Talk:Deep web secrets
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
What's the purpose of this article?[edit]
This is not meant to be condescending. If this page's goal is to cover the actual content on the deep web, that is fine. The page needs expansion and needs to be very clear on that fact, in my honest opinion. I was confused on the goal at first glance. — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also not a question meant to be rude — is there any real purpose to deep web secrets and deep web being separate articles? I'd wager combining them could birth a future frontpage article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was going to say they could be on one page myself. — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- The article would be too large combined to be readable IMO. The two pages reflects the utility of having separate resources for definitions and content Deku-shrub (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't contest your conclusion, but as our resident "Deep Web guy", would you mind elaborating on why that is? Maybe by making a few example comparisons between the articles? How is the topic or content different, and so on? Thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Deep web web covers the definitions and alleged structures. Deep web secrets focuses on the content. I'm not saying it'd be totally inappropriate to merge the articles, but that by doing so it would be too much for most casual internet users to read in one sitting. Articles like this currently sit on the FAQ of /r/deepweb which I run - I have built these pages to summarise the frequent questions I get asked, whilst creating an independent resource than can be subject to maintenance and peer review going forward, the same reason I write so many of the linked Wikipedia pages.
- I don't contest your conclusion, but as our resident "Deep Web guy", would you mind elaborating on why that is? Maybe by making a few example comparisons between the articles? How is the topic or content different, and so on? Thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- The article would be too large combined to be readable IMO. The two pages reflects the utility of having separate resources for definitions and content Deku-shrub (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was going to say they could be on one page myself. — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the mission of RW is to create resources which are tailored for debunking misconceptions on the internet for those who'll listen. Thus the utility of the resources for me trump any potential such merger optimisations. If you go out and present these resources to people (e.g. on YouTube, where millions of people believe this nonsense) and get a response 'I thought I understood, but I thought it was weird I had to look at 2x articles' I'll be open to a merger. In the mean time, I have dozens of people a week asking 'where are the red rooms?' and 'how do I find out secrets on the deep web' for whom I require appropriately sized rebuttals that they'll actually read. Deku-shrub (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I looked at both pages and this page doesn't cover any topics that aren't in the Deep web article. The main article covers the rumored content through the iceberg info-graphic section and covers the actual content. Looking at this page, it seems redundant. If you want information related to the deep web divided, wikis such as this one use subsections. For example, the article can be divided into sections for rumors and truths about the subject. There is also good information here that can be moved to the other article.— CheeseburgerFace (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- You've ignored all my utilitarian positions there Deku-shrub (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- If you are alluding to fact that you previously said you wanted the article to be about "infographics and terminology" only, I sort of agree. Over the course of time I came to the realization that the article is only for your reddit page, not for the rational wiki. A wiki can be edited by anyone and my goal here is to create a great extensive article on the deepweb as a whole that will become Gold someday. From how I see it, my vision and your vision for the page is not a thing that can be compromised at this given time. Please realize that no one owns a wiki page, its a collaborative community. If you truly want to have 100% control over a page, own it. Earlier I agreed with your proposal to have the scam content moved to a different page (which you haven't done so unless this page is it), but at this point in time I feel I cannot fulfill your plans that you have given me. If you are firm on your stance on your vision, I am afraid we will have to consult a third party such as a moderator to sort this out, which is not something I would like to do but I deem necessary for the situation.— CheeseburgerFace (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I feel that this article does not really meet rational wiki's goals. It lacks the type of deep analysis the main article has; it feels more like a wikipedia article than a rational wiki article. You present a list on services that you claim are on deep web and expect the reader to believe you without providing evidence by examples and quoting. And no, sourcing yourself doesn't count. I do however find the content more organized compared to your iceberg one. — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- So add the {{cn}} tags where you think they're needed until you feel the article is better supported by evidence. I would argue this is better cited than many RW articles. I am the expert in this field, but only have a small such reputation of yet. I hope to present my research at established skeptic events in maybe a year from now. Writing for RW has allowed me to research ideas in more depth than has ever been done before. If you're not happy with how I'm doing it, please engage with the content appropriately. Deku-shrub (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- I do not see you as an "expert" nor do I care if you are one. Most of the content here is general public knowledge that you can find Online (I guess you don't need a lot of sourcing considering this fact). in any case, you are missing the point of rationalwiki. Rationalwiki is about refuting crank ideas and is supposed to be biased and snarky. This article lack these qualities and is just informational. — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- So add more goat then. I prefer writing relatively neutrally, I believe it has more utility for communicating with misinformed people Deku-shrub (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I do not see you as an "expert" nor do I care if you are one. Most of the content here is general public knowledge that you can find Online (I guess you don't need a lot of sourcing considering this fact). in any case, you are missing the point of rationalwiki. Rationalwiki is about refuting crank ideas and is supposed to be biased and snarky. This article lack these qualities and is just informational. — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- So add the {{cn}} tags where you think they're needed until you feel the article is better supported by evidence. I would argue this is better cited than many RW articles. I am the expert in this field, but only have a small such reputation of yet. I hope to present my research at established skeptic events in maybe a year from now. Writing for RW has allowed me to research ideas in more depth than has ever been done before. If you're not happy with how I'm doing it, please engage with the content appropriately. Deku-shrub (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I feel that this article does not really meet rational wiki's goals. It lacks the type of deep analysis the main article has; it feels more like a wikipedia article than a rational wiki article. You present a list on services that you claim are on deep web and expect the reader to believe you without providing evidence by examples and quoting. And no, sourcing yourself doesn't count. I do however find the content more organized compared to your iceberg one. — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- If you are alluding to fact that you previously said you wanted the article to be about "infographics and terminology" only, I sort of agree. Over the course of time I came to the realization that the article is only for your reddit page, not for the rational wiki. A wiki can be edited by anyone and my goal here is to create a great extensive article on the deepweb as a whole that will become Gold someday. From how I see it, my vision and your vision for the page is not a thing that can be compromised at this given time. Please realize that no one owns a wiki page, its a collaborative community. If you truly want to have 100% control over a page, own it. Earlier I agreed with your proposal to have the scam content moved to a different page (which you haven't done so unless this page is it), but at this point in time I feel I cannot fulfill your plans that you have given me. If you are firm on your stance on your vision, I am afraid we will have to consult a third party such as a moderator to sort this out, which is not something I would like to do but I deem necessary for the situation.— CheeseburgerFace (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- You've ignored all my utilitarian positions there Deku-shrub (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I looked at both pages and this page doesn't cover any topics that aren't in the Deep web article. The main article covers the rumored content through the iceberg info-graphic section and covers the actual content. Looking at this page, it seems redundant. If you want information related to the deep web divided, wikis such as this one use subsections. For example, the article can be divided into sections for rumors and truths about the subject. There is also good information here that can be moved to the other article.— CheeseburgerFace (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the mission of RW is to create resources which are tailored for debunking misconceptions on the internet for those who'll listen. Thus the utility of the resources for me trump any potential such merger optimisations. If you go out and present these resources to people (e.g. on YouTube, where millions of people believe this nonsense) and get a response 'I thought I understood, but I thought it was weird I had to look at 2x articles' I'll be open to a merger. In the mean time, I have dozens of people a week asking 'where are the red rooms?' and 'how do I find out secrets on the deep web' for whom I require appropriately sized rebuttals that they'll actually read. Deku-shrub (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Citation requests[edit]
- Still, these are not the type of information sought out by intrepid dark web explorers
- None the less, this is not the 'secret information' people seek
These are based on my experience moderating /r/deepweb/. How would you like that cited?
- feedback and escrow systems operated by the marketplaces and extended ecosystems mean that the better regulated forums remain relatively free of bogus vendors, trolls and misinformed buyers
- disseminate the first rounds of their stolen information and to establish a reputation
These are based on my carding and darknet markets research. I'm trying to get this published in a mainstream journal, but as I'm not a full time academic I am waiting for my contacts to add me a guest. How would you like this cited? Deku-shrub (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- For the first two, sources to around 5 or so threads on your subreddit should be enough. I guess you can even add an explanation in the references saying that you, as the subreddit's moderator, deem these selected posts on the subreddit as the best example. I am aware that this is contradictory to our previous discussion, but providing evidence such as threads strengthens the claim.
- For the last two, you can either a) post your paper somewhere and source it (if you are allowed to that is) b) add a source explaining that you are in the process of publishing the paper and we can the proper citation later c) add the relevant sources that you sourced in your paper. — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep in mind I have already cited your article from deepdotnet in the Deep Web article. If you have a paper that you written that is organized I would see that as a valid source. — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've also written many of the cited Wikipedia pages as well, this page is a cumulation of the research, serving as a sociological analysis and FAQ. What you've asked for is significantly beyond the RW sourcing requirements I'm aware of, though I'll provide them in time, I actually want to get published first. Deku-shrub (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep in mind I have already cited your article from deepdotnet in the Deep Web article. If you have a paper that you written that is organized I would see that as a valid source. — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- For the last two, you can either a) post your paper somewhere and source it (if you are allowed to that is) b) add a source explaining that you are in the process of publishing the paper and we can the proper citation later c) add the relevant sources that you sourced in your paper. — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
No, fuck that. His experience in moderating a subreddit is not fucking research. Hipocrite (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Redirect[edit]
Is there any good reason for RationalWiki why this page is a redirect? —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara 
(talk • stalk) 04:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- To handle all the incoming links Deku-shrub (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)