Talk:Wrong Planet

Comments

Did you know that Wrong Planet was started by one of our own? His user name is/was AlexPlank. He is considered a "Missing Wikipedian". A little info from 66.218.12.217

He is also known by the name Perl. We need to guard that all edits by this user are very neutral indeed. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 12:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately they are not neutral. Look at this [1]. 81.226.196.66 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, he edited pages about Autism, Wrong Planet, and his own User: page as an anonymous user. [2]. After somebody restored the Criticism section (which he had removed before) he logged out of Wikipedia, removed the section [3], and -- edited his own user page User:AlexPlank [4]. 81.226.196.66 (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

FOX link is doesnt work, the page doesnt exist anymore. 80.178.106.41 16:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

hi, this is a member of WP, a quick note or two: 1) WP officially is a 10,000+ member forum. 2) we've been having some major problems with a spammer rescently, we don't know who he is but he's persistant—he's had his IP address banned 15 times and he/she keeps coming back

I have asperger syndrome myself but I hate this site. I hope it will be taken down someday. Suffor

"Wrong Planet quickly began to grow increasingly larger" - I know it is picky; but, how can something grow increasingly smaller... or how can something grow larger in a way that is not also increasing? I suggest it be changed to "Wrong Planet quickly began to grow...." 71.57.241.182 00:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Membership numbers

Any online forum can claim any number of members, and program the bulletin board to show that number; the number isn't reliable. And, Wrong Planet forums are not reliable sources for external information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's true about any news article or third party source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.44.251 (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Without an independent, secondary, published reliable source, it is nothing more than a claim (and a very unrealistic one at that) by Wrong Planet, and has to be attributed as such. Any bulletin board owner can plug in a number in the board programming; the number has no meaning, and is only a Wrong Planet claim. It cannot be stated as fact without an independent source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're being ridicuolous. Member numbers are reported in that way in the other website articles like something awful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.44.251 (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your entries with four tildes ( ~~~~ ). What is written in other articles is not our concern with this article; in this article, we will follow Wikipedia's policies on attribution to self-published sources (see WP:V and WP:SELFPUB). The number is a Wrong Plant self-published claim; it is not a number independenty verified or published by secondary reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Further, if you insist on using WrongPlanet forum links as sources on articles, then you might want to add back this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sandy has alerted me to this most unsatisfactory article. Frankly, the conflict of interest and the use of in-house verification should be obvious to all WPians. This article needed to be cleaned up in that respect, and I can see that improvements have been made; however, I do hope that further edits do not re-introduce the perception of conflicts of interest. Tony (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

neutrality

Please post any problems there are with the article being NPOV. Perl (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a complete absence of critical analysis. Some examples:

• There is no mention that Wrong Planet provides no membership list, in contrast to almost every other autism or neurological condition message board, to back up the 17,000 number. Since an independent reliable source hasn't discussed the membership number, which is significantly out of proportion to other boards and similar conditions, it probably warrants a {{dubious}} tag because of the absence of a membership list or any means of substantiating the number.
• No mention that the board is routinely used to advance advocacy to infiltrate and disrupt other online autism websites (multiple past and current threads on Wrong Planet can be used to source this, against Autism Speaks, and numerous other sites, including Wikipedia and ASPIRE; someone could take the time to choose the most appropriate threads to source this, there are many.)
• No mention of divisive discussions on this board from adults with Asperger's towards parents of children with Asperger's, as attacks on parents who seek to ameliorate symptoms of children, denigrating them as "curebies". Multiple forum threads can be used to source this if someone takes the time.
• Deletion of past posts here discussing confidential member info being divulged; this text may no longer be sourcable unless someone can locate those threads at archive.org, as the links are dead.[5]

In general, the article uses Wrong Planet forum messages to advance a one-sided view of the website and message board, but makes no attempt to explore other aspects of the message board. POV results from selective use of forum posts to promote an unbalanced view, reflecting the COI due to editing by the board owner, AlexPlank (talk · contribs) aka Perl (talk · contribs) aka Wikibot (talk · contribs). If forum posts are used to source positive aspects, they should equally address all aspects for balance. Wikipedia should not be used to advertise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be posting lies wrong about the site. For instance, a member list has always existed ( http://www.wrongplanet.net/members.html ). I'm not even going to bother addressing the other points because it's clear that you have some sort of vendetta against the site. Otherwise you wouldn't be resorting to making up stuff like the site not having a member list. Alex 01:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you for providing that (which I have never been able to find linked from the website); I struck. Take care with the personal attacks there, Alex. (I enjoyed browsing those pages, and didn't see my name there.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

no problem. List is not linked to on every page so i can understand why you would have not seen it. Also struck. Alex 02:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, forum posts are not used as sources from what I can see. I don't think using forum posts as sources would be appropriate from a wikipedia policy standpoint either. Alex 01:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we have a good understanding now about using forum posts to source articles. Wrong Planet posts can be used to source this article; they can't be used to source Autism Speaks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Planet forum posts were never used to source Autism Speaks. And they really don't meet the verifiability requirements to source any article, especially the article about Wrong Planet (where verifiable third party sources would be more appropriate). Alex 02:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I move to dispute the notability of this wikipedia article. I don't think it meets the wikipedia criteria for what is notable [[6]]. Also, as discussed above in this Talk page, there is a clear lack of neutrality in those who did this wikipedia article, it seems more like an advertisement in a magazine than an encyclopedia article, the member number is grossly inaccurate and misleading, as of the "16,000" or so members claimed by Alex, it's apparent that thousands of members are totally inactive and have been for months, and thousands of others did zero to a few posts and have discontinued use, and thousands are duplicate, triplicate etc usernames for actually 1 person. Besides these, wrongplanet.net is a mere message board, and with 99+% anonymous users. I hardly think this qualifies as a notable entity for inclusion into an encyclopedia.--77ty (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Alexa, Wrongplanet.net has a traffic rank of: 180,658. Not sure what that means, but there you go. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 23:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong

I don't think there's anything wrong with this article re WP:COI. So I'm removing the templates. I also believe the article to be fine and that the clean up template is not needed. Sourcing is third party and all okay. GetDumb 01:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

user:AlexPlank and user:Perl have major COI and NPOV issues.

Alex Plank (who is the person behind for-mentioned usernames is the owner of WrongPlanet as indicated by his personal website [7] and the copyright notice on the bottom of wrongplanet.net[8]

— AlexPlank (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Perl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheZachDOTnet (talk • contribs) 07:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Zach, but I disagree. Looking at their edit histories, I agree that they've both been heavily involved in editing articles related to the topic, but they haven't been exclusively editing such topics. I see edits across a range of other topics, including cities and planets. Also, since you can't back up the assertion that they have a conflict of interest as you did in this section heading, I've retitled it. —C.Fred (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

assertions backed up

Self publication

I've removed the tags from the opening section because the rule noted applies only to BLP's and this isn't a BLP. Besides, in the case of the second tag the accuracy of the figure can not possibly be faked (as selfpub implies could be possible in general). Aspie Lover (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible Criticism Section?

http://www.autismdailynewscast.com/wrongplanet-pageview-count-hits-profound-time-low-due-lack-adaquate-autism-representation/26665/guest/

Is this reliable or not? Ylevental (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly seems reliable to me. Most news sources can be used on wikipedia, but just make sure that the source has enough authority and has its own sources... -PotatoNinja123 (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be an editorial submitted by a non-affiliated contributor which means it shouldn't be used for anything except as a primary source for statements attributed to Yuval Levental. See WP:NEWSORG Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Generally the framing of content via a "criticism section" is a bad idea because it collides with policy. A "reception" section or working bits of kerfleffle into the history are more appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Merger

I propose that the article about Wrong Planet founder Alex Plank be merged with this article, as the article about him is rather short, not likely to increase much, and he is not notable enough to require more than a section of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30a:2ed1:2ee0:a49e:330f:ecc4:9d2c (talk • contribs) 17:04, September 3, 2015‎

• Oppose The two articles should be separate. The website has a life of it's own and is not controlled one hundred percent by Plank, particularly the forum which he has barely anything to do with. 1.136.97.105 (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

As the merger suggestion is now about 6 months old and hasn't gone anywhere. At this point, the nomination for deletion seems to have replaced this issue. Please !vote and/or comment on that page. Thanks. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

@Ged UK:; Ylevental has been vandalising the article, lastly saying "removing uncited claims about special education, guardian, uncited claim about dermatologist, simplifying article". All are clearly cited and his removal of the statements are vandalism and should be restored. He is attacking Wrong Planet to make a point per the current ANI here. He should be blocked for this editing against WP:NPOV. 101.182.231.86 (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I restored it for you. You're right. 61.29.8.30 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

Just a few years ago, this article was a bit longer, now it's just a paragraph with now other sections. What happened? 154.117.181.194 (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)