Epik Wikipedia battle is full-on right now

[Rob Monster]

@Intelliname has engaged the battle with the Wikipedia handlers who have been camping on a Wikipedia article about Epik that is full of nonsense narrative.

You can follow the debate here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Intelliname#April_2020

Bring popcorn but do it quick because they will probably censor this too.

Take lots of screenshots.

Here's a start:

 

[Paul]

In the meantime, they locked the article.

It's not locked, just protected. You can edit it if you register an account. I see the Edit link when logged in, but not when logged out.

Bring popcorn but do it quick because they will probably censor this too.

They don't censor talk pages unless they get vandalized or contain something blatantly illegal. If one person tries to remove or modify content on another person's talk page, they'll get in trouble. Your userspace is sort of your own little Wikipedia where you can do (almost) whatever you want.

@Intelliname has engaged the battle with the Wikipedia handlers who have been camping on a Wikipedia article about Epik that is full of nonsense narrative.

There are a lot of tools on Wikipedia that allow anyone to view anything "suspicious", like when a lot of content has been removed from an article. Contributors watch the list, and when they see something suspect, they hit a button to roll it back:

If your article is unfair or biased, you can change it, but you need to play by their rules of etiquette. They don't like it when people go in and remove stuff. There's a whole collaborative process for correcting biased articles. It's a bit like a courtroom; regardless of whether you're right, if you don't follow the procedures to the letter, you're going to wind up in a jail cell.

If you barge in there and start deleting large amounts of content with a brand new account, they're not even going to look into why you did it or what you deleted--it blends in with all the vandalism, and their backlog is too long to worry about the specifics.

I was calling out her obvious bias.

There's a procedure for doing that; if you follow the procedure, they'll take it seriously. Otherwise, they're just going to keep showing you the door and increasing the protection on the page. For example, they're generally not going to read the replies on your talk page. You wrote a long reply there, but that page is meant for messages to you, not from you. Your replies would typically go on the other person's talk page.

 

[franka46]

There are no winners or losers here .Rob enjoys controversies ,whatever they are .
If I would have been a CEO of a company and I made some bad comments on social media ,I would have said " Ok ..I agree .I made a mistake and apologise "Case closed .Now years later it's headline news again .
I would have told myself "Stop ,,wtf am I doing to my Brand ?"
I think somebody has been whispering things in Rob's ear to persue this Wiki article.
The real losers are the Epik staff ,who are battling to make Epik the fav registrar .Staff that work in shut down countries ,having to feed their families .I have been told by people ,either CM [Country Managers]or potential Investors "No thanks ,I'm not interested being associated with Epik in anyway And so have others although they dont say that publicly and there are more things happening behind the scenes.But I have said enough .
Good to see @DanSanchez refraining from getting involved ,or maybe just busy making deals and caring for his new born baby girl .FYI Appearently I am no longer a paid freelancer for Epik so just an Affiliate .

 

[LanceSky]

I have been lurking namepros for years. But reading this thread I decided to make an account and chime in.

Because besides domaining, I do care a lot about the policies regarding domains. As domainers and endusers we have an interest in domains not being taken down or taken over without due process. I am not opposed to regulations on the internet, but they should have a legal basis and be enforced via the law, so people can actually be aware of those regulations, follow them, and make their case before their internet presence is removed. So I fully understood Epik's decision to rescue certain domains that were about to be taken down without due process. Because mob justice is no justice.

So when I read Epik's Wikipedia page last year I was also very surprised by how one-sided the story was. Last year I tried to improve the Wikipedia article by giving it a more neutral perspective, as is in the interest of the Wikipedia readers. But that was also reverted within a day. It's really strange how activists seem to take some pages hostage, while Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia.

 

[JB Lions]

This isn't Domain Industry News, seems like internal issues. The posts above just show Rudy violating terms of that site. You're the only registrar that has these kinds of problems.

 

[Molly White]

Hello. There is a lot of misinformation (and simple misunderstanding) here around my activities on Wikipedia, and while I have invited anyone who has questions to engage with me either on Twitter or on Wikipedia (links available elsewhere in this thread—I am not allowed to include links in my posts on this site without upgrading my account) there haven't been many takers. I was hesitant to create an account here because I am not a member of the domaining industry and did not want to seem like I was barging in on Mr. Monster's community, nor do I want to escalate things with Mr. Monster. However after being invited here by a few people and seeing repeated confusion I decided to create an account. I do thank those of you who did reach out to me for clarification—I believe strongly in open, good-faith dialogue.

I have been quite taken aback to find all these threads about me on a website I am not a part of, and am saddened to see that the thread linking to the Change.org petition full of lies about me has remained up. I have published a clarifying statement on that petition here, which I invite you all to read. I have just tweeted out the link and if someone who is able to post links could link it here directly, I would appreciate it. I have tried to explain things as clearly as I can.

I hope you all are staying safe and healthy in this pandemic.

Yours,
Molly

 

[xynames]

When these sorts of things happen “edit wars” they are discussed in a User Talk Wikipedia thread and resolved.

It’s probably not right to have the Wiki article start right off with the glaring statement that Epik is “known” for hosting Nazi, White Supremacist and illicit drug dealing content, but to suppress the fact that it has hosted such content is not going to happen either - this is just the way Wikipedia works. You can’t host chickens and not expect them to come home to roost.

 

[HotKey]

Welcome to the forum, @Molly White . Sorry, but I am not impressed.

I am going to quote your first paragraph from response to the change.org petition:

For anyone who is reading this page and is not familiar with me, I am Molly White, and I have been a Wikipedia editor for over thirteen years. My account name there is “GorillaWarfare”. Although those who have found themselves on this page may have been led to believe that my specific goal in editing Wikipedia is to write a negative article about the company Epik, I have been editing since long before I created that article, and have devoted thousands of hours to volunteer Wikipedia editing over the years. Some examples of articles I am proud to have made substantial contributions to include the article on Mary Jackson, a NASA mathematician; I have also contributed to the article on The Satanic Bible, after finding it to be in terrible shape some years ago (this is how the article looked before I began contributing to it). Since it apparently needs to be said, no, I am not a Satanist—I simply wrote the article because someone needed to. That is one important goal of Wikipedia, after all—to provide coverage of topics like that one without them being slanted by those who are affiliated with the topic. Recently I have been active in helping to maintain the articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Massachusetts. Outside of my article writing, I am an administrator on Wikipedia, and I also help resolve disputes as a member of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, on which I have served for over five years in total.

Wow.

I would call for an immediate review of the people Wikipedia is choosing for as their "editors". This is absolutely unacceptable. Is there any oversight over there on Wiki, and what kind of people are they allowing to provide factual information to the world anyways??

It is people like this that are bloating the Internet with crap, discrediting people and companies that are actually contributing to society, by using politics and related terminology and their own viewpoints to define a conclusive outcome.

I certainly hope you come to your senses, and perhaps bite your pride and consider an apology to Mr. Monster and the entire Epik team, because they have done nothing but innovate and offer solutions where other's focus on problems, they give where other's take. It is a close-minded view indeed when you find it ok to be an individual with individual thought and expression, but do not allow the same for others, an in fact demonize them for it.

You take care, and moving forward we're all capable of embracing each other's differences, regardless of where we stand on opinion.

- Hots

 

[Rob Monster]

In the meantime, they locked the article.

It seems the editorial review has been escalated 2-3 levels. That article has essentially been camped on since it was first produced.

While we have been supportive of lawful free speech, we also have identified the boundaries for acceptable use:

https://www.epik.com/blog/epik-draws-line-on-acceptable-use.html

Our social media channels are overwhelmingly positive, both as Epik and mine personally.

While there are those who advocate for anarchy, I have made the counter-argument:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1244713538586894336

Some of these positive messages also get a lot of views (8000+ on this one):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1249389477774200832

The Wikipedia narrative simply does not fit the reality of who we ever were, and certainly does not align with our operating practices of broad empowerment without bias or preference.

The article was defamatory, and since Google amplifies it in search, we have a problem. We want this fixed, both for our own benefit but also for our growing client base who should be able to endorse us confidently.

On the positive side, after a year of being locked out of Facebook, the folks at Facebook did restore our account. We have also been given broad access to social media tools and lead-generation data.

So, the reins are clearly loosening, but now we have some cleanup to do. It appears that the people at Wikipedia, have yet to get the memo that Epik is cool.

 

[The Durfer]

Thanks for running child care @Silentptnr so the adults can go to work. Good luck.

What you should do, fairly speaking, is ask wikipedia to state the facts first about Epik.com in the first paragraph, then in the history section let them comment on what they mentioned. It would only be fair and balanced to accept and to dish.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Anyway, I hope people will approach with respect. Complete honor and respect. Rob should demand it... but he doesn't.

Everyone starts neutral.

Respect is earned.

Not demanded.

Not to be gained through threats.

But earned.

(to me at least)

 

[NameShiba]

@ Thread

If you have a stance on this issue, feel free to add it to the Wikipedia talk page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:...roposal_to_change_the_lead_paragraph_for_Epik

Remember to be civil when discussing on the talk page -- make it clear how you feel on the issue.

Cheers.

 

[The Durfer]

its all void, wikipedia should remain neutral in any competition, likes dislikes, rationales, its an informative site, not a political site.

What i mean is if you read godaddy or dynadot they have factual information, they made epik's description too opinionative.

 

[Abdullah Abdullah]

For no reason at all, none at all, Rob showed me kindness. I don't forget. I'm a successful guy, yet, he found a way to enrich my business by setting up a great intro for me here in LA. That went a long way.

We spent time on the telephone during the Gab situation. We exchanged ideas. We were honest and open.

Now, we have a connection. I don't see why we all aren't leveraging the opportunity to grow.

Understood, but would you let this judge your ability to call Rob out if he did something wrong? I believe only a good person tells you that you are wrong in such and such. Personally, I will not let some good deed that I got from someone cloud my judgement of something I believe is wrong.

 

[bmugford]

@bmugford refers to "how it was framed". That's the problem. It shouldn't be framed at all.

The wikipedia article was an unfair representation of a legal company. Wikipedia knows it. I have no doubt the article will be changed. And it should be.

I think @Molly White knows too. No wikipedia article goes into companies customer service records, their global investments, their political ties, etc. That article was horrible for wikipedia. It reads more like a political spin article.

And both of those are a lot more valid arguments than Rob with his vast conspiracy theory shit.

There is a right way to approach this, and then there is the way it was approached here.

Maybe Rob should hire you as an advisor. You were certainly right about Gab also.

Brad

 

[Chris Hydrick]

In order to keep freedom, some that don't necessarily deserve it, get it by default. That's just how it works. I think Rob was right about that.

If that's the bed you make,

can wikipedia make the same bed?

Or does their neutral position preclude them of such liberties?

Circling back to the wikipedia article, we live in a world where the media (and a vast majority) doesn't agree with the content gab hosted.

The wikipedia opening is in regards to epik taking action, or inaction, in regards to sites like gab, or some of the drug websites they were/are sponsoring/enabling/housing....

If we lived in a world, where the media wrote more about gab in positive light, in a world where the vast majority agrees with the housing of gab, the wikipedia article might have other sources to cite suggesting a different narrative.

We also live in different worldly times. We are past the times of the cold war. Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation. Why bring it to namePros? Might it be time to evolve?

Find sources. Try to cite those. There are rules.not just wikipedia rules, Be it nP rules or even ICANN rules, though after watching the .O fiasco, and lack of disclaimers at .o checkout, I'm not entirely sure how ICANN enforcement works or the legal signoffs that would have had to happen to allow such a fiasco. Regardless, be it nP, Wikipedia, or ICANN, each have their respective processes / policies.

Or better yet, if epik were to start more positive missions, and take less of a focus on conspiracies, grandstanding, self-promoting, and started upholding ethics, or uplifting others, than maybe the media will take note. And epik will be known for other things. Until then, we live in the world we live in.

 

[Rob Monster]

You can see the current article here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epik_(domain_registrar)

You can see the change history here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epik_(domain_registrar)&action=history

I first called out this nonsense on Twitter here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1160620833020293120

Enough is enough.

 

[Samer]

“Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”

“not unless doesnt fit our narrative..”

Samer

 

[Chris Hydrick]

As I was doing something else I got a couple texts asking me if I was watching this on Twitter? No I wasn't, but I did reply to Molly, she seemed to think that because I started the poll I am in some way affiliated, I explained the situation to her and told her I understand she has to do what she has to do.

She did admit to not being too versed on registrars.

Molly wrote:

Gotcha. I'm not super familiar with the world of domain registrars (bit of a niche) so it's helpful to have this context. When someone unaffiliated does write about the poll, feel free to drop me a line and I'll add it to the article myself.

I don't think the New York Times or Wall St Journal will be covering a Namepros poll so it is what it is.

Take care

Molly -- in case you're reading this. Not that I assume you don't know this, but just in case you don't, know you are very much welcome to create a free namePros account. Please know, you will be welcomed here by some, I can't speak for all, but contrary to what your experience, or opinion of domain investors, may be, I think you will find this place a wealth of information. Overtime, you may reach a conclusion I have reached, that @equity78 and TLDinvestors.com is as fair as it gets in the domain world. I know, saying in the domain world, might not bear much weight to those who only think of domainers as cybersquatters. Earlier on, partly due to the nature of the business, and more so due to a misunderstanding, I had erroneously reached a suspicion that TLDInvestors was biased towards an area that it just happened to be me not having a full understanding. Perhaps, over more time at namePros, you will come to find/see the difference. Nonetheless, I understand why you may feel more comfortable conversing on mediums such as Twitter/Wikipedia. Maybe I will reach out to you via Twitter, though nP is my comfort zone, and I'd welcome you here. Just wanted to say, if we don't end up connecting, that I applaud your strong independent thinking, and eagerness to stay fair and neutral. Me being fair to epik, while still acknowledging their past, I think wikipedia might find some room to edit Epiks entry, especially if those editing find a way to follow the editing rules. Epik is known for their history with Gab. But they are also known for other things not mentioned in the wikipedia entry, some good, some bad.

 

[Paul]

Apparently @Paul Buonopane could not figure it out.

You know I understand exactly what's happening here. Carry on; it's none of my business.

 

[Rob Monster]

It seems like Rob has a bad habit of posting things in the General Domain Discussion and Domain Industry News sections that clearly do not belong there, and later get moved by mods.

Maybe the mods need to make sure Rob understands the rules as it seems to be an ongoing issue.

Brad

Let's be candid.

Epik is not only the NamePros 2020 Registrar of the Year. We are also the innovation pace-setter that happens to take registrant rights seriously, and defend them vigorously. You could thank me.

When people clear transactions on Epik, and their buyer diligences Epik only to find a false narrative on Google that portrays us villains, it happens that transactions get cancelled. You could care about that.

When a respected and widely followed thought leader in the domain industry is wrongly characterized, it impacts not just me or Epik but casts a shadow on NamePros. You could do something about that.

If you think you this is about me, you missed the point. This is about truth and justice. This is about preserving checks and balances in the media to prevent indiscriminate character assassination.

I happen to be one of the few guys who is not only prepared to call it out but also to empower a suite of technologies that can finally put a stop to it. If you don't know what those are, you can start here:

https://www.epik.com/about/labs/

I suggest you set aside whatever your personal beef is with me, and consider the possibility that by allowing Wikipedia to fail in its mandate as an "Encylopedia that anyone can edit" that you are hurting yourself.

This famous quote is relevant. I have quoted it before. It is illustrative of why you should care:

 

[The Durfer]

i understand the editor has passions running also, against things like that personally, due to the fears of the media controlled world, but she still shouldve had a general format to write it, just like Godaddy's and Dynadot's.

 

[Silentptnr]

So, I took a step back and read through the thread.

There's one thing I just can't seem to wrap my head around.

Why do some members appear to not like Rob? It seems that small group of older members, no matter the topic, are either threatened by or bothered by Rob. It's really clear. This group is not happy with moderators or anyone else that disagrees. This group won't ignore. This group won't mind their own business.

It's not about Epik, not about other members, it's about something to do with Rob.

Me, I operate on an independent level. I don't get wrapped up too much in the Namepros ministry side of things. I'm a domain investor. That's it.

But some seem almost cowardly in the handling of their dislike instead of just saying it straight.

It's sad to see really. If I don't like someone, I do one of two things. I am polite but do not engage, or I just tell them.

No reason to attack. Nobody to protect. No reward for so-called "sticking up".

So here's anyone's chance. Let's be grown ups. Let's just say it openly and publicly instead of beating around the bush.

Do You Dislike Rob Or Not?

 

[Abdullah Abdullah]

It's too easy to click the ignore button. It's childish not to.

Why ignore someone when you can discuss with them? Always keep the respect element in the discussion and always be diplomatic.

 

[xynames]

This shouldn't be made personal. If it were made personal, I could find within seconds many examples here at NamePros of where the Monster refused to apologize or admit wrongdoing. It's ironic actually that he's now facing the same sort of wall that he's presented time and again at NamePros to anyone who has challenged his thinking.

But getting back to Wikipedia, the bottom line remains:

When these sorts of things happen “edit wars” they are discussed in a User Talk Wikipedia thread and resolved.

It’s probably not right to have the Wiki article start right off with the glaring statement that Epik is “known” for hosting Nazi, White Supremacist and illicit drug dealing content, but to suppress the fact that it has hosted such content is not going to happen either - this is just the way Wikipedia works. You can’t host chickens and not expect them to come home to roost.

And by the way, the way this thing is shaping up...unless there are verifiable news sources (not a forum) for whatever anyone proposes to be put into the article, such content is not going to be inserted, no matter what anyone says or thinks. Whenever anything is put under the microscope at Wikipedia, it always comes down to sources. There is no conspiracy.

 

[Lox]

Whatever you think ...

The Wikipedia editor is not an expert in the filed (domain industry) and editor/s starting point is written in a very specific style, known as the concept of “common knowledge” or "information that most people know". The US based TV stations (3) mentioned Epik but without accusation or by coloring the company name nor CEO name (they know that "cite is not considered "common knowledge"). Things can change anytime, anywhere.

In essence. the information is written / shared by a specific group of likeminded people / most of are students, part time journalist / freelancers (check the cite authors).

Wikipedia rules: cite if 50% likely to be challenged.

When you cite your sources, statements is not considered common knowledge.

This case is not an undisputed or definitive fact.

Most of so called WP editors are unsure (copycat), so ... cite it to be safe.

(btw. I'm Wikipedia editor/contributor for 18 years. Younger generation are using WP for a very personal gain s.a. CV and status.)

For the rest of the story: No comment.

Rules
0. Subject
1. Collect information
2. Read, read again, read in-between
3. Analyze
4. Compare (source/s, idea, authors background etc)
5. Challenge: subjective vs objective vs copycat (eg. VICE, HufPost etc), Mainstream media (Radio & TV) etc.
etc

Bye namePros! Enjoy your Domaining!

Regards