Talk:Digg/Archive 1

message: Has anyone ever even seen someone say "YADD" on digg before? I sure haven't.--Tobey 06:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the move suggestion. I'm not familiar with digg; I found the YADD article via Wikipedia:Bad links, cleaned it up and suggested the move because it didn't seem to justify its own article. If it's not a notable part of digg, I'll go ahead and suggest YADD for deletion.--Muchness 06:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no use in keeping it up for a VfD-ed article. I went ahead and removed the tag. --crumb 17:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: YADD

message: I noticed in the history section there are two different spellings of this name; Jerimiah and Jeremiah Udy. Which one is correct?
"Jeremiah", is the correct spelling. --Tobey 21:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two spellings of Mr. Udy

message: This article was restored after a successful Vote for undeletion (available here).  For a previous discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digg (2nd nomination).  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: I kind of get what the person is trying to say, but it is a very akward read. Anyone want to take a stab at rewriting those paragraphs?
**I submitted the original...it was modified and the grammar became about 300% worse.  I fixed the wording, spelling, and grammar. People should learn how to write. [[user:larsinio|larsinio] 0:45, 17 August 2005 
Also, perhaps a paragraph about user comment moderation abuse? Effectively "silencing your critics" with the ability to rate any comment with any rating you want, allowing you to bury an unwanted comment below the default threshold? jmccorm 04:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User abuse section 

message: I think we should remove the Diggnation section from this article and make it its own article.  I don't believe Diggnation has any official affiliation with Digg.com, they just report the popular stoires.  Before any changes are made, what are your opinions?  --Cybersavior 10:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A separate "Dignation" article was merged into this article, and that was entirely appropriate.  "Dignation" is Digg's official podcast (hence the participation of Digg co-founder Kevin Rose).  —Lifeisunfair 12:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This issue is Diggnation is (c) Revision 3 where as Digg is a seperate company.  Yes Digg's co-founder (kevin rose) is a presenter but the question is that enough distiction to seperate the articles.  Personally I aggree with the previous comment, it's the official pod/vid-cast. Martin Porcheron 22:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation between Digg and Diggnation 

message: How does this compare to the voting on the submission queue at Kuro5hin?
::The sites are similar in concept.  But I think Digg has taken off for many reasons.  
::1. Kevin Rose is a celebrity in the tech world, giving the site a leg up on the rest from the start. 
::2. Digg is a perfect name for the site, kuro5hin is not a good name and its a bitch to type.  
::3. User Interface:  People don't realize just how HUGE having a good user interface can be.  The two sights are not similar in that regard.  
::4. Technology: Digg uses AJAX which makes for a better user interface.  
::5. Timing: I think the internet was due for a nice fresh news site to rival slashdot (although I dont think its a direct rival, but its takes some of my time away from slashdot so it sorta is)
:: But I will also say, I think digg's novelty will wear off.  But I dont think its going to go anywhere (assuming it stays in the original owners hands) and will continue to be a very popular site.  The sites owners will not let it slip and will change it if need be.--Hergio 00:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kuro5hin 

message: From the article: roughly 25 or more within a certain time period, it is posted to Slashdot's front page,
and: the story may only get reposted on Slashdot once.
I didn't think digg and Slashdot were related. MxAesir 06:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That part seemed to be an insult on how Slashdot and Digg make a big echo chamber.  Stuff that gets posted to Slashdot is later submitted on Digg by many users. It works the other way on occasion and rarely in the manner of some kind of feedback loop.  I don't think it's especially notable, because it seems to happen with a lot of technology news sites. --waffle iron 07:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Digg works - Slashdot? 

message: Digg is heavily biased toward Apple. The entire Digg article here is just really "spam" for a commercial website
You could also say its biased towards Linux and anything Anti-Microsoft. The digg article is what its supposed to be, background information for something current. Stop trolling and sign your comment. DeathscytheH64 04:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Digg is really an Apple site

message: What is with people removing Diggall.com from the links section? Is it not related to Digg? -24.19.161.152 08:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a subsection of Digg, so we link to it indirectly already. The diggall.com domain seems to be meant as a convenience for Digg users, and is not valuable for Wikipedia readers wanting more information about Digg. Haakon 09:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be like a "helpful link"? It's valuable for Wikipedia readers who want to get to the diggall section (an obviously important section of digg) -24.19.161.152 05:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same as going to the main site and clicking 'digg for stories'. Looking at unpromoted stories is primarily useful for registered users. The shortcut would otherwise confuse casual readers. --waffle iron 05:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Diggall.com is not related to digg.  The URL is Digg.com/diggall however the above does apply, it is only a sub-section of digg. --Me, JHoldaway 12:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diggall.com 

message: The criticisms section can potentially include a lot of material. Perhaps it should be moved to its own article, Criticisms of digg. Noclip 01:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms in a separate article? 

message: Ok, just gone and changed the capitilisation of a number of the titles in the Criticisms section but i recon that some of the titles are too long/complex. For example i have changed Breeding ground for libel--------->Potential Libel Issues
I feel that most of the others could do with changing but cant think of any good ones to replace them with right now, any sugestions  Someguyonearth 23:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of the titles of "Criticisms" 

message: A poll was posted on Digg a while ago asking Digg users' age, occupation, etc. (Not surprisingly, most were young, male teenagers) If someone can find this I'd like to use it as a basis for a Demographics section. Noclip 18:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics of users 

message: I'm fairly new to Digg; am used to Slashdot.  I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned in the criticisms section anything about the effectiveness of substantive quality of this sort of organic moderation.  A lot of stories strike me as overly-sensational, shallow, missing the point, or containing inaccuracies (I think I submitted bad reports for about half the front page stories that I saw in the first day, and then I grew tired of doing that).  Slashdot often has the same problems, with stories that have misleading titles or synopses that draw a lot of "RTFA" in the comments, but this problem is so much worse on Digg.  A lot of the comments also strike me as lacking in true understanding of the issue, and the quality of collection moderation is only as good as the intelligence of said collective; I guess I know now what it would be like if the people who post comments on /. were given moderation powers.  Anyway, I have a desire to Wikipedia-ify this criticism and to add it, but I first want to see how many people share this or if I'm just the lone outcast. --Code65536 20:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the criticism section.  A lot of the old stuff either didn't make sense or sounded like trolling (no offense to anyone who thought otherwise).  I modeled it after the bullet-point style on the Slashdot article.  I think this is cleaner and simpler. Also, I added the tag cloud and Digg spy to the features section. --Vector4F 03:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked your changes, but it looks like they were reverted right away. Perhaps you should re-add them or integrate them back into the article. I agree the crit section right now is a bit weak, which I think is a POV from digg users who don't like to think that the front page stories may be of poor quality sometimes. Rm999 15:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Criticisms

message: I'm concerned that this article has taken a turn for the worse recently. Much of the "criticism" section is unsourced, it seems to be the opinion of whoever happened to edit this article. Phrases like "Sensationalism is prevalent on Digg" are not encyclopedic. Same for "any story submitted with a description applauding Digg, Firefox or Apple is quickly promoted to the front page", scare quotes in "Many "news" posted on Digg", claiming Digg users committed "illegal acts" in the PriceRitePhoto dispute, etc. The firefoxmyths/comcast thing is based on the personal experience of User:Digg - it is original research, and it's inappropriate for this article. Please don't add it again.
Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research before editing this article. Rhobite 05:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, that is pretty bad.  Even though I agree with many of them I do not see that they are verifiable in the sense that we are looking for.  I was tempted to remove almost all of that section, but I will leave it for a few more days to see if sources can be found. kotepho 21:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I say we just delete the entire section. It's caused nothing but problems, and I don't see why we need it. --Tobey 05:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a good section, We should keep it. The Psycho 09:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think removal is the answer, but we do need to find sources for these criticisms, and remove the ones which are not cited. Rhobite 02:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure we need sources for them.  It would be great if we had some even if they aren't WP:RS, but I believe most of them fall under acceptable original research. kotepho 02:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: NPOV, not fanboy POV. We need the section because Digg is not perfect and because Wikipedia is not a banner ad. Noclip 12:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV concerns 

message: * and what is an ambushed url already? Kotepho 05:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Like a url that says "Click Here To Download Free Games", but the url actully points to Last Measure. SlashDot 07:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *That is what I figured but I have never heard of this phrase before http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ambushed+url%22+OR+%22url+ambushing%22 (and apparently no one else uses it.) Kotepho 08:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polls are evil 

message: Why are the more legitimate, cited, and important criticisms getting deleted while POV nonsense gets left? The site's users are a mob. The section used to say that in an NPOV way, including several sources. Their users keep coming in and reading that there are some problems with their community, and rather than stopping to think they remove it or sabotage it (removing sources, leading to removal). Or they slap the 15th neutrality dispute this month on the section. "Blasphemy!" they chant, "we are perfect! Digg is perfect!" They must not realize that in doing it they're proving the very material they're deleting right. Noclip 16:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't a courtroom. It is not this article's place to say whether it's illegal to repeatedly request a website. I've changed that paragraph back to its old wording. Rhobite 22:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I removed (actually commented out) a LOT of the Criticisms section.  Yes it was unilateral.  But the ones that are still there are, IMO, inarguably valid criticisms.  The rest are unreferenced, unfounded, or original research.  They're still there, hiding, waiting to be individually validated.  --DCrazy talk/contrib 05:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of them (the last one) is completely unfounded and since the current arguments raging on Digg is clearly another attack at the integrity of the website, I have since warned the user via their talk page of political or personal opinions. Martin Porcheron 22:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Pruning 

message: There is so much crap comented out of the Criticisms section the actual content is hard to read to do edits. You dont see any of this on the slashdot article. Aren't many of the criticisms the same for both sites anyway? You don't see a revert way going on over on that page and just as many items are as unsourced as on this artcle. --Mattarata 20:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: feel free to add criticisms to Slashdot article. NigariaKingo 02:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't add stuff that's too POV. Add a section called Criticisms that explains common complaints about /.--otherwise the article will end up like this one. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove all comments from within article and move them to talk 

message: Why is it not a good idea to link to http://shii.org/tech/digg page with comprehensive list of a digg clones (in External links section)? I did it put the edit was reverted one minute later. --lauri 14:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's an article about Digg not about its clones. If any of the clones are notable enough they will have their own article or you can create it. --Thorpe | talk 15:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but in Wikipedia there are a lot of articles with name like "List of ... clones" (for example: List of Sinclair QL clones, List of ZX Spectrum clones, etc). So the question is: if I create an article with title "List of Digg clones" (which could have the same content as the referred page has and a link to http://shii.org/tech/digg (this page)) then is it alloved (on main Digg article) to add a link to this new Wikipedia page? (Btw, I thought that it is a pretty common conception here to reference to "List of..." things. In fact I like it very much when I find such a list on some subject in which I'm currently interested. Humans have associative memory and it broadens the understanding of subject if you can easily find content related to main info. But its just my opinion.) --lauri 03:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Digg clones 

message: Today There were several stories, one with 2000 diggs that had a link to Stephen Colbert's video from the bush event... and it was buried... many other stories were buried too. 67.34.33.185 23:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colbert video stories buried 

message: The criticism section was ballooning up to a point where it was bigger than the rest of the article.  It also went over the same points multiple times and lacked citations for the majority of it's claims.  It's been consolidated into four paragraphs that address the major concerns and provides the necessary sources - just because it's not as long or as scathing as you'd like it to be does not warrant a revert.  Does this really have to be brought to Wikipedia moderators? --72.224.153.104 04:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit removes too much properly sourced information. Dynomites 05:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Digg articles are not proper sources, because anybody can submit one anytime.  If a digg article gained enough notariety, find a proper source that reports on it and cite that.  If my edit removed something you feel is extremely vital, by all means give it a shot.  But the version you are reverting to is out of control, with every other paragraph boasting a 'citation needed' notice.  Please be rational here.  --72.224.153.104 05:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both of your versions lack citations.  To label criticisms as criticisms, you really need to have a source that criticizes -- and right now (as before), only the criticism from Forever Geek is cited.  Without sources that criticize, any editor can delete as much of the section as he or she wants per WP:V and WP:OR. bcasterline t 11:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Point taken.  I've now mixed the two versions of 'Criticisms' - removing the small paragraphs that were insignificant and lacked citations, but merging their basic points with more relevent paragraphs.  Also, tons of sources have been added, and I think the section now accurately reflects the problems people have with Digg that have been sufficiently documented by credible sources.  Eh?  --relaxathon 19:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good work.  The section could still use a source that criticizes the "mob mentality" rather than merely documenting it -- but, still, best version yet. bcasterline t 20:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I added back the part about intervention by admins on stories. I don't why you removed this 72.224.153.104, but nice try. You need a good reason to remove something like that because there was so much proof that it was happening, and is an entirely legit criticism. The cited criticism from forever geek is enough to keep it in IMO. Rm999 09:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert War Brewing 

message: Perhaps there should be a "Terminology" section including words or phrases that were created and adopted by Digg users. Terms for the section could include Diggmobb, Digg Effect, Dugg to death etc... --Mattarata 23:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Definitely.  No way that deserves it's own article until a diggmob does something horrible and it's made famous on CNN and Fox.  --72.224.153.104 14:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Honestly, I've never even heard of a diggmob, and I read and post on Digg.  That said, what about today's incident on http://www.specialham.com where the digg users deliberately DDOSed the site because it was tied to spammers?--ZachPruckowski 23:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Diggmobb?? 

message: Isn't the official title actually "digg"?  I've never seen it spelled "Digg" in any of the official pages on the site except where "Digg" is the first word in the sentence. --Tim 19:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but see the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Digg#Correct_capitalization_of_Digg.2Fdigg.3F Rm999 22:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lowercase "digg" 

message: The majority of this article seems to deal with the problems of digg. Perhaps a review is in order and perhaps even a warning to it's lack of objectivity.
:I wouldn't call it a majority - a quick word check shows ~560 words devoted to criticism, and 1057 to the rest of the article. As a regular user of the site, I think this ratio seems about right. An article can criticize something and still remain objective. In fact, hiding this criticism or trying to change the proportion of it artifically would be non-objective. Rm999 20:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps a little slanted? 

message: Here is the first passage in question:
Even though Digg is depicted as a user-driven website with non-hierarchical editorial control, there have been recent complaints of intervention by editors to promote certain stories, bypassing the choice of users. The same editors are accused of hiding these facts by censoring stories which mention them and by banning users who have posted them. Slashdot article. Kevin Rose responded by blaming the promotion on users rather than staff. Forevergeek.com responded by pointing out that Kevin Rose dugg the same exact stories in the same exact order as the users, and that he was therefore complicit in the promotion. A statistical analysis of the diggs showed that an average of 7-8 of the users digg each others stories within the first 24 diggs per story that made the front page, and Kevin Rose dugg 28% of these stories within the first 24 diggs. Later Kevin Rose appeared on TWiT 51 and claimed that he was the 17th digger on the stories in question by pure chance.
Two bullet points down, and this:
Conversely, others chide the site for possibly being too moderated. An expose by tech blog Forever Geek [12] uncovered what it felt was obvious intervention by editors to promote or bury certain stories, bypassing the choice of users. [13] It also implicated founder Kevin Rose as participating in an automated process to mass-digg certain articles, some of which were submitted by eventual spammers.[14] The accusations were addressed extensively by Rose in an appearance on This Week in Tech. [15]. On that podcast, as well as on the official Digg blog, he stated that the charges stemmed from a coincidence (two stories that Rose was found to have been the 17th person to "digg" [16]), and that the whole snafu arose after ForeverGeek users were banned for artificially inflating the digg counts of their stories.
Why the redundancy? This problem spans a significant portion of the article, and I felt it should be brought to the community's attention prior to changes being made.
:: There is a Wikipedia editor who feels very strongly about this article - assuming the best about them, they were so worked up that they thought the info was missing and reinstated this earlier rendition of the fiasco.  I've deleted their mistake, hopefully it doesn't pop up again... --72.224.150.233 03:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't say I was worked up - I didn't see the other criticism. Regardless, i think the other version of the events makes more sense and was better researched. Why does the current one start with "Conversely, others chide the site for possibly being too moderated." This has nothing to do with what happened. Rm999 01:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism" Redundancy 

message: The list for site features is very incomplete and I plan to make a major edit and I got the stucture for it done. I have a user subpage for this since it's going to very major edit and I would like some feedback/help before I contiue--Scott3 23:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site Feature expansion 

message: don't remove think link http://digg.com/linux_unix/Richard_Stallman_supports_voluntary_pedophilia (Richard Stallman Supports 'Voluntary Pedophilia') Progressivenazism 10:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? It is totally random. --LorianTC 11:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's a "Valid Link", of course! Why else? Oh wait, it has nothing to do with the article, and is just an obvious ad hominem squeezed into where it doesn't belong. Damn, if only it wasn't a Valid Link. Capi 01:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's an obvious criticism of Digg. Progressivenazism 05:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to explain how before putting it back? --LorianTC 09:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Valid Link

message: I think we should change the screen shot to one that isn't using an ad blocker, to show Digg how it looks to most users.  I too block ads on the site, but it seems like an unfair representation of the site if it isn't displayed in its default state for the article. - seinman 03:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Screen Shot

message: It got rederict to here because it can be coverd here but this article doesn't have any info on it.  So I'll put it in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digg_army&oldid=36664734
---Scott3 Talk Contributions  Count: 950+  01:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is neither notable, nor verifiable, therefore it doesn't belong here. --LorianTC 10:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "digg army" 

message: Users and specific URLs, such as FireFoxMyths, can be blacklisted based on user complaints or site administrator's request
It is not necessary to put an example. Forevergeek.com was also blocked, and I believe it is much more important than FireFoxMyths, yet it is not being named in the article. If you want to add the FireFoxMyths bit, find a source to backup your claim. None of the external links supplied at the end of the paragraph state FireFoxMyths links are banned. -- ReyBrujo 01:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firefox Myths 

message: There are a few too many links to other articles in this section. More than half of them basically amount to spam for less popular websites. I propose that the following be cut:Newscloud, Shoutwire, Reddit, Care2, Newsvine, Kuro5hin, Pligg, Internet vigilantism. --Mattarata 03:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fine enough. Maybe replacing most of them with List of social networking websites, in example? -- ReyBrujo 03:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: done--Mattarata 18:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also suggest removing Blog (Digg is not a blog system, it is mainly a news system), Revision3 (they produce Diggnation, thus it is fine to have them in the See also section of Diggnation, but not needed here), and Web 2.0. (the article does not talk about Web 2.0 at all). -- ReyBrujo 19:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on removing Blog. I 50% agree on removing Revision3, except that Rev3 pretty much only exists because of the success of Digg much like Diggnation would not exist, at least in the current form, without Digg. I would be against removing Web 2.0. Yes it is not referenced in the article, though I think it needs to be because many journalists are referring to it when citing examples of Web 2.0 sites zdnet, cnet, forbesmsnbc and those are just articles in the last 2 weeks or so. Digg has many characteristics of a Web 2.0 site and is referenced on Web 2.0 --Mattarata 22:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also Section

message: I think Digg is a social networking site because of the community of users and the way in which they interact with each other and with the site. Users mod each other up and down, collect diggs for stories they submit, are ranked according to quality/number of stories they submit or digg. Digg is not just a social bookmarking site. I think the intro paragraph needs to mention the socail networking aspect of the site, then it can be added to the list of social networking sites. --Mattarata 16:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember, we need to use reliable third party sources. Digg.com/about is a primary party, and should not be used in this article. If we find a CNN article (in example) where they state Digg is a social networking site, then we can add that information here. By the way, I unlinked the digg.com link here to prevent it from appearing in the Special:Linksearch page. -- ReyBrujo 03:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Digg A [[Social Networking]] Site?

message: "blogs are not good references" wuz the reason given for revertin my addition of .  yet blogs r cited all over the place in this article.  thomashawk.com, radar.oreilly.com, seomoz.com, sitepoint.com, forevergeek.com, and zippitydoodahonline.com r all blogs.  they also mentioned in Digg#References.  so why do those count and mine dont? 72.36.251.234 19:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support and agree with ReyBrujo's reversion and as far as I am aware, blogs, unless published by estasblished and relilable news sources are not accepted.  Please take a look at WP:V for more information of sources. Martin Porcheron 22:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See here: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. There are proved exceptions when a blog can be used, but this is not one. Also, if I understand your link correctly, it is a blog with 4 entries, right? -- ReyBrujo 22:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: according to , theres a very good reason why people dont read stuff they digg: they use diggs as bookmarks, bookmarking things they would like to read later. 207.44.156.80 03:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  thats like someone saying that a movie they havent seen is good as a way to remember to watch that movie.  its stupid.  if you think a certain Digger submits good content dont digg it - subscribe to an rss feed of their story submissions 72.36.251.234 17:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: why is  banned?  editor says it not factual, reputable source as if the other sources are.  unlike other link, this meets WP:Verifiability.  do editors get to pick and chose which rules they follow?  if yes why is Mattaratas selective application of rules better then wut he suggests are mine??? 72.36.251.234 19:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, therefore your remark about editors isn't true, because everyone is an editor.  On the actual point, Jason Calacanis is a well-known critic of Digg, mainly because he helped set up a competitor.  Any opinions expressed by him are POV because is the creater of a competing product.  Martin Porcheron need help? just ask! 17:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  blogs are not good references? 

message: Digg recently undergone a layout change. I have uploaded a screenshot. If anyone can upload a better screenshot please feel free to do so under the same file name. I have also added the information to the timeline and made a reference to Digg the Blog. --Thorpe | talk 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New layout 

message: on 13 December i add note about supernova17 .  it then deleted because it not verifable news source.  then on 19 December news.com.com come and cover same story .  news.com.com not cite source, tho.  13 december sources provide screen shots to prove that event took place and news.com.com not even do that.  19 December addition doesnt enable reader to verify whereas 13 December  addition does.  but 13 December get removed because it not verifable.  as if 19 December addition is.
do u people think mainstream news never wrong?  Killian documents no count, i guess?
i propose delete all news.com.com sources 72.36.251.234 21:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  news.com.com not verifiable 

message: I've nominated the Free Speech Flag for Featured Picture.
Discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Free Speech Flag.
— Cirt (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Speech Flag for Featured Picture