Talk:Murdoch's News Corp. Ends Automated Censorship of MySpace

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Latest comment: 18 years ago by AntelopeInSearchOfTruth in topic So..... to Publish, or not to Publish?
Jump to navigation Jump to search

So..... to Publish, or not to Publish?


I'm thinking in a few hours I'll set it to published, unless anyone has an issue to bring up. As long as it's an issue that has substance.  ;)

(AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 08:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC))Reply

As far as validity of the claims go, I've seen none from the articles other than people accusing News Corp. of censoring the links. This, of course, could claim that this whole issue was fabricated (as the links supposedly, although perhaps magically, "appeared" again) - as many sites do block remote images for many reasons, as well. I want to treat this article with great suspicion of being fabricated, because of the nature of the claims (and the current state of operations). We could very possibly be seeing an attack against the web site/corporation, and I'd like to have some hard data that proves that these items ever occurred before this goes to publish. Besides, the real reason for them occurring again may have absolutely nothing to do with the "threat of a blogger bycott", so perhaps the title needs a change as well (as well as tone change in article). --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 04:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not familiar with this, but happened to have found one source reporting the alleged censorship part.

It is a short piece, and does not quote anything from people admitting their practice regarding links. Tomos 04:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

MrM, you might try actually clicking on the first source, everything is supported there, you can cut & paste the title to google if you want more sources. As it makes clear, they blocked litterally the word YouTube, not just off site links. Nyarlathotep 08:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

  • I'm still wanting more proof than that. This whole article can very well be fabricated, and unfortunately The Independent requires registration - which does not smooth my suspicions of this being fabricated. I'd like some hard proof (that is accessible, please see the sources section of the style guide), otherwise I'm sending this back into Develop, citing unverifiable information. The title also needs to be changed, because the item wasn't definitively a response of a proposed "blogger bycott" until the corporation actually states it as such. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
note that this newly created "rule" in the sources section being referred to above, is still under discussion and is likely to be modified, moved or removed. Doldrums 15:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
I don't think there is any rule involved. MrM just does't trust the New York Times & the Independent. Its a situation which has happened before & will happen again. Nyarlathotep 10:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your objections are not actionable. The Independent and the New York times both ran the story. That is verification enough by any standard measure. If you think it needs to be more explicit in citing of those sources, that would be an actionable objection. It might still be excessive, but its at least actionable, and I have no objection to implementing it.

Yes, both require registration now, but that is wholely irrelevant.. even offline sources are sufficent. BTW, these two articles were not registration only when each source was added. Not that being registration only has any bearing upon a sources validity. I'm sorry that you don't like the story, but our story is just condensed more NPOV version of these two sites story.

We have simply no reason to suspect a "hoax" here. I see no serious suspecions of it being a hoax on other clueful sites, such as Slashdot. If its ever found to be a hoax, we'd have to run a retraction anyway, as would the Independent, the New York times, and Slashdot.

Oh, BTW, MySpace has also blocked & unblocked too. And such blocks are text blocks, mails containing the site name have it replaces with "..." They don't generally block embedding of offsite content, img tags, etc., they just block specific site names in text or html tags.

As to your title suggestion, I actually kidna agree with you here. As it seems they have unblocked other sites for fewer complaints, although those might have part of the YouTube thing. Nyarlathotep 11:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

If anyone has any actionable objections to this article they should make them. Nyarlathotep 10:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

  • I have no problem with the sources, if I believed that this couldn't be anything but a hoax. The whole fact of the comments "being restored after pressure" really reinforces these concerns. If ther was any hard proof that is accessible, I would support the publishing of this article. However, as it stands, there is no proof that this ever happened (that has been brought up in discussion). Remember, just because another source reports on it doesn't make it true. I'm looking for the factuality of WN, and don't want to become the subject of any hoaxed article. If there is hard proof that this event ever occurred, please present it. Until then, I'm posting a cleanup. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply