Talk:Ars Technica/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

New Section for discussing "Whitewashing"

Latest comment: 17 years ago21 comments6 people in discussion

I am adding this section hoping to discuss why it is inappropriate to whitewash the article by answering the criticism before the criticism even starts. The latest attempt, again most likely from Ars itself, tries to use the FAQ page at Ars (where they admit to having opinions) as a way to explain away any criticism of biased editorials on the Front Page. The criticism was very plain and easy to understand previously, as many Ars fans are fans of the technical coverage, and have complained about "Soap-boxing" on the front page. Ars coverage of freedom of the press issues, digital privacy, consumer advocacy, and intellectual property reform are not really controversial within the technical community. I will leave "definition of science" out, since this is a euphemism referring to the frequent "creationism vs. evolution" and other political debates.

Activity had died down in this article, surprisingly, but unsurprisingly the very next edit was an attempt to corrupt the criticism section yet again. What I find funny is that the editing/whitewashing of Wikipedia articles by Congressional staffers was widely criticised, and rightfully so, but apparently it is ok for Ars Staff and very fervent fans to do the same to an article discussing a Tech news website.--65.219.212.128 13:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Subscriptions can take up to 4 weeks to be activated." - Citation 11 is a link to nowhere.
"Subscriptions can be difficult to cancel after a political dispute with the moderators." - Citation 12. This link proves nothing of the sort. The user doesn't like the politics AND had a problem canceling their subscription. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that they're related from thie citation
"Bringing this up on the forum has been seen to result in account suspension." - Citation 13. The thread in this citation does not match up with this quote. The user had a problem canceling their subscription and their emails were not getting delivered properly. The issue, as far as I can tell, was resolved appropriately. Where is the indication that this user was suspended?
"The Ars Technica OpenForum "FAQ" page[14] covering "how to cancel your subscription" was blank until recently." Citation 15 - I'm not sure how a link to the "Canceling your Subscription" FAQ is proof that it was once blank. Could someone clear this up for me?

I thought this was Wikipedia where citations and sources meant something. This discussion thread is FULL of rebutritions to the lies being spread in the article and no one seems to care. Why does the FALSE information keep getting added back in? Could someone please try to rebute my thrashing of the "Criticism" sources above? I think you'll find it difficult since most of them are lies, exxagerations, and purposefuly harmful. I am again removing the UNTRUE information as per my rebuttal above. --Clintology 15:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore:

"Members gather into subgroups based on political philosophies discovered through debate in the "News" and "Soap Box" fora. Founders and moderators of the site have been seen to take punitive action against those who express opposing views as fervently as the moderators or majority of the Ars Technica population (which leans strongly to the "left" in political opinion) or question the fairness of moderation" -- Citation 7 points to a blog post by Ken Fisher on the subject of "Black Friday." In the comments, Ken had a debate with a few individuals about the historial and theological history of the event. It got a little heater and some users berated Ken a bit, but I see no evidence of what is said in the above quote. Perhaps the author can clarify. As it stands this quote is misleading and the source makes no sense.
"Forum moderators and site administrators are not required to adhere to forum rules with regards to personal attacks and/or posting personal information." -- Citation 8 points to a thread where a Ars User (not a moderator) posted a list of links to threads written by a specific author. I'm not sure how this insinuates that Ars Moderators can break the rules. This is getting pretty ridiculous. Citation 9 is identical to Citation 7 and still doesn't make any sense in this context.
"Forum moderators and site administrators may also be selective about the enforcement of forum rules regarding personal attack." -- 'Citation 10. This is a link to a thread where a user says they're leaving the forum for good. A few normal users, no moderators as far as I can tell, have some choice words for the guy. Again I don't see the relevance of the source.

AGAIN, it is ridiculous that this PATENTLY FALSE information keeps getting added back into the article. Do you people who accuse us of "white washing" even read the sources or just verify the existance of such and assume they're accurate? Of course all of these issues have been rebuked LONG AGO in this discussion thread and nobody seems to care. Hopefully my careful deconstruction of the misleading sources will help people understand why so many people have been removing the lies from this Ars Techica article so religiously. --Clintology 15:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, patently false. Whatever. I myself had visited some of those links earlier, and when they were first put in, none were dead. Now, you are saying some don't work. Quelle suprise!

Regarding members gathering into subgroups, etc., if you insist on further links, I suppose they can be provided. However, I am a volunteer in this matter. I don't get compensated for fixing links that "disappear" or going through Ars' slow forum search to dig around for more. It is not easy to search for an argument that is taking place between moderators, registered users, and founders.

If you are going to deny that the Ars staff get into seriously heated arguments over political issues, and people are flamed for expressing differing viewpoints, and those same people are ganged up on by little "cliques" that form at Ars and many other forums besides, then you are not approaching this article with a neutral point of view. You are understandably approaching it with a biased point of view based on your relationship with ArsTechnica.

Anyway, if you want more links, have the Ars staff speed up search results in the forums.--24.105.219.78 21:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You had better provide "more links" because the current ones don't prove jack squat. I've removed the unfounded criticism AGAIN I will continue to do so until someone can provide even a single shred of proof that they're true. This isn't some website where you can post whatever you want willy-nilly. If you have proof and citations that meet Wikipedia's guidelines, then you'd better offer them up, because otherwise this untrue information won't stay on this page.

The speed of the search has nothing to do with nothing, if you have proof then offer it up. You cannot put information on Wikipedia that is: #1 uncited, and #2 untrue. I'm perfectly willing to let this stuff stay on the page if you could offer up something, ANYTHING, to substantiate it, but as of yet you've been subversive, dodgy, and unwilling. You sound like someone who has an axe to grind with a particular incident and you're trying to spray mud all over Wikipedia. Please reread what I read above and what Tsetna wrote above regarding what sorts of citations and sources are VALID at Wikipedia. As it stands, invalid links and links to unrelated content are laughable at best. --72.49.174.60 11:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (Clintology)

You wouldn't be willing to leave the criticism on the page. I know I didn't add those links. I also know that when they we're added, they worked. Many revisions by ArsTechnica staff and much time later, they don't. You revert to the "you have an axe to grind" argument. If that were true, and all the people who have contributed to the criticism section had an axe to grind, then Ars must have inspired a whole lot of axe-wielding with Wikipedia fans. Ars staff activity has been to create an advertising outlet for the site (including some marketing which, if I had an axe to grind, I would have removed).

You say that citations are needed for everything on Wikipedia. I direct you to read the Slashdot article. In the criticism subheading, it mentions "Article summaries with typos, misleading titles, or errors" as being one of the criticisms. No citation. Of course, despite it not having a citation, it is an accepted part of the article because it is ACCURATE! The Slashdot community knows about it, just as the ArsTechnica community knows about aspects of almost the entire criticism section on this page. Nobody seems to be complaining about the listing of bias on Slashdot, either. Maybe the Slashdot editors aren't trolling Wikipedia trying to whitewash the entry on their website (I suppose they could be, but I'm not looking through that many edits to find out! :))

I almost didn't see your comment that "The speed of search has nothing to do with nothing". I agree. You are asking people to spend hours digging up citations (which somebody, can't remember who, already did). They should post them here, and you can remove them, or maybe all of a sudden the links go nowhere, or don't seem to point to the incident in question. Or maybe the forum person was a complete jerk. Or whatever the myriad of excuses will be. If the person is registered at Ars, it won't be noticed by the apparently unwatchful ArsTechnica staff that someone is searching for particular sorts of postings in the forum.

You can bemoan the cruelty of the world, and how it lets people put back accurate criticism which created depth in a formerly shallow self-promotion. You fight criticism as if it is a cancer on your body. "Trying to spray mud all over Wikipedia" - are you saying that other articles have been created/modified to "spray mud" on ArsTechnica? I've only seen any criticism listed in this article. Which can hardly be called spraying mud.

“65.219.212.128”& “24.105.219.78” The links do work, which is proof that you’re not even attempting to look at them. Can you consider actually looking at the evidence for once? I see you are quick to make accusations that are baseless. How surprising.

The problem is that they are not proof of what they claim to be. Damn, how hard is that to understand? Some of you are full of it, and you know it. See WP:V: “3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.”

So, you want to include it, provide an accurate citation. You act as though all of this is obviously true, but it’s not. Your opinions are not facts and your arguments should have something other than namecalling to back them up.

If you were truly interested in the accuracy of this article, you would read the lengthy rebuttals above and respond to them. Instead you make pathetic accusations and ignore the hard work of other Wikipedians, and, of course, you never bother to deal with actual facts. Tsetna 19:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed: "Over time, the site has increasingly focused on political issues, usually when related to science, and has taken a stance on many issues. This caused upset amongst some regular readers who value the site for some of its technical coverage but lack appreciation for biased or political statements on the front page (known to the Ars Community as "Soap Boxing," referring to the forum of the same name).[5]" Because Citation 5 links to totally unrelated content. If someone could clarify how Citation 5 relates to the quoted text above, I'd be very interested to hear it. The authors of the other innaccurate stuff used the same "source" to try and prove some other unrelated point. Read above, since I've already covered this.

I'd like to back up Tsetna's comment about the previous poster's accusation that the "links don't work." No one ever said they didn't work, just that the sources don't make any sense when put in context with the "criticisms." They're totally unrelated! It's ridiculous! The fact that you're trying to put words into our mouths is just further proof that you're not reading any of the criticisms here in this discussion and just pushing your own biased agenda here. --Clintology 20:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone, "216.227.82.35," reverted the page again without responding to the issues with the content. I'm re-removing the unsupported criticism. --Clintology 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That someone is me, and I am tired of "Talking" when it is clear you have every intention of "re-re-re-removing" any criticism in this article. Earlier in the discussion, Ars staff/fans wrote that the criticisms referenced were "single incidents" which could not prove a trend. Now, according to that same group, the incidents never even occurred. I am not going to waste my time talking about this repeated autobiographical whitewashing. Also, I note that you or your friends seem to want to refer to those who fix the article as "name-callers". A clever way to detract from the fact that you want to evade any critical content in this article.

I'm removing this content because no one can prove that it's true! Above, Tsetna has presented the rules that need to be met. I'm fairly sure you can't just write whatever you like, especially accusations like these, without putting forth some sort of proof that they're true. --Clintology 22:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading on the citation section of Wikipedia regarding links that have disappeared or changed, it is made very clear that this does not indicate that the content should be removed. Merely that the links should be removed. Therefore, barring anyone else performing the work, I will undertake it later, when I am more rested.

Unless there is some sort of proof to back up the criticisms then how can you leave this content on the page? As far as anyone is concerned, this is false information. The links are not "disappeared or changed." They have not, nor have they ever had any relation to the "criticisms" that they claim to support. I'm not sure how many times that needs to be reiterated before people begin to understand it. Please reread my point-by-point analysis above why the citations are misleading or outright lies. --Clintology 22:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to clarify that I am perfectly open to criticism on this page and I'm sure that there is plenty to criticise about Ars and it's forums. But the crap that keeps getting added back onto this page, as far as I can tell, are just plain lies. This isn't helped by the fact that no one has yet offered up any sort of proof that these critisms are founded in any sort of reality and that their authors keep adding the, as-yet-to-be-proven-true information back to the article without making any sort of effort to respond to the fact that the citations seem to have no relation to the content it "supports." --Clintology 22:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Just checked the page again to find a message from Tsetna with this little "friendly note" You are in violation of WP:3RR with regards to your edits on Ars Technica. You really should participate in Talk and discuss the substance of the objections instead of reverting over and over again. You have not defended your edits, and the edits have not been defended by others. This is all clear in the Talk and article histories. You should also get an account because your IP keeps changing, and leaving these comments for you feels a little pointless. Have a great day! Tsetna 14:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As Tsetna and others know, I have participated in Talk. However, unlike the Ars Staff here, I don't have all day to respond to countless amounts of foolish diatribe about how all or most criticism should be removed for lack of reference. Previously, references which pointed to the mentioned criticism exist. At the time, they were denigrated by Arstechnica Staff and fans as being "single incidents", not proving a trend. Some now appear to not link to the referenced material. I have, with the help of the much faster Google search, found other references, and have tried to clean out old, non-working refs. I encourage other editors to take advantage of the same, which is much easier than using Ars internal search. Just use the format:

site:episteme.arstechnica.com "ad hominem" "evolution"

Quoted material can be replaced with whatever you are looking for. In the example above, I used evolution, knowing it to be a controversial topic on Arstechnica which had a good chance of displaying clique behavior.

Regarding my IP changing, it doesn't really matter. I am not some fly by night visitor to Wikipedia. I visit it almost every day and read. I visit the talk page for Arstechnica now every time I stop by, so I am sure I will see any message you leave here Tsetna. And, of course, all of this discussion should be public anyway, not private. I am sure you have been digging through all Wiki policies and guidelines, as you have demonstrated by your actions, to try to find another angle to keep criticism of Arstechnica from appearing. Notice that Kristi_ski's comment above warned the Arstechnica community about Autobiography before. That warning was ignored, of course. Which is funny, since one of the criticisms of Arstechnica has to do with some people being "above the rules". You disclaiming validity of criticisms in Talk (as one of your reverts noted) does not make them invalid.

Furthermore, the reference on the 3 revert rule also points out that reversion of vandalism does not count. Since rabid removal of referenced criticism counts in my book as vandalism, especially when it is performed autobiographically with the intent of creating a self-promotion article, then my reverts were in order. Also, Clintology's, Tsetna's, and the new arrival Reindeer Flotilla's reverts all appear to have the exact same goal, by the exact same group of people - Ars members and staffers. They also occur within a very tight timeframe, and the 3RR article notes that you may be in violation for less than 3 reverts in 24 hours, etc.

Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time; this is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR.

It's not a "threat" it's a rule. There's a difference. Tsetna 16:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently in response to my "Edit Summary".

You continue to misrepresent the situation. “As Tsetna and others know, I have participated in Talk.” Really? All you have done is make allegations. You refuse to actually discuss any specific point. All you do is claim that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is an Ars “staffer.” I see only one Ars staffer in this talk, and he admitted his involvement. Why don’t you drop the desperate attempts to direct readers away from debate? Good try on the vandalism angle, too. It’s not vandalism, as WP clearly says. These attempts at misdirection are a little lame.

Your comment “You disclaiming validity of criticisms in Talk (as one of your reverts noted) does not make them invalid” strikes me as funny, because I haven’t disclaimed them, I have outlined their problems extensively, and you have never responded to any of it, except once, and that one time you actually changed your mind. Thinking I had your attention, I expanded on it, but you ignored it. Convenient, but it is clearly your intention to malign the site, which is just fine if you can find criticisms that make sense and are cited. I even helped you with one. :)

Adding more links doesn’t solve your problems. I don’t have time to discredit all of these, nor do I feel that I should need to since you haven’t explained a single thing you’ve done. That’s because you’re just searching the Ars forums for disagreements and name calling, and trying to present it as evidence. It is so obvious that you are angry at Ars Technica for its coverage of evolution and other topics that anger conservatives. Why are you using this Wikipedia article as your platform to attack the site?

Source[1] for claim about science reporting is not accurate. It is not a reference to Ars front page, either. Second new source[2] is dubious. Reader is upset at coverage “everywhere” of a specific topic. He does not say that Ars Technica shouldn’t cover science. Topic is climate change. You have a problem with science?

Your reference[3] has nothing to do with cliques, punitive action, or questioning moderation. Second reference[4] is the same discussion already plastered on several links, and it has nothing to do with the criticism either. Third link[5] is more of the same, nothing to do with moderator action, nothing to do with cliques… but it has everything to do with Terry Schiavo. You apparently think that when an arch conservative is criticized in a forum that it means that Ars Technica has a policy of leftist politics.

A pattern is emerging here: you don’t like Ars Technica because it is technology and science, and you appear to be angered when your political views are challenged. But why don’t we sidestep all of that and deal with the actual criticisms and their faults which more than one user has listed here very clearly? Let's start with the link to nowhere that you keep resorting... what's your defence for that? How about the criticism that claims that a user was banned for asking for a refund? Where's your defense for the fact that there is no proof of that anyone in the cited pages? The list goes on and on and on... Tsetna 17:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I will try to address some of these points in detail later, as my schedule does not permit it now, but I will make one point quickly. The reference to me not liking "technology news and science". I read Arstechnica and Slashdot and others for the Technology News and Science coverage. However, you apparently believe that by labelling me an extremist or right-winger that you can somehow dissolve the validity of the criticisms, not all of which were even posted by me. This includes the "subscription issue" that you accuse me of, and as for the "dead link", when I first saw the links, they were all working (I had clicked them to look at the references)

Your recent edit, while finally acknowledging the primary point of the criticism, attempts again to subvert it by limiting it only to the specific references to the topics you listed, as opposed to pointing out a trend. The references I found are in the order they appear in using Google search, and are not sorted by "political bias" on my part. I used one reference to find something I knew would find a lot of results (evolution). One could just the same try other segments of discussion.--216.227.82.35 21:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (signature added later. No, it's not that hard to sign my comments. I believe you yourself had to be reminded to sign yours earlier (looking through the history) However, as I said, I have other tasks to perform today, and I was in a rush to at least give a partial response. You, on the other hand, appear to have lots of free time.)

Your claim that the subscription links once linked to something is demonstrably false. The link in its present form is an index link for the forum, and it cannot have ever linked to anything else. The format of the link has ever changed. How Infopop software works is a matter of fact. You are spinning tales.

My recent edit is accurate and specific, like all Wikipedia materials should be. If you are going to insist on painting with a broad brush, then we will continue to have problems. You have to have citations for what you argue, and they need to match what is said. And sign your comments! Is it that hard? Tsetna 18:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm one of the science writers at Ars. I'm a bit confused by this section: "The site has always covered political topics [5], but some readers have expressed dissatisfaction at a perceived increase in political content, particularly of a scientific nature. This is common in topics dealing with evolution (Ars is very pro-evolutionary theory)[6], climate change (Ars accepts that it is happening)" As science writers, we present the scientific consensus, which necessitates the positions we present on these topics. Being dissatisfied with an accurate representation of science doesn't seem to me to be a valid ground for criticism. I won't edit this, as I haven't taken part in this prior, but I would suggest that those involved in editing this entry should seriously consider removing or rephrasing this this section.

This section is currently under debate. To some of us, it is very clear that the statement that "some readers have expressed dissatisfaction" is true, and documentable (I have read posts where readers complain that <insert author name here> is "soap-boxing" on the front page. Recently, the references that someone had added to document this were called into question. I added some references based on a Google search, and Tsetna then modified this section to deal specifically with the referenced section, instead of allowing them to serve as a reference to general topics (i.e. it's not always science-related).

The format of that section, which really emphasises "scientific nature", will hopefully improve once we can post more links to more generic topics. However, until that occurs, Tsetna will likely revert any change to the section, and it's close enough to accurate where it is not worth my time to put back.

Tsetna has implied that I have in some way targeted Ars because I hate science and am some sort of right-wing or religious zealot or conservative (something he apparently sees as a bad thing). In reality, I read Ars whenever I get the chance and enjoy most of the science articles (to be honest, some stuff bores me, but the mix is understandable, different strokes and all). Also, all of the sites I do read probably qualify as at least left-wing in nature, and I don't think any are "conservative", unless you call theonion.com, somethingawful.com, slashdot.org, anandtech, macintouch, arstechnica.com and BBC News conservative (looking at my bookmarks toolbar).

I hope that you will not take the criticisms in this article as some sort of personal insult, as others have. I certainly did not add most of them. However, the ones that remain do seem verifiable, and this article has suffered a lot of vandalism by those who are more concerned with a pristine reputation than an accurate, balanced description.

The fact that Ars presents scientific consensus doesn't really counteract criticism of the prejudices that often occur within the scientific community. One example I can think of off hand is this guy (can't remember his name) who shows people how to use basic, home-made, inexpensive telescopes to learn about all the crazy stuff that surrounds us (no, not the neighbors window). He commented in an interview I read that he doesn't believe the Big Bang theory. But, he doesn't talk about it too much, because people get upset with him. That's the short version, they had more detail of course.

Now, that guy might like ArsTechnica's coverage of new telescopes and viewing technologies and stuff like that, but be turned off by what he sees as "the bandwagon" crowd. He might be wanting to build a budget-minded computer to compile his images. But then he ends up wading through very politically-divisive stuff. Which is why the section originally stated:

Over time, the site has increasingly focused on political issues, usually when related to science, and has taken a stance on many issues. This caused upset amongst some regular readers who value the site for some of its technical coverage but lack appreciation for biased or political statements on the front page (known to the Ars Community as "Soap Boxing," referring to the forum of the same name)

The part that needs to be added back in is that these people like the technical coverage. They come to ArsTechnica to read it. If they want political wrangling over the evolution debate, climate change, or right-to-die cases, they'll go to a blog, or TalkOrigins, or some other place.

Anyway, just some observations, would love to hear your feedback. --216.227.82.35 22:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) (added later)

Well, separate from the rest of what's going on, my feedback is that the criticism, as it now stands, suggests that if a science column covers scientific research from the perspective of the scientific consensus, it is a problem. Big Bang research is valid scientific exploration; if it happens to be "very politically-divisive stuff," that's a completely separate issue. If we were to refrain from covering every valid scientific topic that someone objected to, we'd cover nothing. This is not to say that i don't recognize that many topics are controversial, and that people have social or political issues with them; but merely covering them from a scientific perspective in a science column should not be grounds for criticism. As the criticism is currently phrased, however, that's exactly what has been done.

A possible alternative: "The science coverage at Ars frequently includes ongoing studies in topics such as evolution, climate change, and stem cell research. This has resulted in complaints from those who object to the scientific consensus on these topics, often for social or political reasons." This, i think, captures the fact that there are criticisms about this coverage, but that those criticisms are not based on the actual science, per se. (UNSIGNED by 140.251.33.85)

Science writer guy: sorry that your pride and reputation are getting caught up in an editor war centered on mistruths, lies, and fabrications. There are certain editors in this article that insist that everyone who disagrees with a criticism must be an Ars staffer, shareholder, moderator, superfan, the list of name calling goes on and on. Those editors will ignore everything you contribute. They will also freak out if you dare suggest anything about their motivations, but hypocrisy is apparently OK here. They will rebut your arguments by trying to discredit who you are as a person. The irony is that this is what an ad hominem logical fallacy is, and while it’s against the rules at Ars Technica, it’s a hobby at Wikipedia.Tsetna 18:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I can state for the record that being referred to as a "fan" of the site is not calling someone names. After all, I am an Arstechnica fan. As for staffer, shareholder, etc., those who try to remove all criticism and admit to being part of the ArsTechnica staff are self-identifying. There were times when I admit to apparently mistakenly identifying Clintology of being a moderator, rather than a staff writer. The functional difference does not really exist, as both would be coming from ArsTechnica as people with a vested interest in its success. You apparently find this to be incredibly insulting. There is not much I can do about that.--216.227.82.35 22:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It’s an ad hominem logical fallacy. And your accusations have been wrong. Tsetna 21:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I am prepared to prove how dumb the situation is here.

For instance, a certain editor as of late likes to claim that everything is verifiable and that everything has been defended[6]. It’s an interesting claim since the document versioning here can be used to prove beyond any doubt how false that claim is. Take these problems below. They are all fabrications, all obviously unreliable, and all of them are constantly re-inserted in the article by people who continue to lie about their status as defended and reliable. I will happily drop this when someone can prove to me that these have been defended in Talk, and that these are reliable and accurate. It’s not going to happen, though. It’s easier to just spread mistruths, lies, and defamation. Honestly, look at the criticism section! One of the “criticisms” of a site like Ars is that once there was confusion over placing a link? That’s not a criticism, that’s a misunderstanding. Even as it is worded right now, it is not NPOV. Tsetna 18:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the criticism is documented as being one of the person who claimed plagiarism, and who was contacted by someone at DSLReports regarding this happening to them (no attribution by Ars). It may have been a "misunderstanding", but the statement is factually correct.--216.227.82.35 22:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the woman explicitly said it wasn’t plagiarism. You also missed my point about it being a misunderstanding placed as criticism. Tsetna 21:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

My new section follows. Read it and then draw your own conclusions as to who is vandalizing and acting inappropriately.