Talk:Bot Sentinel

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

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Isi96 (talk) and Keivan.f (talk). Nominated by Isi96 (talk) at 14:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: None required.

Overall: This was a quick read and an interesting article. Overall everything looks fine, there aren't any major issues that stand out and I don't notice anything in need of copyediting. I'm assuming good faith on the Times source as it seems like it's paywalled. Happy to pass the review! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 06:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Isi96, Keivan.f, and ThadeusOfNazereth: Archived article for the hook. However, I believe we should have a hook about the bot, not about the person Bouzy. I was confused since we are featuring a hook about a coding nine year old and the hook says nothing about the company. Bruxton (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bruxton: Bot Sentinel is the name of a company, not a bot. The hook also mentions that it's the founder of the company. Hope that clears things up. Isi96 (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes. I was ooking for a hook about the company. This hook leads me other places Bruxton (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Isi96 and ThadeusOfNazereth: I'm afraid the article doesn't meet sourcing requirements. Hello!, multiple Business Insider, Law.com, The Information, and Mashable India sources all represent various levels of dubiousness, especially as some have BLP claims attached. Can we take care of that? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, I'll take a look tomorrow. The Information seems to be a reliable source, though. Isi96 (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Theleekycauldron: Could you articulate your specific issues? I don't understand why you're bunching The Information, the New Jersey Law Journal, and Business Insider in with the Hello source and Mashable India. Both the Business Insider articles look fine to me - Definitely on the better side of that site. It's not clear to me why the New Jersey Law Journal should be considered dubious. It's not clear to me why The Information should be considered unreliable. I don't have an opinion on the Mashable India article other than that it's pretty much just restating the API drama as tweeted by Bouzy. Hello should probably go. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 16:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Information and New Jersey Law Journal were my mistake. BI might be okay, not convinced, but Hello and MI probably gotta go, yeah. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Isi96, Keivan.f, and ThadeusOfNazereth: nomination is waiting for a new hook. Also need to see if theleekycauldron has had their sourcing concerns satisfied. Bruxton (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • One last thing. Since we do have a section on the founder, I found it useful to also mention what he was doing with his previous firms. It's not a huge addition to the article but considering the fact that The Times had brought it up, I used the press releases put out by the corporations at the time to add a little bit more detail. Hopefully no one will be opposing to this change. Keivan.fTalk 02:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
moving the tick to the bottom Bruxton (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Separate 2 activities of Bot Sentinel -- please read[edit]

I'm changing my talk page submission for this article to try to focus my warning about WP:NOR the article is changing quickly. I still have a pet peeve not only about this article, about the notion in this and some other articles about the phrase "research shows" or "research found." That these statements at top level constitute orig research if they could be interpreted like the wikiedia editor is doing a literature review, unless they are about some objective fact, so it would not be orig. research, and quite appropriate, to say "bot sentinel found that 43% of accounts were robots," but by contrast it would be orig. research (and not OK) to say "Research found that Biden is disgusting," or "the report found that 23% of accounts were inappropriate," in the latter case the Wikipedia editor has to clarify that the article is not a literature review, not a meta analysis of research, and explicitly state that such-and-such secondary source or meta review (not the actions of Wikipedia) determines or claims that research shows that Biden is disgusting. Createangelos (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing up this article, I think it is a valuable addition to Wikipedia.Createangelos (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Egisca[edit]

Is there any reliable source that connects Bot Sentinel to Egisca (see e.g. this edit)? I haven't found any. Currently the article only includes a reference to PRWeb, a site that publishes press releases. The source was published years before Bot Sentinel was founded, and obviously doesn't mention Bot Sentinel. Hence, connecting Bot Sentinel to Egisca is original research and not good. Politrukki (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no response, I'm removing the content about Egisca per no original research policy. Politrukki (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2023[edit]

Please change "who runs an anti-Amber Heard[4] YouTube channel named NateTheLawyer" to "who runs a legal analysis YouTube channel named NateTheLawyer." The YouTube channel covers a broad range of legal issues, not specific to Amber Heard. Whether Nathaniel Broughty is "anti-Amber Heard" is an opinion and has no place on Wikipedia.

User:Isi96, who repeatedly edits the page to insert this opinion appears to be strongly biased and should be barred from making any further edits to this page. Graburn (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Isi96: Please respond to this edit request thanks Lightoil (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Isi96 (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That description of Broughty was a bit shocking to read, and it discredits Wikipedia when its editors refuse to change it. Broughty has been making content for years, and his channel has little to do with Amber Heard. Its primary focus is legal analysis, as noted in the law.com article [link] that's cited on this very page. There's also an article in Forbes [link] from back in 2020 that discusses his analyses of other legal topics and trials at the time. Millions of people were following the Depp v Heard trial; of course it would be covered by YouTubers and other commentators whose primary focus is on legal analyses. Just because he covered it and milked its popularity doesn't mean that's the main focus of his channel. This is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.146.236.42 (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The source in question does not describe the channel that way. Like anything else, the channel should be described on Wikipedia as it is by reliable sources; no editor's opinions, commentary, or analysis of the channel are relevant here. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Actualcpscm The "anti-Amber Heard" descriptor was sourced to an article from The Information (there's even a quote, "One anti-Heard YouTuber, NateTheLawyer...") Isi96 (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I must have either missed that this is pay-walled and thus incomplete or missed this source entirely. Weird, thanks for pointing it out.
I currently cannot verify this myself due to the paywall, I would suggest my opinion! that we keep the neutral wording until someone can verify this, largely because the repeated reverts indicate that other editors have objected to it. I wouldn't undo your edit again, though, my bad on that.
Assuming that this is the wording used by the source and the reverting editors also lacked access to the source, I think the channel is best summarised as "legal analysis" or "legal commentary", as it has been described elsewhere, but the stance taken on the legal proceedings that led to the lawsuit ("anti-Amber Heard") is certainly relevant and should be included somehow. What do you think? Actualcpscm (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Actualcpscm I actually added the quote myself from the source (I briefly had access to the article). You could request access to the article via WP:SOURCEACCESS.
As for the descriptor, I believe that the "anti-Amber Heard" descriptor is the best one; the Law.com article just mentions that Broughty runs a YouTube channel, and the Forbes article is by a contributor (WP:FORBESCON). Isi96 (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delta ∆ (You changed my mind!) Actualcpscm (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bot_Sentinel&oldid=1205418171"