Talk:Gab Dissenter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reverting "far right"

IP: The consensus on the main page Talk:Gab_(social_network) was clear that the short description for Gab is "far-right social network". If you have an alternative proposal for summarizing the Daily Dot article, raise it. You seems to be really adept at using Wikipedia, care to log in?Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

A short description is not an in-text attribution of Gab as far-right. Furthermore, there is no consensus for this article to have it. Also, the attribution of "far-right" is not supported by any legitimate research institution, and isn't sourced or backed up by any of the "reliable sources" cited, it is only claimed. The belief that Gab is far-right is just that - a belief. 50.107.79.14 (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)CheckUser-confirmed block evader comments striked -- Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Consensus for the descriptor was already achieved over at Gab, which is the main article on Gab itself. I've copied the citations used in that article over here, but if you want to try to achieve new consensus over whether Gab itself is far-right or not, that should happen at its talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference between "the far-right social network website Gab" and "known for its mainly far-right user base" from Gab. One states that Gab the company itself is far-right, the other that it is its user-base which is far-right. Please rephrase. 77.205.86.225 (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair point, actually. I'm happy to leave just the other mention, which is more carefully worded. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense adding "Far-right" attribution to something that the article isn't about. Although if that's super duper important, I would propose something along the lines of "social network Gab, which is known for a mainly far-right user base" 50.107.79.14 (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)CheckUser-confirmed block evader comments striked -- Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The current mention of "far-right" is referring to the users of Gab Dissenter—is that what you're saying shouldn't be included? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Although Dissenter uses Gab accounts as a way to log into the service, that doesn't mean that all Dissenter users are also Gab users. That just means they have a Gab account to use Dissenter. It's akin to users who have a Google+ account to use YouTube, but might not be a user of Google+. Anyhow, I was discussing the attribution of Gab as "far-right" near the top, not the bottom. 50.107.79.14 (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)CheckUser-confirmed block evader comments striked -- Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Gotcha. Per my 01:50UTC comment, your point makes sense to me so I don't remind the top mention being removed. As for the one near the bottom, the source specifically describes Dissenter users as far-right—though a better source than Daily Dot would be nice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This framing seems to beg the question of an article merge, and the editorial cited doesn't seem to conclusively support the assertion particularly as the sole adjective. As far as consensus over there, I see it claimed but there's active discussion on that point. Was there a previous final decision in the talk archives? vsync (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Just search around in the archives for "far right", the discussions go back as far as Archive 2. There haven't been any formally-closed RfC-type discussions, if that's what you're asking, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Pinging you since I see you've just re-added "far right". I think the IP in this above discussion is correct, that the sourcing does not describe Dissenter itself as far-right, but rather many of the people who use the service. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@X-Editor: Also pinging you here, since you've been involved in the discussions. Hopefully the discussion can happen here rather than in edit summaries as the term is repeatedly added and removed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: The reason why I reverted the far-right part is because not enough sources say it is far-right in order to verify that it is far-right. The Breitbart News article and the Rebel Media article have the far-right claim backed up by several sources, whereas only one source backs up the far-right claim for Gab's Dissenter, which is a very opinionated Daily Dot article. We should not have the far-right claim in the article until there are several sources backing up the far-right claim. X-Editor (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Concur with the result of discussion (or at least the page as of 03:32, last edit by X-Editor) except (sigh) for the "open source" bit. Will open separate topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsync (talk • contribs) 03:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Calling something far-right is a thought terminating term. Why would we do it when Tumblr is not called a far-left social media?

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Users on the Dissenter page for this Wikipedia Page leaving some nice comments.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Is this pushing WP:OR too far or not?

Should we note this? "We reserve the right, but are not obligated, to remove or disable access to any Content, at any time and without notice, including, but not limited to, if we, at our sole discretion, consider any Content to be objectionable or in violation of the Community Guidelines." I was reading a lot of stuff about decentralization and freedom of speech and this seems to bring back the reality of what computer culture is. Wnt (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't include that unless it's independently discussed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Could be worth linking to other related efforts. Some kind of category about sites with limited content removal? Dissenter/Gab aren't the first. Slashdot comes to mind but I'm sure there are others. However it's not decentralized in the sense that, say, Usenet is. More of an additional center. vsync (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

New edit by User:Tsumikiria

Your recent edit here conflates a "Gab user" with a Dissenter user. A person who uses Dissenter might not necessarily use Gab, and only needs to have a Gab account. The only suggested change I propose is changing "This creates a discussion page where Gab users can post comment", to "This creates a discussion page where users who have a Gab account can post comments" 50.107.79.14 (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)CheckUser-confirmed block evader comments striked -- Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to clarify. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Open source

Is Dissenter actually open source? Haven't seen mention. This would necessitate both the original non-minified source of extensions being released along with the server code which I especially haven't heard about. Perhaps simply "open" or something else. We could mention later in the article if they are making open-source clients available. vsync (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe this source code is what they mean when they've said it's "open source". GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; linked under history because I couldn't find any better spot. vsync (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If only the client-side are open source and no secondary sources mention this, it should not be added. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the CNET source. Not sure if they've open sourced the server-side portion, I didn't see it but I also didn't look very hard. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both. For reference I preemptively removed the "open source" claim from the lede since it wasn't supported by citation and on reflection even "open" seemed a stretch for a managed service. I did add a link to the repository in describing the release history of the clients. Feel free to footnote CNET as well (I don't know the syntax for that offhand) but the repository seems definitive anyway. vsync (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Add a "Design" section to the article Add some of this information to the "Features" section

I propose a new section named "Design", which describes and shows the website & extension's design. Some notable examples include it's extension logo, which could be uploaded i think. It should be divided between two sub-sections, extension and Website. The website has an BLACK animated banner, which scrolls through different News stories, and below it, has different options named Discover, Random, Top, and Search. It's homepage lists "Top discussions" as well as "Controversial" and "Latest". It also has a list titled "Current Top News", which lists news from different News organizations. When logged out, there is a Log In button, which, when logged in, is replaced with a URL form which allows you put any URL in to comment on that URL. Clicking on a user's Username takes you to their Dissenter profile, which is separate from a Gab profile. It also lists the articles that the user had recently commented on. 50.107.79.14 (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)CheckUser-confirmed block evader comments striked -- Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Observations about the design shouldn't be added unless they're discussed in third-party sources. Not really sure what importance, for example, the banner color has such that it should be included here. The key features (for example, the news ticker) are already mentioned. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably. Just a thought. Just noticed "news ticker" after i added that, also. 50.107.79.14 (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)CheckUser-confirmed block evader comments striked -- Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Merger RfC

For the record, RfCs usually take a month. Declaring consensus on day 1 seems... premature. I have protected the page for a few days; if necessary, that can be extended. I hope it won't be necessary. Huon (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment Freely

Consensus is that the proposed content is not suitable for this article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia is not a platform for unrestricted free speech --Tsumikiria⧸ 🦙🌉 01:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC) @Tsumikiria: My addition was not entirely inappropriate. I was putting a new alternative to Gab Dissenter forward to let others find it, and make an article about Comment Freely, which I don't have time for right now. It was not meant as an ad nor promotion, but as an alternative, and especially an alternative to those who inhabit Gab. I have ZERO affiliation with Gab nor Comment Freely, but am all for open source (see my archive for my voluminous contributions there and elsewhere) and I am all for free speech, no matter how unappealing. That said, I wish to find a compromise that suits the needs of the Wikipedia community regarding listing this alternative to Gab Dissenter. I'm asking you because you rejected it as it was and would rather deal with a human than the throng in that heated article's talk section. I really don't have time for this to be drawn out, but I'll make as much time as is necessary without delving into the whole ordeal of making a new Comment Freely article. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, April 1, 2019‎ This article is not about Comment Freely. Including it is spurious at this time.--Jorm (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Gab Dissenter AND Comment Freely are both comment platforms that can be used on social media sites, blogs, news sites and other applications. There most certainly IS a connection as alternatives to having to settle for a community you may not wish to participate in or be associated with. I didn't know Wikipedia was a consensus-needed website. When did this happen? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, April 1, 2019‎ I keep getting censored instead of people trying to help improve this article. Everyone is quick to pull the censorship trigger but not willing to engage here in discussion. This place is hopeless. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:14, April 1, 2019 @JasonCarswell: Advertising a non-notable software platform here isn't "improving the article". This has nothing to do with censorship. Also, please sign your posts. Bradv🍁 19:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC) @Bradv: I'm not advertising. I'm providing information about alternatives, if there were more I'd add a them in a list under See also. It has everything to do with censorship when this happens 3 times in a short period and without feedback to help improve the page via whatever hoops are needed to jump through. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC) JasonCarswell, okay so I would say two things are needed in order for us to mention that here. First, a properly-sourced article about the topic, and second, a source drawing a connection between the two. Does that help? Bradv🍁 19:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Bradv, it helps to a point. It doesn't negate the culture of kneejerk censorship on Wikipedia or the fact that these sites already claim these things. If a person says he's an atheist I don't need an official source to say that he claims to be an atheist. Why is this different? This is an intentionally rigged system designed to marginalize alternatives to the corporatocracy. These rules aren't meant to promote information, they're to keep information out. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC) JasonCarswell, you need to learn what "censorship" means. You are not being censored; you are falling up against what is called "Editorial Restraint". In this case, your suggested edits have been roundly rejected by other editors for a variety of reasons, all of which have been told to you. One would imagine that "free speech warriors" would know the difference. Do not attempt to re-add references to this page without first obtaining consensus. If you do, your next step is going to be the Edit Warring Noticeboard, where I promise you things will not work out in your favor. Someone (not me) should close this section now.--Jorm (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Why are we collapsing this discussion? I think this should be helpful reading for the next person who comes along and wonders about this. It's important that we try to explain the fundamental principles of Wikipedia to new editors, rather than just shut the conversation down every time. I agree that sometimes that is necessary, but didn't think this was one of those times. Bradv🍁 05:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Probably because the editor decided to go on a rant about how he's being "censored" and how Wikipedia is an "intentionally rigged system designed to marginalize alternatives to the corporatocracy" because someone removed his advertisement for a non-notable piece of software... I'm not super worried that someone will come along and wonder where the mention of CommentFreely is, given it's completely unrelated to this article and also given the software seems basically unknown. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Closing it makes sense - I was just surprised by the (double) collapsing. One of the ironies of this conversation is that in many ways Wikipedia is the "alternative to the corporatocracy" – does anyone else remember Microsoft Encarta or Encyclopedia Britannica? Bradv🍁 14:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Change Gab Dissenter --> Dissenter.com

The service isn't actually called "Gab Dissenter" as far as I can tell. The article's title should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginjuice4445 (talk • contribs) Ginjuice4445 (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)