Talk:Drudge Report/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

---

Concerning one of the parody sites of the Drudge Report

I clicked one of the lined parody websites ("Drunken Report") and it came out with an explicitly sexual ad, which embarrased the hell out of me. Some one should get rid of the link or just post a warning.67.80.32.189 22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just added in the past couple of days heavily-sourced material about the Drudge Report's extremely well-documented mockery campaign (which goes on virtually daily) against the term "global warming." It was accurate, nuanced and NPOV. And as a separate matter I gently corrected the ridiculous suggestions that the reactionary site is not conservative, and I carefully footnoted that, while still including the opposing views (however ludicrous they are).

I was shocked to see that this material was immediately reverted. I now get the impression that abuse on Wiki is more common than I had realized. People are on here defending their treasured causes, and they don't have any intention of informing, only propagandizing. References that don't support their position are routinely excised. And the supposed mechanisms that Wiki has for policing these abuses have proven hopelessly inadequate. Mare Nostrum 07:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is just one of Wikipedia's three content policies. Your content, even if NPOV, runs afoul of WP:OR. Poshua 16:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Under BIAS, somebody should write up Drudge's coverage of global warming

Whenever somebody makes a global warming claim, he links it right above a link to a story about some freak incident of frost wiping out a strawberry patch. If you actually made the case that cold temperatures in a specific location negate reports of global warming trends, you'd be called an idiot and a lunatic. But when you imply it through adjacent headlines, you're just Drudge.Bds yahoo 13:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

that would be original research--Lehk 06:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

drudge is unabashedly conservative and fits the republican stance on global warming and science in general listen to his radio program

Drudge does put quotes around "global warming" whenever it is mentioned on his site. Indeed, this article used to have information on allegations of conservative bias... what happened to it? Tzepish 19:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Source Needed for Income

The article currently states, "he makes over $30,000 per year." He surely makes more than that given his popularity. The most recent estimate I've seen is that he takes in approximately $800,000 per month in advertising revenue, but I don't recall where I saw that figure and I have no idea if it is correct. Can someone supply a more accurate number and a source for it? Non-Riemann Hypercube 19:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, yeah. That's complete bs. And he made 800k a year in 2003 when ad CPMs were VERY low and his traffic was also much lower. My guess is he makes $3 million a year now. He basically just runs a bunch of crap ads, but it doesnt matter because he has so much traffic it still ads up to a huge amount.

From the BBC:

5. It's a long way since Monica Lewinsky. But Matt Drudge, the fedora-wearing king of the Drudge Report, is making $3,500 a day, according to Business 2.0 magazine. That's £800,000 a year for an operation that has just two employees. Former Slate boss Michael Kinsley told the magazine: "Matt... thinks he's this incredibly powerful, ruthless avenger. But he's actually sort of an innocent, Walter Mitty type - except that his fantasies are more or less true."

The average exchange rate in 2003 was 1.63, which means his income was estimated at 1.3 million a year. I'll add it to the article. -Quasipalm 14:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I've added an NPOV tag to this article. As it stands right now, this article is more a huge criticism piece on the Drudge Report rather than being informative. I also moved the sources to the expanded article to the main page. Equinox137 13:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I think most of the information in the article is sound, I would welcome more general information so that it doesn't give the reader the impression that drugereport is constantly in error or surrounded by controversy. --Quasipalm 22:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's what I'm getting at - I don't doubt any of the information, but it's so spinned by detractors and people who can't stand him - it's not funny. Equinox137 23:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bias

"A later erroneous report emerged in the 2004 US presidential campaign, one week before Senator Kerry announced his selection of Senator John Edwards as his vice presidential running mate. The Report headlined a prediction from a "top D.C. insider" saying that Senator Kerry would be announcing Senator Hillary Clinton as his running mate, declaring it to mark the beginning of a "massive love fest." [16] (http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/07/01/20040701_012802_kerryhrc.htm) The story was de-linked one day later. After Edward's selection, Drudge removed all "VP Hillary" coverage without comment; the correction or outright removal of false content published at the Report is usually handled in similar no-comment fashion."

This entire section seems to be in error. Is it false content to report what you are told? While the source may be in error, unless there is evidence that this source did not tell him this, that there was a retraction by this source, or that the source didn't exist, it seems out of place. 172.131.58.54 08:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is good journalism to have two sources for every claim. Drudge recklessly defies that tradition, which is why he is the source of so many falsehoods. 68.9.184.173 13:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. Was the New York Post in error when they reported Gephardt was Kerry's VP? Yes. Even though they said that "source say", they should have done fact checking and were being poor journalists. In the same way, Drudge was in error, or at least perpetuated a mistake, and so I don't believe this section is incorrect. --Quasipalm 18:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll accept that. The problem then becomes what to include and what not to. As there are many more cases where sources have been incorrect. Is there a certain amount thats proper to reference?172.130.241.8 23:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good point, I think this paragraph could be shortened -- it's a pretty minor error in the big picture. (Not as notable as the NY Post calling Gephardt, or Dan Rather presenting a story with unverified, forged documents, for example.) --Quasipalm 01:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses Quasi. I have personally become terrified of actually editing sections of articles due to the edit wars that will inevitably pop-up, and my not-to-great ability at putting my thoughts into words. Sorry if it seems rather lazy of me, but I'd rather bring up objections, or suggest content in the talk pages and let the more brave among us do the actual editing. Again, appreciate your time. 172.130.241.8 09:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Drudge as Libertarian

There should be something here about his handling of the Cindy Sheehan story. Once again, he editorializes through images. He keeps posting the most unattractive pictures of her he can find. As a "libertarian," he should actually support private citizens who speak out against big government. Instead, he is siding with the Bush administration against a bereaved mother. Whether you are a hawk or a dove, you have to find it shady when a professed libertarian repeatedly sides with big government against the private citizen. 68.110.199.122 15:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. I think this shows that Drudge isn't really a strict libertarian, but rather, he is a person that walks the republican party line (with a few rare exceptions, like bemoaning the rising public debt under GWB).--Quasipalm 16:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I went and checked out the image... It's so rediculous (I mean, this woman lost her son) that I put a comparison of two images into the article. --Quasipalm 17:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Cool, Quasi. 68.110.199.122 06:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This couldn't possibly be because he thinks she is a crock of B.S. Just because someone is a libertarian does not mean that you agree with every individual out there. You can be very antiwar, and still not agree with someone who gives a thumbsup while hugging Hugo Chavez.74.129.17.185 16:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Drudge as "Centrist"

Does anybody have a date on this media study which declared Drudge Report "centrist"? I think the date should be mentioned, since its been part of this article for a while, but still appears at the end of the "Bias" section as though it is an answer to new allegations of bias. 68110.199.122 06:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, taken care of. 68.110.199.122 06:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Removing the side note on the study's controversy.

"(The study also claims that The Wall Street Journal is the most liberal American news outlet, Drudge Report is more liberal than the average American, and that Newshour with Jim Lehrer is more conservative than Drudge. Some believe that these findings conflict with widely held beliefs about politics and the media.)"

This statement is not needed. If you read the study, Groseclose and Milyo explain these perceived irregularities. The link to the study is available to readers. This note tries to discredit the entire study based on the author's opinion and leaves out explainations to these irregularities mentioned in the study. The langauge is misleading, leaving out the fact that both Drudge Report and Jim Lehrer were found to be slightly left of center in the study. The Wall Street Journal is also cited in the study as has having a liberal news page, but a conservative opinion page, with only the news portion of newspapers observed in the study. The claim that the WSJ is the "most liberal American news outlet" also makes the assumption that the study includes every media outlet in the nation. The study in fact only collected data on 20 media outlets. The link to the study is all that is needed for readers to learn about the study, and the link to the criticism is all that's needed to show the study's controversial. Thorburn 09:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way the study actually compared media outlets to the voting records of Congressmen (weighted based on the number of constituents they represent). So the direct conclusion of the study is that e.g. Drudge is more liberal than the average Congressman; the authors assume that this is equivalent to being more liberal than the average American, but that's a debatable inference. Crust 16:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this worth covering in this article?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100007 68.110.199.122 06:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Archives

Is the Internet Archive no longer archiving Drudge Report? It was being archived daily until Nov 30, 2004 and then stops except for Dec 25, 2004. There is nothing from 2005. Ewlyahoocom 15:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Photos

Not entirely relevant, but how does Drudge get away with not giving photo credits for the pictures he pirates from other sites? And why doesn't he resize them so they don't look so distorted? 68.9.184.173 00:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Who knows -- but the reason he doesn't re-size them is because he doesn't even host them, and sometimes he's even deeplinked images from other news-sources. Basically "stealing" their bandwidth to show images on his page (this is very easy technically, unless they protect themselves). Lately, most of the images are hosted on another (yimg?) server that he probably pays to deep-link from his website. Or maybe he doesn't pay -- it's hard to tell with this guy. --Quasipalm 15:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Today I noticed "deep-linking" ... He is showing an image of the NYTimes' Dowd (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/10/26/magazine/30dowd.450.jpg) and he's not hosting the image himself. He is just linking to the image on the NYTimes' server. Why do these websites let him get away with this? I'm sure it's a ton of bandwidth. --Quasipalm 19:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that the way he gets by using the photos is specifically because he deep links them. Hosting is stealing but you can link anything that is public.Rtrev 04:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)--

Word Emphasis

IMHO "However, MOST claims are eventually linked to a real news website." is violating NPOV. The word "most" has no reason to be capitalized. This should be a factual article, not a forum post.

Weasel words

There are several unsubstantiated/uncited "some"s and "many"s -- some critics, many feel, etc. etc. -- that tilt this article away from a neutral point of view. --EEMeltonIV 19:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

Just a reminder... this article more than many others seems to smack of original research. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be a TERTIARY soruce. Which means you should rarely cite the Drudge Report itself, the Internet Archive, or internet discussion groups. Instead of using your own analysis and observations in Wikipedia, please refer to reputable sources (books, news reports, etc.) that make that analysis and analyze the original research. I removed the following because it seems like the textbook definition of original research. If someone wants to find this analysis and a secondary source and rework the content, that would be cool (although I doubt it can be found)--Bibliophylax 15:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, according to WP:RS: Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is one of the following: ... (snip) I believe it is completely appropriate to use something from Drudge's archives to verify a statement such as, "On such and such date, the Drudge Report published ..." - Crockspot 23:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• You're definitely right that the Drudge Report isn't ruled out as an unreliable source under WP:RS. But that doesn't mean that it can be used in original research. See WP:NOR. For example, the article talks about pictures being used to editorialize and backs this up with samples of the Drudge Report. That is original research because it doesn't cite a source for the claim that the pictures are editorializing. Another example is the paragraph I removed below on 10/02. It tries to speculate about when the Drudge Report started by looking at evidence. That's original research because it should instead cite another source that has researched it and already reached the conclusion. It's a little confusing... but any analysis or synthesis in the article has to be from another source.--Bibliophylax 16:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Conclusionary statements are certainly OR. Just wanted to clarify that the self source of Drudge can be used in particular circumstances. Crockspot 16:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Only problem is that after looking through the Bias and Criticism sections it seems that the whole thing is uncited or original research. These sections should be in the article but as it stands they are not article ready. The only problem is that I am loathe to delete them outright but they probably shouldn't stay as is. Any suggestions? Anyone have time to re-write/cite/non-original research? Rtrev 17:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already put in a ton of time on the Matt Drudge article in the past few days. You could check there and see if any of the new cites I added can be used here. Otherwise, I would suggest moving the entire section here to the talk page, and we can work on it here. Crockspot 17:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed the following original research 10/02/06

The Internet Archive "Wayback Machine" shows that the Drudge Report website had its debut on December 6, 1998. It is unclear exactly when Drudge began publishing non-web reports. On April 2, 2004, he splashed a headline on his site which read "Drudge Report Turns Nine Years Old". [1] In a Usenet post from that month, Drudge advertised his Report as covering "the Entertainment industry, Poli-Video shows (political talk shows,) Talk Radio, and a cross section of things that the editor Matt Drudge is focusing in on. This weekly report arrives on Monday and is complimented (sic) with NEWS BREAKS as they occur. Already read by key players, this tip sheet will be sure to peak (sic) your interest." [2]

(Removed by Bibliophylax 15:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

I don't think it is confusing at all, pretty cut and dry original research. Rtrev 16:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Photos - Editorializing

I looked all over and couldn't find a cite for the statement that "the Drudge Report has been accused of editorializing with photo selection." Do we have a source? --PTR 20:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering that all Drudge does is link the photos directly from AP, Yahoo, etc., I doubt that one will be found. At least, one that meets WP:RS. Mostly just bloggers complaining about it, so probably should remove the statement. Crockspot 20:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If we remove the statement we'll need to remove the photos. I'll do it tomorrow if no one has objections.--PTR 14:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignore my last message. Photos have been removed. Should look a the page before commenting.--PTR 14:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Original Section

Here are the images that have been removed -- if anyone can find reputable sources, please re-enter them. -

File:Cindy Drudge Report Texas Copyrighted.jpg
The Drudge Report has been accused of editorializing with photo selection. Above is pictured Cindy Sheehan.
File:Robertson Drudge Report Copyrighted.jpg
The Drudge Report has been accused of editorializing with photo selection. Above is pictured John Roberts.
File:Drudge-5-26-06.jpg
Drudge has been accused of editorializing through the juxtaposition of arguably unrelated linked stories. Above is a sequence of links from a May 27, 2006 issue. Below is a sequence of links from a May 31, 2006 issue.

-Quasipalm 17:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Origins section sources

I attempted to find sources for the last three "citation needed" statements in this section (Connie Chung, Jerry Seinfeld, Jack Kemp). Could not find the primary stories in the Drudge archives. I have not looked outside of Drudge archives, so if someone wants to make that attempt, go for it. Crockspot 15:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Remember, we don't want to look back in the Drudge Archives, see when Drudge posted these stories, and then figure out if he was first. We need to find a source that says "Drudge was first..." --Bibliophylax 20:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

These were the ones I found but don't know if they meet criteria.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/30/pandora.web/

http://list.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9910a&L=aejmc&T=0&P=8031

http://www.salon.com/media/media960628.html

--PTR 22:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Where in the world is matt drudge?

On his site right now he has a link titled "DRUDGE SEASON GREETINGS FROM MIDEAST... THANKS FOR A GREAT YEAR!!", the text is linked to this picture of himself: http://www.drudgereport.com/drx.jpg, does that mean he is currently in the middle east? and if so what country?

It doesn't much matter in relation to this article. We have no idea if it yet meets WP:NOTE. --Rtrev 05:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Origin

Moved off article: I had always heard that Drudge started his "DrudgeReport" while living in the basement of his parents home. Mark Mayhew

The ABC claim

The subtitle of the article says, "Book Compares Online Newsman to Walter Cronkite" and the claim is made by the authors of that book.[3] The quote on the second page of the article is: "Drudge's coverage affects the media's political coverage, Halperin said." You are disingenuous being by claiming "ABC" said it.

In fact, in the context of the article: "Matt Drudge is not doing stories on policy, on welfare, on healthcare. He's doing stories on the most salacious aspects of American politics," he said. "When that drives the dialogue, that's where the country heads, that's where our political coverage heads." It not really compliment. Arbustoo 21:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• You make a good point, Arbustoo. The ABC article (and book) are potentially misused here as puffery quotes for MD, whereas the actual content is more balanced. I have tried to reflect that. One might go further and quote the stuff about how Drudge tirelessly pushed the Swift Boaters claims. Skopp (Talk) 23:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The title of the article appears nowhere in the book. The book is not mentioned in the article (except for the subtitle) until well into the second half of the article. You are the one being disingenuous here. - Crockspot 21:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You are claiming "ABC News concluded that the Drudge Report sets the tone for national political coverage."[4] Concluded by who? What department? With what research? According to what spokesperson? The CEO believes this? The article is an interview attributing those quotes to authors of a book. If want to claim a news network believes this about a blog get a source to prove it. Arbustoo 21:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Before I take this to an RfC, I will lay out my position as clearly as I can: ABC News published the article titled "Drudge Report Sets Tone for National Political Coverage" without a byline. The title itself makes a charactarization, and it is not quoted from a book. The first three paragraphs of the article are clearly making a similar charactarization (one of the strongest weapons...tremendous influence...can send shock waves through newsrooms and campaign headquarters nationwide ...) without any attribution to a third party. Then follows a supporting quote from Mark Halperin, ABC News Political Director. Then there are several more quotes, interspersed with unattributed statements of fact. Finally, at the thirteenth paragraph, we hear about the book which is referred to in the subtitle. Clearly this is not a book review, it is reporting by a reliable news organization. If the article had a byline, I would offer the compromise of attributing the charactarization to the author, ie., Joe Blow of ABC News drew the conclusion.... Furthermore, reporters do not usually write the headline which appears above their story. That is a task that falls to the editorial staff. So considering that ABC News chose to publish a story with no byline, with a headline that the editorial staff chose, with reporting that tends to support the headline, I would say that there is no one else to attribute the charactarization to except ABC News. The article itself is all the proof that is required. Are you actually asking for a reliable secondary source to prove a reliable secondary source? - Crockspot 23:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

RfC: ABC claim

• "Drudge Report Sets Tone for National Political Coverage". ABC News. 2006-10-01. Retrieved 2007-04-02.

• Primary question: Is this reliable secondary source making the charactarization or drawing the conclusion that "the Drudge Report sets the tone for national political coverage", or is it an interview/book review that only reports the charactarizations of other parties?

• Secondary question: If the conclusion is being drawn or charactarization made, can that conclusion be appropriately attributed to ABC News, when authorship of the source is not disclosed (no byline), or is an additional reliable secondary source required to make that attribution? - 23:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• My case is made immediately above. Obviously, I believe it is a conclusion and that it can be attributed to "ABC News". - Crockspot 23:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Primary question: Since the actual article reads like this:

Drudge Report Sets Tone for National Political Coverage
  Book Compares Online Newsman to Walter Cronkite

...I'd say that a characterization (please stop misspelling it as "charactarization") is being made by another source, not the ABC. The subhead attributes the "setting tone" claim to the book, as I read it, and I'm sure that that is the intent. Therefore the secondary question is answered like this: the characterizations made can be accurately attributed to the authors of the book and the people they quote therein, rather than to what is effectively just a report about the book. Skopp (Talk) 23:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Question - Is the subject of the book Matt Drudge? It is my understanding that he is just a minor part of this book. If it is simply a "book report" as you claim, how do you explain the entire focus of the article being on Matt Drudge? - Crockspot 12:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I can answer that — because Mark Halperin works for ABC and they gave him several articles plugging his book, each covering a different topic in it. Also, I wouldn't quite classify it as a minor part of the book — it's a pretty major part of it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

From Publishers Weekly Halperin (ABC News) and Harris (the Washington Post and The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House) illustrate "trade secrets" to political victory with this penetrating examination of the personal lives and political histories of the biggest names in recent presidential politics ... they offer particularly valuable insights into inadequately understood players like Matt Drudge, whom the authors credit as one of the greatest forces behind the Clinton impeachment and the Gore and Kerry losses ...

I think that says it all, don't you? Skopp (Talk) 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

reply You have some good info there, but I still do not agree on the RfC questions, considering the unattributed comments that are written into the ABC article. I am hoping for some outside opinions here. An RfC is pretty useless if it only has the normal disputants participating. - Crockspot 21:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

We can't help understand the article: It does not state what ABC News thinks about the website. It says what authors of the book claimed. Most importantly, the cite as another user added in, does not give the website a glowing affirmation. The subtitle of the article is "Book Compares Online Newsman to Walter Cronkite." If you want to claim this is what ABC News thinks you need a source that makes the claim. Arbustoo 23:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Michael Ware Claim

The claim is still on the Drudge website.[5] The issue is mentioned by various news outlets.[6][(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21272501.shtml][(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21272556.shtml][7][8][9][(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21272595.shtml][10][11][12] [13]

Even in the Australian press.[14]

Moreover, as Drudge is a blog this is mentioned in all the major blogs.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]

There are many more, this is just the first five pages of a google search. Arbustoo 17:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor nitpick point that has nothing to do with the Ware issue, but I don't think you can call the Drudge Report a blog. There is nowhere for readers to leave comments, nor is there a normal mechanism for Drudge to leave a daily or regular "blog" entry. It's really just a collection of links to other news articles, plus the occasional editorial by him. Crockspot 20:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, as to the Ware issue, I think it is too soon to include this in the article. WP:DUST calls for us to wait for the dust to settle. That's not to say that we couldn't write the section and source it here on the talk page, then in a week or two, if the story hasn't gone through any major changes, move it into the article. That's just my take on handling "late breaking scandals" that haven't been reliably proven to be a scandal yet. - Crockspot 20:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have sources to confirm Drudge is correct about his Ware claim provide it. Drudge has listed it as "breaking" for three days and has supplied no evidence to his claim. Whereas, the reporter denies the claim and provided video to back up his denial.

Wikipedia includes current events. If you feel the need add the {current} template. Arbustoo 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he removed it after a day. If you are referring to the fact that it still shows up at drudgereportarchives.com, I wonder if you are aware of the disclaimer at the bottom of every page at that site which reads: Matt Drudge does not own, operate or maintain the drudgereportArchives.com. He is not responsible for it in anyway. So anything that ever landed on the Drudge Report will be on drudgereportarchives.com forever, whether Drudge removed it five minutes later or not. It's a different independent site that archives the DR every few minutes. Only mildly relevant to the question at hand, but something everyone should be aware of. Crockspot 18:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote and the source I left. The wrong claim is at: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm Arbustoo 19:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

But it's not still linked off of his page, at least I haven't seen it. The day after this story broke, I had to go to the archives to find what he wrote. - Crockspot 21:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The point here is the story is 1) still available from the Drudge Report and contains no correction (for example: if you type in Ware and Drudge at google you get the story minus evidence/support for the claim ), and 2) I explained that, gave you a link and you ignored that and, for some reason, brought up an off topic comment about an unconnected website.

Please take the time to read material before commenting on it. Arbustoo 23:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Drudge's Goosed Traffic numbers (meta refresh trick)

This is silly, hair-splitting stuff, Crock. Apart from the fact that anyone with two connected neurons can look at the source code of the Drudge Report and SEE for themselves that there is meta refresh tag set for every 3 minutes, as in:

<META HTTP-EQUIV="refresh" content="180">

...thus making the need for a citing of sources on this point moot in the extreme, apart from that, I would argue that the web source I cited is not a "blog". It's not the ABC website, but it's a cut above a blog too. Skopp (Talk) 13:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• So TODAY you're complaining about hairsplitting... interesting. Sorry, but that source is a blog, no doubt about it. If the details of DR's refresh rate are truly notable, they will be reported by a reliable source. (Try news.google.com 's new "archive search", and you may just find what I am requesting. It's actually a pretty cool tool. I found several sources for the Newsweek claim that is flagged from google news archive search. I juat haven't had a chance yet to verify, format, and add them to the article.) The short statement about the numbers not specifying unique loads or reloads is sufficient for most people to figure it out I think. The rest is "reverse-puffery", to mangle one of your favorite characterizations, unless you can cite a reliable source. Crockspot 16:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Valleywag.com it is not a personal blog! I quote:

7. Who's behind the site? Valleywag is part of Gawker Media, which publishes other gossipy titles such as Gawker in Manhattan, Wonkette in Washington, D.C. and Defamer in Hollywood -- as well as tech sites such as Gizmodo and Lifehacker. The company makes money from advertising but not, fortunately, from many of the companies that we'll be poking. From http://www.valleywag.com/tech/announcements/valleywag-faq-151991.php

Until you have solid evidence that this is a unknown and trivial site, please refrain from implying it is so. If it was an unnotable source, would The New York Times run an article about it? Skopp (Talk) 23:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to add that I find it amusing that anyone would require a better source than this to provide us with reliable proof that what we can see with our own eyes by viewing the Drudge Report's page source is true (go to View --> Source on your browser menu). It's like saying that the statement "Matt Drudge runs a website" requires a citation. It's self-evident, you can see it by looking, and it's not OR. And to require that every fact about Drudge's one-man link collection page requires a citation from the mainstream media borders on the fatuous. Is his traffic inflation notable? Well, of course it is! His whole claim to fame is his alleged popularity. The fact that his traffic stats are highly goosed is very notable and now widely known. Do a google search on "drudge meta refresh" and see how everyone has noted the fact. Skopp (Talk) 23:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What I find amusing is how your standards for inclusion and sourcing vary, depending upon whether the item is "puffery" (anything positive) or "self-evident" (anything negative). Valleywag's FAQ was actually the first thing I read on that site, and of all the blogs that they run, Wonkette is the only one that I have heard of. And I don't believe that Wonkette is allowed as a secondary source on WP either. I don't have to prove to you that it is unreliable, quite the contrary. The burden of proof lies with the editor wishing to include. I believe that you already know that quite well. So please, trot out your list of multiple non-trivial published secondary sources supporting Valleywag as a notable blog worthy of being cited as a secondary source. - Crockspot 01:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it really even necessary to have a Traffic section? I see now there are two sets of traffic numbers. Are we collecting them? Aren't these numbers always on the site? They are now characterized as "impressions" in the article, which means total hits, not unique visitors. Yet the sentence following the first set says that the site does not specify if it is impressions or unique visitors. So we have a contradiction there. I've already stated objection to the reliability of Valleywag. It still strikes me as a combination of a little OR and some slightly poor sourcing. Then we have a reliable source that discusses the traffic that is driven to the Washington Post site. It's not even really about Drudge's traffic. So here is what I propose. We find a better place in the article to put the Washington Post bit, and we remove the whole traffic section. We already know a lot of people check his site, and he gets a lot of traffic. I don't see the point in having a section that nitpicks over exactly how much is "a lot". Discuss. - Crockspot 00:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, a traffic section is not necessary at all. Such stats are not recorded elsewhere on other Wikipedia pages discussing other websites, AFAIK. But I do think that the way he gooses his traffic numbers, which has a direct relationship to the fees he is able to charge advertisers, and which has been discussed widely on the Internet for years, should be retained in some form, even if only as one short sentence. Skopp (Talk) 04:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If there was a better additional source, I would agree to that. I just don't feel comfortable with using Valleywag alone. If it is a notable "controversy", there would be better secondary sources, like an op-ed from something more mainstream at least. Anyone who uses the Drudge Report (including his advertisers) already knows that his page reloads frequently. If they don't block popups, believe me, they REALLY know. How is this bit of information relevant to the site's notability? It's not like the Drudge Report is only famous because of a meta-refresh tag. - Crockspot 19:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is it notable? Here's a quote from a non-blog source:

Aside from this refresh rate being far more aggressive than any other news organization out there it is also highly deceptive both in terms of claiming influence and in terms of advertising revenue. Matt Drudge employs a CPM model for his advertisements (view his rate sheet), and his web site is widely perceived to be influential because of his reported traffic numbers. Additionally, new ads are served with each page refresh.

— Staff of Personal Democracy Forum, http://www.personaldemocracy.com/node/1320

There are many sources if you want to hunt around for them; for example "Hell, I don't even have to hit the refresh button anymore, after Drudge figured out how to put a meta refresh tag into the html. Now, every 4 minutes that trusted old 486 re-loads itself." (Bob Momenteller, etherzone.com, 2000, [25] ), [26] [27] etc. etc. Skopp (Talk) 21:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Every one of those is a self-published source, including the one you called a non-blog. They are probably not even allowed per WP:V. To be considered notable, it usually means that reliable sources deem it notable by reporting on it. These are not reliable sources. Can you cite even one reliable secondary source, such as a newspaper, magazine, or I would even accept a transcript from Keith Olberman, or some other talking head pundit? If you just had one decent press source, I would accept it. Otherwise, I have to object on the grounds of OR (via poor sourcing), Undue Weight (only you and some bloggers care), Verifiability (self-published sources), and irrelevance to the notability of the subject. - Crockspot 21:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can call personaldemocracy.com a self-published source. WP:V says of a self-published source: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field." That is not a reasonable description of personaldemocracy.com (see their staff page). If you are so concerned that Drudge's traffic figures remain unimpugned, let's refer this issue for comment and act on feedback. Skopp (Talk) 22:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh certainly their staff page is very impressive. It lists just about everyone, everyone that is, except the author of the piece you wish to use as a source (which is the strongest source you have presented so far), one Raven Brooks. Who is Raven Brooks? Well, "Raven Brooks is co-founder of BuyBlue.org and blogs frequently on technology topics for DailyKos." Well THAT's interesting. And her article really just references ValleyWag. This is one blogger trying to lend legitimacy to another blogger. Look at the article again. Look up near the top of the page. Which tab is highlighted? The BLOG one. - Crockspot 22:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC) All of these sources violate WP:BLP#Reliable sources. - Crockspot 22:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, it could be that the goosing of traffic stats goes even further and borders on something more serious if this observation is considered. Skopp (Talk) 21:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Another self-published source. Be careful here, you're starting to get into a BLP red zone. - Crockspot 21:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Read WP:V#Sources and it's three subsections. - Crockspot 22:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think my case is compelling enough. I am invoking WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, based upon WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Please provide better sources that meet BLP standard before reverting. These sources defame Matt Drudge personally, and are not reliable enough to be allowed. - Crockspot 22:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• • You do not have the ability to single-handedly "decide [your] case is compelling enough". What arrogance! Let this go to comment. Insert RfC as I suggested. In the meantime, allow the facts about stats to stand on the page, as they have done for several months already. I think the sources are fine. I would argue no sources are needed, since the meta-refresh tag is right there for all to see with their own eyes in the source code of the DR page. Skopp (Talk) 00:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:BLP requires that you source it better before you reinsert it. If you want to call an RfC then do so, but it stays out by default for now. If you edit war on this, you will be blocked. - Crockspot 02:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop threatening me as if you were an admin. You are not, and I do not tolerate bullies. I can insert warnings on your user page and tag your changes as vandalism too, if I had the mind to. I have made the edit as neutral as possible and I wish it to stay there so that the RfC has a reference people can parse for acceptability. Skopp (Talk) 02:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sources

Please do not remove sources such as this one because the url does not give you a free copy. A valid citation of a published article does not require a hyperlink, they are included for convenience only. As long as a citation contains enough information for someone to find that article at their library, it is a valid citation. Footnotes and citations existed long before the internet. - Crockspot 01:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What someone said at a meeting of some group (which does not even have its own Wiki entry) is not notable, and especially when we cannot ascertain the validity of it without paying to see the only cite for it, which is itself an online-only resource. I think that that is a very iffy inclusion, Crock. Skopp (Talk) 02:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It was published in Editor and Publisher magazine, which the citation clearly states. That is a reliable source, and it is not an iffy citation at all. What game are you playing? Crockspot 02:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the Lexis link you've now provided? It just goes to an endless search. BTW, in which library can I access that rag magazine (Editor and Publisher)? Skopp (Talk) 02:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Any large library will have it. The link works for me. Goes to an abstract with publishing info. Look, you may think that it requires an online version to be a valid cite, but it doesn't. E&P is a real paper magazine. You're beating a dead horse. - Crockspot 02:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

E&P is a respected publication and can be found fairly easily in print. --Rtrev 03:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor & Publisher is well-known and in print. Arbustoo 21:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Editor & Publisheris an extremely credible source. In fact, it's the main journalist and book publishing trade magazine. Since this is an article about a journalist website, E&P is one of the best citations anyone can give. As such, it shouldn't be removed.--Alabamaboy 17:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment : Drudge Report's Page Reloading to boost traffic statistics

Please see the section above on this issue. Crockspot feels it is poorly sourced and a violation of WP:BLP whereas I feel it is both adequately sourced and moreover self-evident (page refreshes every 180 seconds with new advertisements as you read it). Comments please. Skopp (Talk) 02:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• diff of contested inclusion.

• My stand is simple. I have asked for only one reliable secondary source to be cited. What has been presented is a handful of website sources that do not meet WP:BLP#Reliable sources, and are defamatory of Matt Drudge. The best source presented is written by a DailyKos blogger, who references one of the other sources, a webzine blog type of publication. It appears that this page reloading issue is only notable to a few bloggers. So we have an undue weight problem as well as the OR-due-to-poor-sourcing problem. My counterpart here sometimes has a novel interpretation of policy, as is evidenced in a previous discussion in the section directly above. This really is pretty straightforward. No blogs, webzines, or other self-published sources for potentially defamatory material like this. Even if the author is a noted expert, it can't be used to defame a third party. - Crockspot 02:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC) PS. It is the sources themselves that defame Drudge. Crockspot 03:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note how Crockspot has become the arbiter of what constitutes source acceptability, and how he has decided that noting the page refresh issue is "defamatory", when it clearly is not. Skopp (Talk) 02:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't the refreshing that is defamatory, it is the sources claiming that he is deceiving and possibly ripping off his advertisers that is defamatory. If you read the cited passage of BLP, these are exactly the kinds of sources the policy is saying not to use. Who are these "observers"? According to who? They're bloggers, according to bloggers. - Crockspot 03:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The site itself cannot be used as a reference. The code shows that the page is refreshed every three minutes, but we need reliable secondary sources to show that the fact that the page refreshes even matters and that the purpose of doing so is to inflate statistics. None of the sources appear reliable; they all appear self-published or have questionable editorial oversight. Please keep in mind that the onus is on the editor wanting to include material to provide sources that establish their reliability. ShadowHalo 03:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think WP:BLP is very relevant, but this would need reliable secondary sources to clarify whether this is actually notable enough to be included in the article. Without reliable secondary sources it should not be included, and without such reliable secondary sources I don't see how one could make the claim that they do it in order to increase traffic statistics when a reasonable alternative is that they do it for the convenience of readers to find updated news, which would be quite ordinary and not worthy of mention in the article. —Centrx→talk • 03:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think BLP does apply, because while this article is about a web site, the wording of the inclusion, and the sources cited, all refer to Drudge by name, as a person, not to his website. The sources are alleging that Matt Drudge is deceiving his advertisers. - Crockspot 03:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try something which the great User:Thatcher131 suggested somewhere - let's see if we can avoid the highly contentious WP:BLP issue and cover this with something both more specific, and less contentious, Wikipedia:undue weight. We're talking about two sentences, of roughly equal length. One is a direct quote from a guy we have an article about, the executive editor of one of the two or three most important newspapers in the United States, making a public statement before an annual convention of his peers, and reported on by a source which seems to be a respected trade paper. The second is cited to "observers point out", and the observers are two blogs. That's undue weight: the bloggers' statements are not within several orders of magnitude of the same impact on the world as those of the editor of the Washington Post, and we should not make it seem that they are. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 03:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• The consensus seems to be against inclusion. I now await reportage on this issue by one of the drones that pass for journalists in the US so that we can have the wonderful citation. I'll be vigilant on this issue, be assured. Skopp (Talk) 08:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Including information on how the traffic statistics are determined seems reasonable to me. If a site owner says "I get X amount of traffic" then they invite scrutiny of their claim. If the owner is citing 'number of page loads or impressions' anything that impacts the number of page loads can be considered to determine if the claim is true or not, in this case the page coding impacts that number. A dead pan NPOV sentence for example: "....Drudge frequently publishes impressive traffic statistics. The site traffic statistics are based on page loads, and it has been noted that a meta refresh tag in the page coding refreshes (reloads) the page every three minutes.[10][11]" ......just my 2 cents Statisticalregression 13:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bias: why can't we just come out and say it?

The fact that this page can't just come out and say that drudge is a conservative who picks his stories and exclusives to spin a particular view is just pathetic, and shows a real weakness with wikipedia. Anyone who's actually read and used his great site knows this, and citing solely some back and forth on a laughable study claiming that he is a liberal is just astonishing in its duplicity. Look: drudge's cite is historic and beloved. But its selection of stories is conservative and everyone here knows that. If there is no way for the article to reflect that, then we've failed.

More and more data is being sanitized from Wikipedia, so get used to it. Skopp (Talk) 10:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a repository of information that has already been reported by other reliable secondary sources. If you have such a source that characterizes the Drudge Report thusly, then it can go into the article. (If "everybody" truly "knows it", then you should be able to find such a source). If you don't have a source, it is considered original research and opinion, and does not belong on Wikipedia. It isn't "data" that is being "sanitized", it is unverified or non-notable opinion that is being kept out. So yes, get used to it. Wikipedia is not your club with which to beat on people you don't like. - Crockspot 12:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty much a non-response. A measure of whether or not wikipedia is succeeding is whether it can state obvious things forthrightly. Anyone that insists that drudgereport isn't a conservative-slanted site is either ignorant, or, in the case of many people here apparently, smirkingly lying, and getting a big kick out of the game. The fact that there are lots of secondary sources that argue that drudge isn't conservative is about as useful as there being lots of creationist secondary sources that claim that the earth is 6000 years old. If we can't state obvious facts because its easy to play games to confuse them, then we ARE failing in producing useful articles. 76.189.206.11 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the pillar policies of Wikipedia is WP:V, which states that the standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. If you can cite reliable secondary sources about something, it can generally be included. But if all you have is a bunch of ranting on blogs, then you generally cannot. There is also the concept of notable opinion. If an idea is notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, reliable sources will have reported on it. If it is just the rantings of a few people on the web, it is not notable enough, and including it would violate WP:UNDUE, which is part of another pillar policy of Wikipedia, WP:NPOV. Anything you want to stick in wikipedia must be verifiable by the reader being able to look up the cited source, read it, and say to himself, "why yes, this source does say that about so and so." This holds true, whether the article is about Matt Drudge, or about the general theory of relativity. The non-expert reader MUST be able to verify anything that appears on WP through a reliable source. If these standards are something you don't agree with, then I suggest that you check out dkospedia, conservapedia, or one of the many wiki "encyclopedias" that do not have such strict verifiability and NPOV policies. - Crockspot 19:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Any human being only needs to read drudge consistently to see its bias, and virtually no one BUT wikipedia continues to maintain that it is not a conservative site. My point is that as such, something has clearly gone wrong here: either we aren't getting enough editors looking for material, or, far more likely, we have a concerted effort to avoid the obvious by trying to present bogus information as a counter to claims of bias in order to keep the statement of bias out of the article. There are no end to the sources, both conservative and liberal which agree that drudge is a conservative site: it's called so regularly by almost anyone commenting on it. Except for wikipedia. The only mention any of this gets is a whole paragraph on a study so lousy that its own authors have abandoned it... and yet from wikipedia's perspective, we might as well rewrite the article on cold fusion so that it only cites the original paper in which cold fusion was claimed to work, mentioning only in passing that "others disagree."Plunge 16:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)