Talk:Slashdot

"Eighteenth century/Enlightenment (both Voltaire and Thomas Jefferson are occasionally quoted) Atheism is strongly prevalent among Slashdot's core audience, as are (particularly among Linux users) political tendencies towards various forms of Communism; however accusations of the latter will generally both cause offense and be strenuously (if dishonestly) denied. The site's core audience was originally highly intellectual in nature, but with the advent of the 4chan/World of Warcraft forum subculture in recent years, this characteristic has lessened." The increasingly outrageous uncited comments in this paragraph seem to be a joke, as the next. I regret editing this out, because the it's rather clever and well-thought out. But... Tumacama (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The ongoing assumption that Slashdot is Linux-oriented comes from historical reasons (e.g. Slashdot's parent company, or should I say corporate overlord which might be more apt in /. lingo, is SourceForge, Inc who used to run the Linux.com domain) and from its famous Bill Gates "Borg" icon^[2], as well as the strong anti-Microsoft postings often made by Slashdot members. Despite this reputation, a significant number of Slashdot stories are related to Windows video games or applications, or Microsoft security bulletins.^{[citation needed]} Slashdot was Linux-oriented from the beginning (and was a preference of the site's founders) Before acquisition by Andover.net. The site's coverage of Microsoft issues does not belong in Audience section, even if citation is found Tumacama (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This article may meet the sourcing requirements for GA, but the grammar is not very good. Who was the editor who decided a comma was needed before any quotation? This is not correct. I do not have time to proof this article myself, but someone should reduce the comma overload before the article is reviewed for GA. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I did most of the recent editing on the article. Perhaps I am a bit overzealous with commas? From my understanding, you put a comma in a sentence when someone is quoting a full statement, such as: Forrest Gump's mother said, "Life is like a box of chocolates." But you don't put a comma if it's an incomplete quote from the middle -- like: The name "Slashdot" came from somewhat of an "obnoxious parody of a URL".

Are there other issues with grammar? I could go through it again and copy-edit, but maybe it would be better if someone else did it, seeing as how I'm the primary author already. It might be better to have another set of eyes on it? Thanks! WTF? (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Should we mention that Opera has an integrated feature that typing in the adressbar /. you automatic get to http://slashdot.org ? mabdul 17:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not very significant to be included in the page. It seems to be more of a feature of Opera, not Slashdot. There's probably other shortcuts to other websites on the browser, and Wikipedia doesn't need to provide a reference to all of them. WTF? (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As of today (31 August 2010) it seems that slashdot might be offline, or going offline. Most of the pages are either not accessible or are returning "unexpected end of file" errors. There have been talks of coming layoffs of current slashdot staff as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.62.75 (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot readers were once tricked by enticing-sounding links into being Goatse'd, until Slashdot changed its link rendering code to always show the target domain. I've added that, with citation, to the chronological history, between 2002 & 2005(when the cited source was published). --Lexein (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is the old article on Slashdot Trolling. It now redirects to this article, and it isn't even mentioned. Slashdot, along with Usenet are really the beginning of the whole trolling phenomena, and early in slashdots life it was known as the most 'important' trolling target on the net (being the origin of such troll memes as "first post" and the like). Can whoever decided that this was a good idea please revoke that. It was a good article, and an important record of what was a pretty important sociological phenomena 121.45.228.220 (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slashdot trolling phenomena (2nd nomination). WTF? (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A snapshot of the article was copied to two Userspace subpages, see

• User:Kadin2048/Slashdot_Trolling_Phenomena and
• User:Timwi/Slashdot_trolling_phenomena

--Lexein (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I just finished cleaning up a lot of the primary sources. I removed the ones that verified trivial information (what the third most popular article is/was, etc.), added a few citations to the more important information, and tagged the information that only cited slashdot.org links with {{better source}}. It's on its way to becoming a featured article, in my opinion! LiteralKa (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I cited one of the {{better source}}s, but removed two others, since Rob Malda can be considered a reliable primary source, and rephrased to read as primary source announcements.--Lexein (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really what I call a "cleanup", more like a mass deletion where you've removed several items of key importance, which has now been reinstated. Deletion is not necessary. Rob Malda is also still a reliable source, though what we have to be careful of is to not include too many sources from Slashdot & Malda, and enough sources from reliable third parties. But there should be sufficient third party sources presently in the article so that a few sources to Malda's Slashdot posts should not be a problem. WTF? (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that LiteralKa was recently banned indefinitely from editing Wikipedia due to trolling, sockpuppetry, and possible connections to the GNAA. Therefore, any edits made by this account, or comments, should be taken with a huge grain of salt. WTF? (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hope I didn't tread on anyone's toes. Feel free to keep editing, or discuss aspects here. WykiP (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It's actually spelled, "lead" section, not "lede". I'm not sure what language "lede" is a part of, but it's not English. If you spell it correctly, it would help to review WP:LEAD, which covers these sections. I reverted the deletion of text because too much was taken out, making it an insufficient summary of the article, which would lead to it failing WP:GA standards. The lead section needs to adequately summarize the article. If you can improve on the summary, feel free, but if you delete content, it will be reverted. WTF? (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

From WP:LEAD: "(The news-journalism jargon term lede is sometimes used, but Wikipedia leads are not written in news style, and journalistic ledes serve different purposes from encyclopedic leads.[1])" Eminence2012 (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

As indicated, it would have been better to explain your disagreement first, or reintroduced the content. WP:ROWN disagrees with your intent to revert any edits where content is deleted.

Here is what I replaced the first two paragraphs with:

-----

Slashdot (sometimes abbreviated as /.) is a technology-related current affairs website which bills itself as "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters". News stories about science and technology are submitted by users who also collaboratively highlight the most valuable comments.

-----

Does anyone disagree that this is a significant improvement in readability?

I do not see the point of the current second paragraph. At first glance, it is unlikely to mean much to anyone who is unfamiliar with Slashdot.

Do you feel my edit made the lead too short? That it wasn't a good summary? WykiP (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is FAR too short. And if you also continue to put incorrect information in the LEAD section, as you described the site as a "current affairs" website, I will continue to revert it. Please, please, please review WP:LEAD and actually READ the article before editing its LEAD (not "lede") section. Thank you. WTF? (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Such behaviour is edit warring. Consider this a formal warning.

I have not put incorrect information once. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_affairs_(news_format) for definition. "Current affairs" means exactly the same as "news". For sake of cohesion and as "current affairs" is more commonly associate with general news, I will accept the word change however clumsy the repetition is.

Quoting WP:LEAD:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." Note the word "concise".

"a clear, accessible style" Your version is neither clear nor accessible.

"15,000–30,000 characters Two or three paragraphs" Slashdot is about 20,500 words. The suggested number of paragraphs is then closer to 2 than 3.

I really don't know what you're referring to. WP:LEAD seems to support my initial edit even more than my compromise one which has the lead twice as long.

109.176.194.173 supported my removal of the repetitive parody-of-URL sentence: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slashdot&diff=535913949&oldid=534738021. Consequently, the fairest interpretation of consensus is to support my edit. Your reversions, as I've told you several times, are against WP policy.

However, I personally do not mind the original length of the lead. I do think it's very important that it is "a concise overview" and in "a clear, accessible style".

I am happy to maintain the original lead length with a more meaningful, clearer overview. I have seen ownership of a site in other leads before although I don't think it's particularly relevant or meaningful here. I don't mind if you insist that be included.

The second paragraph is a relatively meaningless mess, as well as duplicating content from the page. The comments system should be emphasised in the lead but for its intent and effect, not its mechanism.

My preference for a more meaningful, clearer, longer overview is expansion of the awards, the Slashdot effect and expansion of types of topics and style. WykiP (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Do not lecture me about "edit warring" policy, which is something you apparently know little about. "Current affairs" websites and TV shows are about just that "current affairs", involving politics primarily. Slashdot is clearly not about that. It's about technology. Removing information about the owner of Slashdot is also detrimental to the article as it should be clearly put in the article. Simply stating, "News stories about science and technology are submitted by users who also collaboratively highlight the most valuable comments." is FAR TOO GENERAL and not even a complete statement about what the website is about! 90% of wikipedia readers only even read the lead sections of articles anyway, so you NEED more details. Period.

If you can't stop editing the lead with poor writing and incorrect information, you will be continued to be reverted until you're probably going to be blocked for vandalism. WTF? (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I've neither reverted your 'current affairs' change nor used the word "lede" since original edit. Are you actually reading the edits?

Ownership of site is prominently displayed in the panel. I'm not trying to produce a perfect lead, I'm merely improving on the existing one.

I'm struggling to understand your disagreement and you have reverted for the 3rd time in a row. This is edit warring. I have asked for WP:Third Opinion. WykiP (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you actually read my comment about your poorly worded sentence you added to the lead that I quoted above? WTF? (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. If you don't like the sentence, improve upon it. WP:ROWN WykiP (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That's what I did. The best way to improve upon that sentence is to delete it. =) WTF? (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I will merely escalate this, rather than respond in kind. WykiP (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Do what you will, but I fail to see anything wrong with the lead section as-is. You appear to be attempting to fix something that isn't a problem. Perhaps it would be better to focus on one of the 4 million other articles on Wikipedia that are in need of actual improvement? WTF? (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I am responding here per a request at WP:3O. I read through the discussion here and had a look at the various versions in the article history. The first revision that was submitted and subsequently reverted pretty clearly eliminated too much material from the lede, it was awkward both from a layout and readability standpoint. The lede section, as consisting of three short paragraphs as it stands now, is not obviously too long. Subsequent re-additions (or removals) of similar content were not bold so much as edit warring - WykiP please consider obtaining a consensus here on the talk page before making similar edits again per WP:BRD (more frequently cited but just as nonbinding at the WP:ROWN essay that you cite a few times above). I think "news" is more concise than "current affairs", the title should stay bolded per WP:MOSTITLE, and a new variation of the second sentence that uses a variation of "collaboratively highlighted" is preferable to the somewhat awkward hyphenation "user-submitted and ‑evaluated".

Behaviorally, the accusations of edit warring started flying around pretty quick. Realistically, substantial bold changes to the lede section of a good article are very likely to need discussion, so the revert should not have been particularly surprising. No consensus is apparent for any of the proposed changes yet, and none of the edits under discussion appear to constitute vandalism. VQuakr (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for helping out.

As I understand it, reverting is only to be used when necessary as stated by WP:ROWN. WTF? has used it 3x in a row, has not offered any improvements of his/her own and not responded to any of my requests to help form consensus.

Part of my edit has already been accepted although it took a 3rd person to reinstate them: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slashdot&diff=535913949&oldid=534738021

My concern with the current lead is the clumsily written "user-submitted and ‑evaluated" as well as the second paragraph which is excessively detailed, repetitious of Slashdot#Slash_and_peer_moderation and doesn't even state what the moderation system is trying to do.

I am confused as to what you're describing as awkward? My original submission was:

Slashdot (sometimes abbreviated as /.) is a technology-related current affairs website which bills itself as "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters". News stories about science and technology are submitted by users who also collaboratively highlight the most valuable comments. WykiP (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:3RR, you're not supposed to revert more than three times WITHIN A 24 HOUR PERIOD. I have not done that in this case. It is acceptable to revert incorrect and/or poorly-worded information, and I've already stated the issue with referring to Slashdot as a "current affairs" website as well as comment on your other poorly-worded sentence which removed significant and important information from the lead. Please remember that this is a GOOD ARTICLE, and must adhere to specific standards, or it can lose its good article status. WTF? (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It is quite astonishing that you are still changing the talk page entry of a Third Opinion when you have been told not to.

WP:3RR is an automatic ban for a clear case of edit-warring. It is only relevant to this discussion in that you are so close to it.

You seem to be the only person to think that incorrect or poorly-worded sentences have been submitted, or that significant or important information was removed from the lead. I have already commented that the length of the lead is not the issue, only the repetition, clumsy wording and failure to summarise the moderation system. WykiP (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, I did not violate the WP:3RR rule. I am aware that that is an automatic ban. It is, however, generally considered acceptable to correct spelling errors, even in talk pages. I see nothing wrong with this, and MOST PEOPLE accept the corrections and take that as a learning experience. I also should remind you that WP:3O is "neither mandatory nor binding", as it states prominently on the top of the page. In several years of editing Wikipedia, this is actually the very first I've even heard of that seemingly useless process.

I should also remind you that the WP:LEAD section is INTENDED to be somewhat repetitive, since it's a SUMMARY of the article. This is important, because, as I've already pointed out, 90% of Wiki readers don't even bother to read the article itself. So a well-written lead is of VITAL importance to each and every article, especially at the higher levels of GA and FA. WTF? (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Again you start off with a nonsense argument. Nobody accused you of violating WP:3RR.

Again you change other people's talk page entries.

Lede isn't a misspelling: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lede.

The WP:LEDE is supposed to be a "concise overview", not an overly-complicated repetition.

Not once have you addressed the issues with the WP:LEDE. WykiP (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

According to your dictionary link for "lede": "the introductory section of a news story that is intended to entice the reader to read the full story". It should be noted here that this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA and NOT a news story. Therefore, your spelling of the word "lede" is completely incorrect and unacceptable in the context in which you used it. It should also be noted that the link also says that the first use of the "lede" spelling is 1976, further indicating that it really isn't proper English, and in fact, mere media jargon, which also has no place in a proper encyclopedia. WTF? (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I have been asked to comment on the discussion here. Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot your conduct is bordering on incivility- it is discourteous, your constant use of capital letters is unnecessary, considering the other editors are making their point in a civil manner, I would request you to please refrain from such usage and have a cordial discussion. As far as the subject matter goes, let's go by the use in this dictionary - "lede" - noun, the introductory section of a story; "it was an amusing lead-in to a very serious matter" [syn: lead]" - It is indeed a noun listed in the dictionary and happens to be synonymous with "lead". The context is also apparently correct, since its usage is in the beginning of a section. It is debatable if this article about a news website, qualifies as journalism, or story, or how much the underlying subject matters at all. Since its listed as a synonym for lead already, it would be a safe guess to assume the usage in the beginning of a section allows it to be qualified for that purpose. If you choose to argue about the possible validity of the inclusion within the dictionary, or its listed synonymity, I suggest you contact the Dictionary and offer them the same arguments as above.

Lastly, I'm sure I don't need to argue the frailty of words in the English language to you, inferring intention and reading context is at the center of understanding any language. Linguistic and cognitive research on the subject suggests that most inherent rules of the language could be bypassed while still maintaining validity or abandoned all together. For example, your usage of "lead" could be argued to refer to the chemical element - Pb, also spelled lead, or a leash, or the city in South Dakota - all valid uses according to the dictionary. The entry for 'Lead' in the dictionary does indeed offer up more than 50 possible inferences and several different meanings , while the archaic usage of "lede" has far lesser connotations attached to it. The origin of the word "lead" is also listed as before 900, which might be older than the origin of "lede" in 1965 as you mention - so there goes the argument of predating the other usage, and not being "proper english". I should point out that you are arguing two opposite points, at one point you contend the usage is old and probably out-dated, and then you argue that its a "media jargon" which would make it the opposite. Also I can't recall when I ran into "lede" being employed in the media, actually, I have never read that in any of the recent publications.

With all that said, Its usage is indeed slightly archaic but valid nonetheless. You might not like it, and I might or might not agree, but it comes down to being more of a stylistic choice to which the editor has full right to. I suggest you please refrain from using capital letters and have a calm debate about the usage here since both of you appear to care about the article and its rating. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Theo10011, I don't think the usage of the word "lede" in the talkpages and the minor spat regarding its legitimacy is the central problem between WTF? and WykiP. The central problem is that WykiP refuses or is unable to conform to the rules as they are understood by most editors. You can refer to Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming to get a clear idea of WykiPs modus operandi. According to WykiP consensus is not necessary:

Nope, try reading it yourself. It says nothing about the need to achieve consensus. And I already quoted you policy saying that consensus isn't needed. WykiP (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC) [1]

You can see above that VQuakr advised WykiP:

WykiP please consider obtaining a consensus here on the talk page before making similar edits again per WP:BRD (more frequently cited but just as nonbinding at the WP:ROWN essay that you cite a few times above).

VQuakr is one of many editors that have advised Wykip of the necessity for obtaining consensus (see [1] for more). Concomitant with WykiPs idea that consensus is superfluous is his/her inability or unwillingness to provide cogent reasons for proposed changes and to argue for those and answer any rebuttals. Instead of argument and counter-argument against rebuttal you will find that WykiP just repeats an initial assertion ad nauseam and believes that this is somehow consistent with the rational discourse that is usually engaged in to resolve conflicts of editorial opinion. Look below to see a concrete example of what I am referring to. WykiP, instead of justifying the proposed change in positive terms, i.e. explaining how the proposed paragraph represents an improvement on the current paragraph, is asking for WTF? to justify its non-inclusion. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

So what exactly is wrong with this replacing the first paragraph?

Slashdot (sometimes abbreviated as /.) is a technology-related news website which bills itself as "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters". News stories about science and technology are submitted by users who also collaboratively highlight the most valuable comments. Slashdot was founded in 1997 as a blog, Chips & Dips, by Hope College computer science student Rob Malda, also known as "Commander Taco" and classmate Jeff Bates, also known as "Hemos".

WykiP (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

@WykiP: Your attitude is wrong. It is up to you to demonstrate how your proposed paragraph will improve the article not other editors obligation to tell you how your proposal will degrade the article. There is nothing "wrong" with your paragraph. I would surmise that there are a huge number of candidate leads for this and any article. These candidate leads would be ranked better or worse against each rather rather than stamped "wrong". Tell us why -- in specific terms -- your proposed paragraph improves on the existing paragraph. Then when WTF? answers your position answer his/her objections don't just repeat your original reasons. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Following a poor choice of wordings on Slashdot, someone is trolling this article changing every instance of "readers" to "audience". It is a disruptive edit tantamount to vandalism, but when I attempted to revert the changes, my own edit was reverted. A little help to make Wikipedia a better place? Huihermit (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

See also: Special:Contributions/174.20.132.32 Huihermit (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Slashcode does redirect here but no discussion of Slashdot backend (which is apparently a GPL'ed webapp) is provided in the article. Personally I am not familiar with the topic so cannot write about it, but the omission is pretty obvious. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Slashdot runs on a content management system named Slash. Slashcode is the name of the website dedicated to this piece of software. ARK (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there the slightest shred of third-party notability for any of these sites? - David Gerard (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

A google search shows it mentioned in many places. What specifically would qualify as third-party notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.17.69 (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR - David Gerard (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on the Wayback Machine, it looks like todhsals moved to http://backslashdot.tumblr.com/ in 2011. However, there hasn't been a new post there since 2012. I'm not sure how (or if) to update this citation. Everdred (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Slashdot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/06/15feature.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

the Slashdot article claims that Slashdot uses Slash, but the Slash article claims that Slashdot abandoned Slash long ago. Both can't be true :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.70.33.230 (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Slashdot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422050535/http://www.webbyawards.com/press/press-release.php?id=33 to http://www.webbyawards.com/press/press-release.php?id=33

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Slashdot's history but I found it a bit weird that subsection [] lists the original precursor "Chips & Dips" as being launched in "October 1997" and that it later became Slashdot in "September 1997", a month earlier. Whats up with that?

Friseurtermin (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Friseurtermin: Good catch. For now, I've added the {{contradicts-inline}} template. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Karma whoring. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 23#Karma whoring until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 20721. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 24#20721 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Tagged as needing update, and some citation needed issues, so I'm opening a GA reassessment to see if this can be resolved. Also there are issues with unreliable sources such as Daily Kos and PR newswire. Thanks! (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

116.212.185.8 (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph in the 2010s section contradicts itself - it says that a new, simpler design was introduced as a beta, but when existing users were forced to start using it, they were upset by the added visual complexity. Either there's something there that needs a little extra unpicking, or there's a confusion about what happened? Transatlantica (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

In the InfoBox, why is name stylized like this and spilling over 3 lines instead of 1 or 2?
Slashdot
(
/.)
Could name = be changed to just..
Slashdot ( i.e. /. )
? Thanks. -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 13:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I cannot ascertain whether the current Slashdot site is a proprietary evolution of the Slash software (last updated publicly in 2009) or an entirely new creation. The Slashdot FAQ claims to be using Slash but I doubt that page has been updated in a long time as it links to the SourceForge repo. yutsi (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)