Talk:Ars Technica

message: Any chance one of you Latin buffs (or at least someone who knows more than me) could add the correct pronunciation of "Ars Technica" to the article? Thanks!
Dylanmcd 18:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's exactly like it looks it should be, ɑɹz tɛknɪkə.  But you're right, since it is a foreign term it should have a pronunciation.  I'll add it. Hemidemisemiquaver 02:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests 

message: I wasn't sure how to proceed, so I filed this RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tatsuma. I would appreciate any comments, especially from people willing to endorse the basis for the dispute so we can try to get some resolution about the revert warring. Reverts by people who aren't even willing to discuss content on the Talk page are unhelpful to everyone. Thanks. - Debuskjt 03:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that. Tsetna 17:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw your alert and agree that this looks like the right move.  Please keep discussion civil.  Also you might want to request a checkuser on the suspected sockpuppets. Durova 14:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about Tatsuma's Reverts 

message: Look at that, all the criticism disappeared. that is certainly convenient. understandable, almost, especially for a website that generates as much money as ars does. ($50,000 a month) it makes sense that tsetna would want to protect his income. El jefe04 17:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the criticism into the article. It was not removed, but put into proper context, and was clearly documented in the edit history of the page. If you oppose that WP:Bold edit, you can discuss it in the section directly below this one, as Tsetna also disagrees with my removal of the Criticism section. - Debuskjt 17:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: for the record, i removed the criticism of the forum search, as the reference was from the forum. this is what we agreed on, right? El jefe04 21:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: wow, the Criticism disappeared

message: This talk page is far too long. I'm planning on reorganising it in order to archive another two or three chunks. Anyone is free to help of course. Chris Cunningham 00:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've shuffled the old talk into archive pages. A better way of presenting these would be nice. Chris Cunningham 19:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronological order for talk 

message: As I've stated in my edit summaries, this Seragenn user continues to have a fascination with degrading the quality of the article by adding information that doesn't belong here.  My reasons for continuing to remove this material are as follows:
One: Usually when I see someone come to Wikipedia and jump right into arguments over what should be included in an article, and get extremely insistent that their specific details are important -- especially if those details don't cast the subject in a good light -- they're usually doing so to promote an agenda or to vent frustration.  This isn't a useful or productive way to improve an encyclopedia, and almost never results in things going the way the new user wants.  Wikipedia's policy on Neutral point of view is required reading here.  More specifically, the section on "undue weight", which states: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."  In our particular case here, all of Seragenn's edits revolve around very specific monetary aspects of Ars Technica's subscriber model; subscriptions are otherwise completely unmentioned in the article, so if any coverage of this subject is going to be added, it must be done in a neutral and even fashion -- and that means, at minimum, saying that they... you know... exist?  
Two: We are not the Internet.  This is part of the "Wiki is not paper" guidelines we're expected to follow in the process of creating better encyclopedia articles.  Minor implementation details about Ars Technica's subscription model is not encyclopedia-worthy material, unless it's somehow especially notable or has generated controversy.  I mean, come on, "Ars Technica reserves the right to restrict subscriber access from the site for any reason, without notice"?  So?  Why does Seragenn feel this is vitally important information to repeatedly ram into the article, when the article doesn't even mention that Ars Technica offers subscriptions?  I've written a lot of Wikipedia articles in my time here, and I've seen text I've written appear on Wikipedia's front page as the blurb for an article of the day, so I'm pretty sure I'm a reasonably good judge of what's encyclopedia-worthy, and what's not.  Again, if we're going to include information about Ars Technica offering subscriptions, then let's at least start by saying that they offer them? 
Three: Regarding the lead sentence. We are -not- going to beat our readers into a bloody pulp with "LLC" and its expansion a total of three times in the space of one sentence. That's horrible English. Stating the words "Ars Technica" more than once in any short sentence should also be avoided for the same reason. We can formulate sentences better than this.  A simple rule of thumb:  Read a sentence aloud, with full expansions -- if it sounds bad, it's bad.  -/- Warren 12:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So how is removing those facts (and they are facts) a neutral edit to the article? I don't understand why you seem to think that is negative information. They are verifiable facts, and documented. What's your damage, private? Seragenn 08:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If that's your reasoning, that's fine with me. We should just be sure the rest of the article holds up to it.  Seragenn 08:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, fine with me, even though that goes against the example set in other articles.  Seragenn 08:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your behaviour is becoming disruptive -- don't remove large swaths of an article to make a point.  See WP:POINT. Also, for the sake of readability, don't intersperse your comments in the middle of others'.   -/- Warren 08:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Warrens said: "I mean, come on, "Ars Technica reserves the right to restrict subscriber access from the site for any reason, without notice"? So? Why does Seragenn feel this is vitally important information to repeatedly ram into the article". The point is a sound one. An encyclopedia does not need information like this. Check out the AllOfMP3.com entry for a great example of an article that is constantly being updated with information that doesn't belong there. Encyclopedia readers do not need to know the day-to-day status of how to refill a balance on AllOfMP3.com just as they don't need to know the minutiae of Ars Technica's subscription terms. -- Hux 13:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversions 

message: People interested in thie article might want to check out the guidelines on Notability (web). This article currently doesn't appear to establish that Ars Technica meets the guidelines for notability. To avoid potential future deletion this should be rectified Nil Einne 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken a look at slashdot and it appears to me to be a good example of what NOT to follow. While there are some good things and it's probably in a better state then this article, it seems to be especially bad at establishing it's noteability. For example, there are very few inline citations or citations of any sort to sources outside of slashdot. While sections like the 'slashdot effect' does establish it's noteability, as does the notable contributors and the number of comments etc to some extent it really needs to go further then that. A fair amount of stuff which helps estabish it's noteability is not in the article. For example it's won multiple? webby awards but the only way you will know is from the external links. Similarly slashdot has obviously been referred to a lot by external reliable sources. There doesn't appear to be any real mention of this, apart from a link to a paper which mentions slashdot in the citations (but there is no use or mention of this reference in the article from what I can tell) and several external links with external sources which mention slashdot, like CNN. Nil Einne 14:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Notability (web)]] 

message: should a note on the tech report be added? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flyingember (talk • contribs) 01:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tech report 

message: I wish to re-nominate this article to be deleted. It is a marketing ploy with no useful information pertinent to Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kashk5 (talk • contribs).
:What's your evidence for it being a marketing ploy? I vote that it should stay: it's one of the most well-known, tech-related sites on the Internet so it's notable enough on that basis, imo. -- Hux 13:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marketing ploy? - It's just general information about a popular tech website. — Wackymacs 14:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This user left exactly the same comment on the talk pages for other major technology news web sites., and they have no other contributions to the encyclopedia.  -/- Warren 15:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I don't think the lack of other contributions or that the user has put a similar message on similar article talk pages should be considered a black mark. Personally, I think all the sites being complained about should stay and I've posted replies stating that to each of the requests for deletion. If anyone else agrees I suggest they do likewise. -- Hux 15:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete 

message: What is the significance of the word Ars? What does it mean? In the UK it has, erm, another meaning. 77.96.240.178 (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The meaning is explained in the first paragraph of the article. Also, you're thinking of "arse". ;) -- Hux (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: From their web site About Us (both current as well as archived used for reference): At Ars Technica—the name is Latin-derived for the "art of technology"—  Petersam (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ars? 

message: This is a dispute regarding the usage of big-boards.com as a reliable source. I believe it is not, for the following reasons:
* The information on the site is not peer-reviewed.
* The site is not used as a source by any other reputable sources.
* Submissions to the site essentially require a $20 payment in order to be processed (see ).
* The site does not appear to verify submitted statistics.
* It is not even technically possible for the site to verify most submitted statistics.
* Many of the stats listed on the site are clearly incorrect and/or outdated. For example, it lists gamefaqs.com as having 28848500 posts, while the true number is currently over 500 million.
--- RockMFR 21:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A random website on the Internet requires some proof before it can be treated as a reliable source. I ask anyone who wants it to be included in any article on Wikipedia to provide proof that its statistics can be considered reliable for academic purposes. Shii (tock) 00:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Given the points above, some of which I hadn't seen before, I'm changing my mind and will support the deletion. -- Hux (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Due to the lack of peer review or fact-checking on forums, it is not practical to consider any forum a source of reliable information. Any person can pose as an expert and post using false credentials. Stick to reputable academic, print or news sources. ←Spidern→ 13:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Big Boards isn't a forum; it's a web site that does statistical analysis on forums.  We consider the research done by Netcraft and a variety of other statistical analysis companies for web browser / computer marketshare / etc. usage; Big Boards is similarly suitable for research and statistical analysis done on Internet forums.  The work they do qualifies them as a secondary source under Wikipedia's policies.   Warren -talk- 00:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Sweet! *runs off to found ColdFusionProven.com* Shii (tock) 02:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is big-boards.com a reliable source? 

message: I'm going to remove two of the three criticisms in the article about attributing bloggers. The first has a semi-reliable source mentioning it, but here's why I'm removing the last two (other than no reliable sources mentioning them):
*"istartedsomething.com": The claim here wasn't plagiarism, it was that Ars reported on a patent they they didn't "discover", in other words they "stole" someone's idea for an article. Microsoft filed a patent, a blogger wrote about it, then the next day Ars wrote about it. 
*"parislemon": dead link, couldn't find any other RS on this.
—Sebquantic (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  attribution criticisms 

message: I'm planning on doing a copy-edit and WP:MOS check in a day or two, but I'm basically done expanding the article for now. If you have an issue with something I removed, please let me know why here. For example, the mention of Ars's forums was reduced from one paragraph to one sentence. It's not the oldest or largest forum by far, so I didn't think it needed its own section. 
Oh yeah, I wanted to put the "Serving the technologist for 1.0912 × 10-1 centuries." thing back in, but couldn't think of where it would smoothly fit. Anybody have an idea on that? —Sebquantic (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is mentioning their Mac OS X reviews worth doing? Maybe instead of the iPad review? 81.110.191.189 (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't see why not. Some of the sources do hint that they're known for their OSX reviews. —Sebquantic (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  expansion 

message: From the article:
""Adblock Plus developer Wladimir Palant responded, stating that blocking advertisements in general is justified because websites receive revenue from them regardless of whether they are seen or ignored by readers:[28]"
"Only an ad that generates a sale (either directly because the user clicked it or indirectly via brand awareness and similar) provides value. If you see yourself being paid without providing a value than [sic] you either tricked whoever is paying you [...] or it is a temporary state where whoever is paying you didn’t adjust to the new realities yet.""
:This doesn't make any sense. Has it been edited until it lost all logic, or what? First, it is wrong. Websites do not receive income if the ads are not seen, that was the point of the ban. Then, the quote that supports that wrong position has nothing to do with the position, if anything it argues against it. He makes an argument against blocking ads, because then the ads owner will stop paying.WTF?TheThomas (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the logic? 

message: The website seems to have changed and now it covers politics, including elections and voting rights, and also abortion debate matters. I suggest to change the definition to is a website covering technology, politics, and society news. Yurivict (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''A technology news and information website'' is no longer true 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ars Technica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090204180921/http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2008/05/12/daily36-Report-Ars-Technica-bought-by-Wired-Digital.html to http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2008/05/12/daily36-Report-Ars-Technica-bought-by-Wired-Digital.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/business/media/19carr.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/opinion/sunday/the-ad-blocking-wars.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The notion of "technology" did not exist in the Ancient world, as far as the Greeks and Romans go. Both "Techne" and "Ars" meant "craft". Therefore Ars technica is a redundant phrase meaning "crafty craft". PERIOD.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.57.144.205 (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "PERIOD" isn't a convincing argument. Might want to leave that one out of your vocabulary from now on, it doesn't have the effect you want. Okay?  The founders of Ars Technica have themselves said that the name is Latin-derived -- they didn't say it was a literal translation. (source)  Warren -talk- 04:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

text: The site's owners are not and should not be considered authoritative when it comes to a language translation, though. That is to say, they are entitled to translate it however they like on their site, but we should not be presenting their translation as fact if it isn't a correct translation. (And it appears that it's not.) At the very least, the language should make clear that the translation is the site-owners' interpretation. I made a small change that I hope is sufficient. -- Hux (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ars Technica does NOT mean art of technology 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ars Technica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120916220848/http://www.minonline.com/news/Maybe-The-iPhone-5-Hype-Is-Not-So-Silly-After-All_21125.html to http://www.minonline.com/news/Maybe-The-iPhone-5-Hype-Is-Not-So-Silly-After-All_21125.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am new to wiki and I want to author an article on a new theory that comes from the book I have written. I was wondering about the process of adding and editing an article into Ars Technica. What are the rules and what is the technical process?
Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperRelativity (talk • contribs) 18:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I add an article into "en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Technica"