|WikiProject Websites / Computing||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Internet culture||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
Notability: The website in question is a relatively obscure site similar to reddit. This page was created because of a thread on that site, not because it is especially notable on its own.
TBH, Mea Culpa, I posted the need for the article on Voat you refer to above. However - while I feel the need for the article is valid (as seen below where someone else has posted) due to events unfolding on Reddit, I feel as a Voat user it would have been a conflict of interest to post more than a basic factual stub as a basic holding page, knowing media and others are starting to research it and the Reddit freedom of speech "controversy".
I'm NOT really a Reddit editor mind you but I have been around long enough on the Net to know when "something is happening" to warrant a stub which then may or may not grow as needs and events unfold.
It may be that in a few months we propose a merge into /reddit under a "controversy" heading or the site goes viral enough to warrant a full article.
If you happen to be a neutral party, please feel free to verify sources, add in the below and otherwise edit/monitor the page.
Does an article in Washington Post make it notable enough? http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/02/18/the-reddit-exodus-is-a-perfect-illustration-of-the-state-of-free-speech-on-the-web/
Or another article on UK Metro? http://metro.co.uk/2015/02/19/people-are-leaving-reddit-over-free-speech-concerns-5069491/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The second article is a syndication of the first article so it's out.
The first article isn't bad but glosses over the fact that Voat started as a side project for some guys well before (a year really) the events described in the article - the "exodus" was in fact true but the site was old before that as the Git repository (github.com/voat/voat) shows. Akitora (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
So, we are seeing the site have more influence and it has a steady flow of new users, after /r/fatpeoplehate was banned today especially. However, we do need third party sources on that last edit made. Self referencing isn't something we want a page like this to be wiped over. -LQN2 (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Source 4, which was cited twice in revision history in reverting edits, appears to be from an unreliable source (Wired.co.uk). The statement it refers to is clearly the reddit administrators' version of events, which remains controversial. The current statement, "after Reddit banned five of its subreddits for harassment" cannot be considered to be neutral. Should it be deleted, or should more reliable and unbiased sources be sought out to make the article more neutral? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, Wired is unreliable? Wired has been consistently held to be a reliable source. What are the reliable and unbiased sources you think superior? Ironholds (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Reference 8 is Microsoft Translator. My attempt at removing the referring sentence broke the References so I Undid it.
So what's the difference to reddit?
- The site shares many similar features to Reddit, however, the word "clone" and "mimic" mean that these features are inspired or derived from Reddit. This is unknown until otherwise stated by the Authors of the site, since Reddits layout is common. Furthermore, the site section should be on Voat functionality and appearance and strictly so unless otherwise required. Reddit comparison serves as unwarranted and redundant information as the type of site is stated and the Reddit reference requires knowledge of Reddits functionality which is inefficient. Restated, Voats wikipedia page should be independent of and not reliant on comparisons (that require preknowlege of) when it can be reliable stated otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:BA80:12C6:20A2:5A9B:8977:527B (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- But it is. And furthermore that's also well referenced. The site also uses reddit's source code directly, see: https://voat.co/about which states "This website uses cascading stylesheet portions (please read what Cascading Stylesheet is) which are provided under CPAL by Reddit Inc. Copyright (c) 2006-2013 reddit Inc. All Rights Reserved. Original stylesheet file can be found here: reddit.less at github Attribution link: code.reddit.com".
- I agree that the functionality of voat should be explained independently here - even if it's just 1:1 to how reddit works.
- But I also think the relationship with reddit (the quality of it basically being the same, that it's userbase seems to be mostly composed out of reddit users and the influx of users since reddit's CEO change) and the differences to it (if they exist) should be adequately explained in the article. --Fixuture (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- You completely dismissed what the about page says "This website uses cascading stylesheet portions (please read what Cascading Stylesheet is)", Voat's source code is written completely from scratch and is not based at all on Reddit's code. That can be seen by looking at the GitHub repository for both websites. The only thing used from Reddit is portions (emphases on portions) of the stylesheet. Voat's functionality is not a 1:1 to how Reddit works. DanielFlamino (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
>Voat's functionality is not a 1:1 to how Reddit works.
- Well that's why I made this section: what exactly are its differences to reddit? Aside of minor difference of the GUI & names and those "sets" I haven't yet spotted any other differences. If there are more they should be explained in the article (and the info on those "sets" probably should be expanded as well).
>Voat's source code is written completely from scratch and is not based at all on Reddit's code.
- I just said that it also uses reddit's source code directly not that it's entirely based on it. I thought it was likely that they used reddit's source code given that it's open source and voat (at least to me) seems like 1:
10,9 clone. You're right though that I shouldn't have used the term source code without checking if it's really just stylesheets that they used (here's the talk page so I don't think it's that bad).
- --Fixuture (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, CSS is part of the source code. Ironholds (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- CSS is a part of the source code, however it's not a part of the functional code. The site's functionality is written in C#, ASP.NET, and MVC 5 with an SQL server and using .NET framework 4.5 which can all be found at their github page https://github.com/voat/voat
- As you can see it also uses a lot of other libraries and extensions. That said, while voat uses C# for the bulk of the code, reddit uses python after being rewritten from Common Lisp in 2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit#Technology
- Yes, voat uses some of the stylesheet markup which is arguably not code in that it is not programmatic due to it not being executable. It's a model of representation similar to wikimarkup (which we use in the source editor on wikipedia). Semisufficient (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, CSS is part of the source code. Ironholds (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Removal of alpha status paragraph
@Ged UK: I'm not sure why the "alpha" status paragraph was removed - it complies with WP:ABOUTSELF as far as I can tell. Can you explain your reasoning? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- I rolled back a block evading IP address. The content was immaterial. GedUK 11:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Topic banned editors
Discussion here indicates many people think this article is not covered by the standard Gamergate topic ban. In spirit I agree and nothing has been done about TRPoD editing this article so I'm going to begin editing it as well. Just leaving this here for future reference to show that I am acting in good faith and common sense tells me there should be no problem with my editing the article and I do not feel as though I'm violating the topic ban. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 06:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Bitcoin spam attack on Voat
Voat was/is a target of Bitcoin spam attacks: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikileaks-is-now-a-target-in-the-massive-spam-attack-on-bitcoin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Venturebeat and German Host stuff
@Hyperboreean: See the History tab for why I reverted your changes. Considering how short the article is based on 30 other sources, using one source to insert paragraphs of new content is not appropriate. Also, some of the claims could open Wikipedia up to legal action. I did leave "distrust" as a reason for termination of web hosting alongside "politically incorrect content", as that was cited in other sources, as well. If you would like to make more drastic changes, could we discuss it here? Willhesucceed (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@Willhesucceed: I saw: "An isolated, contradictory source is not enough to justify inserting paragraphs of new content. Also be careful of libelous claims.". Your claims are disingenuous and contradicted by the very sources (plural!)you deleted. The notion that anything I added was slanderous, when I mostly added quotes is laughable. Furthermore, your insistence to present "political incorrectness" as the reason is flat out refuted by a direct source I'd provided and you buried. If you'd bother reading the article, or for that matter looked up German law, you'd have found that illegality was the compelling reason and not "distrust". If you have an axe to grind against anyone, that's strictly your business. Patently false and misleading statements on the other hand are beyond the pale. I'm not a frequent contributor and I may have added too much info, but you could have asked me to summarize, cut and condense, or done it yourself instead of maliciously vandalizing a page. --Hyperboreean archer (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Hyperboreean: "sources (plural!)" There was a Venturebeat link (which is still in the article's sources) and statements by the web host. Statements by the subject of an article are okay for non-contentious issues, but not where the claims are disputed or extraordinary. Where claims are disputed, we turn to third party sources, and the third party sources in this instance state that the removal was due to political correctness and distrust. Two or three articles make other claims, but they're not cohesive, and the more unfavourable claims can't be included on Wikipedia without better and more sources backing them, because to do otherwise would be to open this website to possible litigation.
- I don't have an axe to grind with you--I've never interacted with or come across you before. I just want to make a good article that falls in line with Wikipedia's policies.
- Please tell me what you would like to change so that we can discuss what is and isn't appropriate. Let's try to work together. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
A Voat user investigates Windows 10 traffic, Microsoft comments
This article may be noteworthy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2016/02/09/windows-10-data-tracking-spying-levels/#2e1092bc7aa9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Another article related to the same topic. http://www.zdnet.com/article/when-it-comes-to-windows-10-privacy-dont-trust-amateur-analysts/ — DanielFlamino (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
He says his provider, hosteurope.de, told him that they cancelled his contract because “we have received significant information that the content on your server includes political incorrect parts that are unacceptable for us” and that they had to take action “due to the fact that we cannot keep bond of trust to you as our customer”.
This is taken from Voat's own post, and other sources also repeat it.
This extremely awkward phrasing says to me that this is as much about poor English as it is about political correctness as a term for euphemistic language. The only quote using this phrase comes through Voat's original post, so this doesn't seem like an entirely neutral descriptor. Many sources picked up on the phrase, but I haven't seen any which provide any explanation of how that applies or what it's supposed to mean, and most just vaguely attribute it to Voat for simplicity. Since, as multiple sources point out, German laws are more restrictive, it's far from clear that the phrase "politically incorrect" used in the email to Voat means the same thing as "politically incorrect in common US usage, and context strongly suggests otherwise.
Rather than lean on these sources which are mostly quoting the host through Voat, those sources which actually quote the web host directly seem more informative. The Venturebeat article, for example, explains in some detail that the host denies that this was about political correctness, which shouldn't be entirely discounted. If we explain that Voat says the web host used the phrase "politically incorrect", we should also explain why it's more complicated than that, but... why bother? Is this really important for readers to know at this level of detail? If so, why? I don't really see it. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't see that, the ref was placed one sentence earlier, thanks. I believe motives are important, I guess either both views should be included or none at all. I believe the former is preferable. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The site is down... sort of. It looks like it has been for about a day, but https://preview.voat.co/v/all is still up as I type this. Let's wait until a reliable source says that the site is truly defunct instead of merely having a prolonged outage... this is a relatively long outage, and it isn't exactly surprising, but still, there's no need to rush. Grayfell (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hah! PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Site is back up. The original founder (Atko) fixed the server issue. DerElektriker (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)