Talk:Examiner.com

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adware and Spyware[edit]

Examiner.com is nothing more than a legitimate looking lure website for the purpose of planting tracking cookies, spyware, and adware on curious users computers, targeting Google News searchers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.30.96 (talk • contribs)

I seriously doubt you, do you have any reliable sources that say that? Dayewalker (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is untrue, run a diagnosis of the site, nada, stop spreading unfounded rumors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.20.208.5 (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted?[edit]

I tried adding a link to Examiner.com and got told it has been blacklisted. Anyone know why? (Emperor (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Look here, here, here and here. APK because, he says, it's true 05:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought examiner.com was the San Francisco Examiner website. Now I know better. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, the second link that AgnosticPreachersKid put up currently points to a delisting request of mine, which was denied, perhaps properly, the original request was at [1]. The last (fourth) link is still up, but a permanent link to the current state is this. --Abd (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As was noted in one of the delisting requests, examiner.com might be usable for certain specific purposes. For example, an examiner.com site might be usable for certain self-referential material, per WP:SELFPUB. If an author could be shown to be a notable expert, it might be usable, etc. To use such a link, one would go to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and request whitelisting of a specific page. --Abd (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Example of a successful whitelist request. --Abd (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to link to anything in it, you have to ask, and then it gets approved on a case by case basis. Seems like it'd be easier to just let people link to it, and discuss anything seen as unreliable on an article's talk page. [2] Dream Focus 00:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it time to de-blacklist this site? The writers now all seem to be well-credentialed, and every article has a link at the bottom that tells what the writer's credentials are. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Examiner.com writers aren't "credentialed" at all. They are mostly well-intentioned amateur hobbyists. There are exceptions and those can be whitelisted on a case by case basis, but for the most part, they are hardly reliable and the site as a whole has almost no editorial oversight. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's true any more. I just checked several of them, and most are either journalists or published authors or professors. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This site seems troublesome to me. The writers seem to plagiarize and the site pushes ads. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility[edit]

Other than possible plagiarism there seems to be no mention at all about the site's questioned credibility. Look for instance at articles like "/article/official-disclosure-of-extraterrestrial-life-is-imminent" which clearly support some fringe conspiracy theories... But I agree that we should find some credible reference questioning the site's credibility.

Oh, it seems that links to the site are considered spam by Wikipedia and won't be allowed, which might be another indicator of what I'm discussing (how relevant! I removed the domain to only provide the reference related to the site's root, for reference)... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The (sort of) issue is that there ARE credible writers at Examiner and their are um, less than credible writers. commenting on the site as a whole tends to start making the credible people defensive. To me, the fact that we've blacklisted the site and only allow the use on a case-by-case basis says everything we really need to say about it. But if there is a neutral, reliable source, that wants gave it significant attention, I'd be willing to discuss it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted[edit]

This article should inform that examiner.com is blacklisted as a source on Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • No it shouldn't. I completely support it being blacklisted, but that's an arbitrary decision made by a bunch of unpaid volunteers (us) based on criteria we made up. Simply not notable in the overall. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the decision a considered one, also though it won't be notable for another encyclopaedia, my view is that Wikipedia's regard of the site is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Do we have any precedents to guide us? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can call it considered if you want, but it really comes down to an extremely small number of editors. Many other sites are on that list and it doesn't appear in their articles either. This would also discount that Examiner articles can be, and are, individually whitelisted for use if they are appropriate. Lastly, it's sort of a silly thing to mention since Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That Wikipedia isn't reliable is not relevant. That individual articles can be referenced can be mentioned too. However we have a precedent as you have mentioned, so perhaps unless some policy comes up on the issue, we perhaps ought not to set a precedent. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the policy discussion on this? No links provided! Zeddocument (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here is a link to a list of discussions about it. [3] This has been discussed many times. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

I think the drastic change in the lead needs discussed. Examiner has a less than stellar reputation, but jamming a contentious label into the first sentence, based on a source or two, isn't very NPOV and merits discussion. Just because a source says something doesn't mean it gets a free pass into an article. Similarly, the location (the lead) is a big factor. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have twice reverted my fully-sourced edits on the Examiner.com article apparently because you don't agree with them or see the prominence of my changes as not a neutral point of view. Instead of just wholesale deleting of my fully-sourced edits, why don't you try to improve the article by incorporating the sourced information I added in a way that you believe supports a NPOV? The Examiner.com article as you have twice restored is very misleading and does not clearly convey that the site is a citizen media website rather than a news site. Because there are tens of thousands of paid so-called "examiners" contributing content to that site with a financial interest in its prominence, there is tremendous potential for conflict of interest editing of this article to falsely make it seem to be a legiitmate news site. Being that both of us have been editing WP articles in good faith for several years, it would seem best for us to try to reach a resolution regarding the content of this article rather than having to go to dispute resolution. OccamzRazor (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is exactly what you posted on my talk page, yet completely ignores the response that I gave there. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.examiner.com
    Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)== "Fired" writers ==[reply]

Since there is no employer-employee relationship, saying someone is fired is a misnomer. They are contractors that work on a piece by piece basis. Examiner makes it very clear on their website that writers are not employees and can't represent themselves as such. Further, the source you're using isn't reliable. You have a amateur columnist doing a recap of an interview given to someone else, along with his opinions. The interview is a primary source. This guy's recap of it is opinion and he shows a bias. This entire non-issue doesn't merit inclusion. You'd need to demonstrate that this is an issue of enduring notability of persons and events and not just a passing event in the news cycle. WP:RECENTISM suggests a 10 year test. In this case, less than a year later, nobody cares. The media collectively yawned a let it go away into obscurity. So should we. It's not encyclopedic. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much of the "huge" coverage I'm seeing is message board, which fail RS miserably, and mentions of the same article, along with commentary. It's worth noting that the source of many of these threads is Hinkley himself, in an attempt to generate controversy. Instead, it looks like it got him banned a few places. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Examiner.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone's wondering...[edit]

The site reopened sometime last northern fall, but with an apparent focus on tech coverage this time around (from the looks of the six articles on its new front page so far, all from September-October 2022); currently run by an entity known only as "shanghaiist", based on the social links thereon. (WP:RS needed.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 09:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The site says it's also linked to watchdogwire.com now. Anyone have any idea if this new company was actually linked to the old examiner.com, or if they just bought the domain name and logo image? 172.89.204.37 (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Examiner.com&oldid=1207159474"