A simply search on BBC's website provides numerous mentions SFC9394 18:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC):

[3] Included alongside traditional media reviews of a TV show

[4] attributed source for a quote from a music story from September this year.

[5] 80 mentions on BBC News website, mostly as Related Internet Links.

[edit] POV?

In relation to this quote:

“ The site has come under criticism from its users for being sometimes heavy handed, and refusing to discuss bans of members on the boards. ”

Without a reliable source to back this criticism up, I think it is a violation of WP:NPOV and should be removed. --tgheretford (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also say the same for the additions made to the article on January 20 2006. If the criticisms cannot be backed up with a reliable source (not from a forum, as per WP:RS), they should be removed. --tgheretford (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point about citations being needed. However, I would take issue with you over citations not being allowed from forums as per WP:RS. This only recomends that forums are not used as citations. Since this section of the article is concerned with the feeling of Digital Spy members and about how moderation decisions are made, the use of forum content is the best and only available source of a citation. On this basis, I will attempt update the section with reference to the forum content Munta 02:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Munta

The fact that the links I included to cite this this paragraph have now been removed on the Digital Spy site only goes to highlight that Digital Spy do not wish to have any critism levelled at their moderation style. This ultimately goes against the ethos of wiki in that the owners of Digital Spy have complete control over censorship of the Digital Spy entry. I have replaced the text deleted by 81.111.63.224 with extra information about the deleted content. Any sugestion about methods of citing this content would be appreciated Munta 18:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I could find was from a blog (could violate WP:RS?): http://if.futurescape.co.uk/2005/07/big_brother_for.html which features a small bit about the concerns you placed in the article. --tgheretford (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to say, a lot of banned people on the site have a track record of re-registering. For all we know, all the members in the cached versions of the threads could be the same person with a grudge. Marks87 11:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Alanjay (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)To add to the above I know that a number of disgruntled users who have been banned either try to re-register or then use this page to take out their frustration. The Digital Spy forum usage terms do not allow multiple registrations nor disresprcful behaviour and often people who complain have fallen foul of these rules so look for places like this to pitch their perspective.

[edit] Copyright violation

I removed some text as per WP:COPYVIO from the DS:BB section (diff) which was directly copied from a copyright page: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/about/a41859/digital-spys-best-ever-figures.html. --tgheretford (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digital Spy Big Brother 2007 thread section

I removed the Digital Spy Big Brother 2007 section from the article (diff) because for the following reasons:

  1. The thread is nowhere near notable enough to have its own section, let alone article within Wikipedia.
  2. The people involved in the thread do not meet the notability guidelines.
  3. There is no verifiable third party sources to establish the threads importance, i.e. news reports by third party sources like the BBC or The Times for example (note: the thread itself is NOT a reliable source).
  4. The section violates WP:NOT#PUBLISHER, most of the section reassembles a news report for the aforementioned thread.

If it keeps being added back, I will have no qualms to ask for the article to be semi-protected unless anyone can provide an answer to my concerns outlined above. --tgheretford (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed a similar entry as Wikipedia is not the place to include information about transient threads on a forum and for the reasons you gave above. If it were an "offical" DS competion then there may be some basis for its inclusion but even then I would have some doubt about its suitability. I would support any protection placed on this entry if required. Munta 19:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stormfront

Was this an "official" campaign endorsed by the site, or was it simply a couple of posters deciding to try and defend (what is in my opinion) the indefensible? Either way, is it really worthy of a mention in the article? Marks87 18:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I just removed it - it is unsourced and speculative - not what an encyclopaedic article is supposed to be. The amount of racist trolling on the forums certainly increased during big brother but I don't know (and I imagine it wouldn't be easy to prove) exactly where they all came from or if they were part of an organised campaign. If we can get some sources for it then it could be included (because if it did happen as an organised concerted action then it is worthy of mention), but that proof and sources is a different issue - speculation on a forum is miles away from something being a fact. SFC9394 20:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with what SFC9394 has to say and the removal of the unsourced section. I suspect, that considering that there won't be an news or major article for Digital Spy that could be used as a reliable source (remember, WP:RS states that threads on forums are not reliable sources) that it couldn't be included in the article. --tgheretford (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I can confirm that Stormfront forums did have posts requesting that people registered on DS to stir up touble and some did gloat about how they were banned and re-registered. However, I have no wish to revisit the Stormfront website for evidence of this. Ultimately though I would not be for this inclusion (although not due to forums being unreliable sources), I just don't think this has any relivance to the DS website since all forums are going to have "undesirable members". Munta 18:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hey should it not be noted how poorly run the forums are and the fact they ban people for no reason? Like overclockers.Jimmy93211 16:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Its already mentioned in the Introduction Munta 18:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
At least it was til earlier today when that section was removed. Munta 14:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations!

I have removed all of those 'citation needed' markers under the 'Media coverage' sections, because I genuinely believe they are not needed. They are widely acknowledged by people in the relevant areas (ie. LBC Radio/Big Brother contestants mentioning DS) and just do not require a backup for each one!

[edit] Citations!(2)

I have re-added the citation needed markers. Please show where they are acknowledged by people in the relevant areas, otherwise all that has been put into the article could simply be made up, Wikipedia is not the place for unsubstantiated claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.253.138 (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a horrible feeling that most of the information can only be found on Digital Spy forum threads and not verified by a third party, violating WP:RS and in turn WP:V. Just to note from verifiability policy that forum threads, being self-published sources, are not reliable sources of information (ie. anyone could write anything in a post). If it is not verified or references from reliable third party sources cannot be found, you can, as stated within verifiability policy, challenge (which you have done so now) and remove the unreferenced information from the article (which you should do within a convenient time period - give enough time for people to add citations, if they can find them). Because of the number of citation required tags within the article, I will tag the article accordingly. --tgheretford (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations!(3)

Citations should just not be needed for such things, as they are widely known common knowledge to the DS community (and more)! The only things requiring citations should be things which could factually be disputed. It's like citing that the Earth revolves around the Sun - plain stupidity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvmedis (talk • contribs) 22:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that someone has placed the tag on the page is that they dispute the majority of the page, in that the information needs to be verified by a third party, regardless if it is truthful or not to the DS community or wider. What can be referenced in the article should be because the next time that or another editor may read the article and see that the article is still unreferenced, they can, in good faith, remove text or even nominate the article for deletion. Just to clarify, when you submit work to Wikipedia, one of the conditions of doing so is that the text you write is verifiable by third party sources, not just truthful.

To quote from the verifiability policy:

“ Articles should only contain material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed. ”

This covers anything you write, whether you believe everyone thinks it is true or not. --tgheretford (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism sections/"DS"

I noticed that a criticism section of the administrators within Digital Spy is being added regularly. Without references to verify the information added, it violates WP:V and WP:NPOV and unreferenced material should be removed, especially when it involves individuals (see WP:BLP).

As for the "DS" in the introduction, I decided to add it back as it is a well used abbreviation of Digital Spy in both first and third party sources. --tgheretford (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Alanjay (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)People who have objections to moderation decisions seem to use this section as a place to take out their frustration.

[edit] Nobody's ever suggested that this might be non-notable?

It definitely needs more third party coverage cited in the article.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What about the BBC for starters? [6]. Or AOL? [7] Yes I agree, there is a need for more third party sources for this article, and I fear that what I have found so far via Google is blogs (not acceptable for sources), first party sources and products not associated with the topic of the article. --tgheretford (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rumours of involvement with BNP

I've decided to invoke WP:REDFLAG within WP:V and removed some edits. Specificially these edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_Spy&diff=181442846&oldid=181442005

As I believe the Flickr source is self-published, I've removed the text, especially considering as it is potentially controversial, it really needs good third party sources to back this up (from reputable published newspapers for example) hence why I have removed the text as per WP:REDFLAG and WP:V (see also Wikipedia:Fringe theories. --tgheretford (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


Alanjay (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)This appears to be someone who has it in for the site and is looking for ways to attack the site and their moderation policy.

[edit] Controversy over forum moderation

Of course, no operator of any forum can close an article on Wikipedia!
Of course, no operator of any forum can close an article on Wikipedia!

I have noticed more edits are being added regarding the moderation of Digital Spy. This includes this recent edit: [8]. However, no editor has added verifiable citations from third-party sources to back up these edits. The edits have also, in my opinion, been lopsided towards the controversial issue of forum moderation without adding third-party references to the reaction from Digital Spy moderators to the accusations over the moderation of the forum.

I agree with another editor further up this page with regards to (former?) forum members who are using this forum for their sound bytes for the moderation of Digital Spy away from the website where from personal experience, moderators do close and delete threads which attack the way that the forums are moderated. That is fair enough, as on Wikipedia, we have a similar official policy which advises editors not to attack other editors, and offending material can be deleted on sight. Back to Digital Spy, they prefer you to contact them personally if you have any problems with the website, either with moderation or technical issues.

May I suggest that unless someone can come up with verifiable third-party references from both sides of the argument (forum members and moderators) that these edits stop and this information is not added to the article. Because of the controversial aspect of these edits, I have added a controversial issue tag to the top of this talk page. If anyone wants to discuss the controversy of moderation on Digital Spy, then the article on Wikipedia, having a target of being a verifiable and neutral encyclopedia, isn't the place to do it. ----tgheretford (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)