Talk:Wikipedia Review

Worthless or useful

Is this link, http://encyc.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Review_Moderating_Team, appropriate for the external links section? __meco (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I just posted on your talk page but I should have checked here first, sorry. I would say it most certainly is not appropriate, per WP:ELNO criteria 12. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Let's just wait to see if we can have at least a third opinion here. __meco (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tarc, basically every Encyc link is worthless. --Cyclopia^talk 02:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps

The lead should say more clearly that it's not operated by the WMF, although that is probably deduced from the infobox line "owner: anonymous". Tijfo098 (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to stick "independent" in the very first sentence, I don't think that would be a problem. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing bits

It seems odd that it doesn't say who owns Wikipedia Review, not even a pseudonym. It says who started it, but not all the in between bits. Is there some controversy about ownership? Even if there is, surely it is relevant and surely we could at least present the possibilities and then let readers decide. Thoughts? 123.243.134.238 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any controversy about ownership. But the topic doesn't seem to come up as far as I recall. Though there might be problems with citation according to Wikipedia's rules. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Link to URL doesn't work

Not from the box on the article page, nor from my home. Any ideas what has happened/is happening?

Bielle

Interesting. The home page address is currently http://www.wikipediareview.com/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi and the page says "Webmaster please contact support at hostgator.com". Looks like some issues there, watch this space.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ianmacm. I've emailed a couple of regulars there to see who knows what, but yours is the first response. Mind you, I only started this about 10 minutes ago. Bielle (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It is back again, so it was a temporary outage of some kind.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It was down most of the day yesterday – any idea what happened? 67.168.135.107 (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No idea, but as a rule Wikipedia articles should not get excited over outages at websites, as they happen all the time. Maybe WR will say what the issue was.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

As of this morning (1/17/12) the site is redirected to a GoDaddy URL, as the domain was not renewed it appears. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe this is a deliberate political action which, although inscrutable, has something to do with Wikipedia's SOPA blackout. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If it were a purposeful takedown, I find it hard to believe they'd do it in a way that makes it look like a registration expiration, though. What is the point of a protest if no one knows you're actually protesting? Tarc (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say the same. This looks to me like someone either forgot to renew, or chose not to, not that it's SOPA related. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The domain name registration has been renewed, so I am fairly sure that the outage is by design. Perhaps the mysterious forces that control WR will clarify their political point if and when the site is back up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough then, only going by what my own eyes saw on that page. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

According to GoDaddy's whois, the domain registration did, in fact, expire yesterday. Maybe they renewed the registration too late or something? --B (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Click the link on that page which says "see underlying registry data". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see. So that fits with the theory that they got it in, but were just too late. It may actually already be fixed, but it can take up to 24 hours for DNS servers to play go fetch. --B (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Who knows this time round? Let's give it at least 24 hours, probably more.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've done a webcite of the current webpage[1]. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

grave-dancing

Seriously boys, grow up. I was just on the WR about 30 mins ago til it flaked out again. As noted above, sometimes it takes the DNS to catch up when there'd been an interruption. We don't need to rush to a website's article to scream "OMG INACTIVE!" the moment that there is a service interruption. Tarc (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously falls under WP:OR, but the site really is up and running right now. Then again, those who insist on changing everything to the past tense are just doing their own original research, so absent a reliable source confirming a demise, can we please cease the declarations of inactive status? Tarc (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

What does "Photobucket" prove? Where is a link to a live site? Edison (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm still getting the "domain expired" page, but will not draw any conclusions about it for a week at least. It is weird if the domain has expired, because there are usually plenty of e-mail reminders to the sitemaster.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I was stirring up something, I browse WR on occasion and the other morning saw it went to the GoDaddy site, and thought it was important enough to note here ont he talk page. Obviously if this is still the case next week, it may be a sign of a bigger issue. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, stop accusing everyone of gravedancing and trolling. There is no "gravedancing" going on here, people are trying to update Wikipedia in good faith. Please stop assuming bad faith and please stop making unfounded accusations just because this article is about a website you frequent. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No gravedancing? What about Prioyman's edit with the summary "Ding dong, the witch is dead"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Many seem to forget about "unless there evidence otherwise..." aspect of AGF; it is not a suicide pact. As noted above, I was logged in at one point yesterday, so it is there, just intermittent. Tarc (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's just as inappropriate to call it "defunct" as to call it "active." It's certainly not active. Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That a website is down for 3 days and there's 0 mentions of that in any WP:RS sources begs the question of its notability. Article is mostly WP:OR, although compared to most other "forum" articles, it's realtively high on the list of possibily meeting general notability criteria. Right after "blog in 2008 that got mentioned once in a newspaper article". Right up there with The Onion's "Area Man...". Hmmmm, wonder if Area Man has a BLP. Cookiehead (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there an alternate URL/IP address that will actually get people in if the main one doesn't work? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The site is hosted by United States Dallas Theplanet.com Internet Services Inc at 184.172.174.94 with three other sites.[2] I don't know of any mirrors. If they haven't renewed the domain name it could be a while before the site is back.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Only my 2 pence, an adjective like "defunct" would need a strong source, meanwhile "inactive" or [status] "unknown" might be fitting but only after two or three weeks of verified downtime (if the site's not there, saying so in a neutral way is not OR). Either way, mildly notable but small, "niche" websites like this one can and do go dark for awhile, then pop back up again, no need to be hasty. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think the site should ask the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for funding. The WMF has plenty of funds at the moment and should be happy to fund independent sites that help publicize the WMF's projects. Cla68 (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about grave dancing but Tarc did accuse me of trolling... not sure what that's all about I was just trying to update the article. Night Ranger (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review's website is still available and fairly easily. The registration with GoDaddy expired, but not the hosting contract with Softlayer, as such the content of the website is still there and there is some activity on it. I would suggest before marking it as inactive and the like, that we wait some time and see how the situation develop. All can access the website thru [3]. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That is just some IP's index of the site. It looks like This parrot is deadEdison (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

How does any serious website let the domain name expire? There are many e-mail reminders about this. A totally weird situation, unless you want to close down the site. It is a pity that there is still no RS about this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there an edit visible at that site since the domain registration expired? I looked at a sample and the were from 2011. Edison (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's run by and for an assortment of embittered banned users, cranks and trolls. It's in no way a "serious website" and has obviously been run with the level of competence you would expect from such a bunch. Prioryman (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Now, now, would you take kindly at Wikipedia being hypothetically similarly described as "run by and for an assortment of basement dwelling geeks, obsessives, and lost souls"?. Wikipedians should be the last group sneering at troubles of a volunteer site maintained by people running it out of pocket. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That's for sure. Cla68 (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction

I just made this edit.

1. Ordinal suffixes are a plague on humanity.
2. A Web page is different from a Web site.

The citation seems rather questionable and silly. The same can really be said for the entire article. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

An explanation from WR

Apparently "Selina" forgot to renew the domain name.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What evidence is there that this 184.172.174.94 is the "real Wikipedia Review" giving an explanation, and not just an imitator or splinter faction? Has any reliable source published anything about the end of WR, or about its supposed revival as an IP address? This fails WP:V. At this point the "official" site is down,and the person who previously registered is incommunicado (per the IP revival of WR). "Inactive" would be the most accurate description, based on the clear outage of their traditional site. No or is needed to note that the site is inactive with an expired registration. The OR is to claim it is "still functioning" because of some IP posting or Facebook page. Edison (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)