User revolt

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A user revolt is a social conflict in which users of a website collectively and openly protest a website host's or administrator's instructions for using the website. Sometimes it happens that the website hosts can control a website's use in certain ways, but the hosts also depend on the users to comply with voluntary social rules in order for the website to operate as the hosts would like. A user revolt occurs when the website users protest against the voluntary social rules of a website, and use the website in a way that is in conflict with the wishes of the website host or administrators.

A user revolt is a process starting with a triggering event, then a rebellion, then a response to the rebellion.[1]

Distinction from Internet-based activism[edit]

Internet-based activism is sometimes called a user revolt when website users protest the terms of a website while using that website for other purposes.[2][clarification needed] A distinction between a user revolt and Internet-based activism could be that in a user revolt, an objective of the protest is to revolt against the website itself. In Internet-based activism, the primary goal of the protest is something other than reforming a website, although websites which create barriers to the larger protest may incidentally experience a user revolt for participating in the larger conflict. An example of a situation in which Internet activism includes a user revolt might be when users wish to engage in prohibited political discussion, but a government compels the website host to censor those discussions. The core conflict in this case is between users and the government, and not that the website itself as a communication medium. However, when the website as a communication medium chooses to create barriers to communication for users, then users of the website organize a user revolt even when the primary objective is something other than a website protest.

Examples of Internet-based activism which led to user revolts include Social media and the Arab Spring and the Twitter Revolution.

Examples[edit]

AOL[edit]

In 1997 AOL amended their Terms of service to permit them to sell users' telephone numbers to telemarketers.[3] Users complained and in response AOL offered an opt-out system.[4][5]

Digg[edit]

Publishing of DVD unlock code[edit]

In 2007 in the AACS encryption key controversy various Internet users began publishing the decryption code for the Advanced Access Content System on various websites. The impact was that the code enabled anyone to write simple software, for example DeCSS, which enabled anyone else to rip DVDs and copy the content as they liked. The release of the key and derivative ripping programs made the illicit distribution of copyrighted media much easier for anyone who wished to share content which was formerly locked by the AACS system.

The AACS codes were published in many places. One place in which they were published was the website Digg.[6][7][8][9][10][11]

On May 1, 2007, an article appeared on Digg's homepage that contained the encryption key for the AACS digital rights management protection of HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc. Then Digg, "acting on the advice of its lawyers," removed posting submissions about the secret number from its database and banned several users for submitting it. The removals were seen by many Digg users as a capitulation to corporate interests and an assault on free speech.[12] A statement by Jay Adelson attributed the article's take-down to an attempt to comply with cease and desist letters from the Advanced Access Content System consortium and cited Digg's Terms of Use as justification for taking down the article.[13] Although some users defended Digg's actions,[14][15][16] as a whole the community staged a widespread revolt with numerous articles and comments being made using the encryption key.[17][18] The scope of the user response was so great that one of the Digg users referred to it as a "digital Boston Tea Party".[19] The response was also directly responsible for Digg reversing the policy and stating: "But now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you've made it clear. You'd rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won't delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be."[20]

Digg v4 revolt and migration to Reddit[edit]

When Digg redesigned their website in 2010 the community revolted and used the platform to advertise a user migration to competitor Reddit.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27]

Digg's version 4 release was initially unstable. The site was unreachable or unstable for weeks after its launch on August 25, 2010. Many users, upon finally reaching the site, complained about the new design and the removal of many features (such as bury, favorites, friends submissions, upcoming pages, subcategories, videos and history search).[28] Kevin Rose replied to complaints on his blog, promising to fix the algorithm and restore some features.[29]

Alexis Ohanian, founder of rival site Reddit, said in an open letter to Rose:

… this new version of digg reeks of VC meddling. It's cobbling together features from more popular sites and departing from the core of digg, which was to "give the power back to the people."[30]

Disgruntled users declared a "quit Digg day" on August 30, 2010, and used Digg's own auto-submit feature to fill the front page with content from Reddit.[31][32][33] Reddit also temporarily added the Digg shovel to their logo to welcome fleeing Digg users.[34]

Digg's traffic dropped significantly after the launch of version 4,[35] and publishers reported a drop in direct referrals from stories on Digg's front page.[36] New CEO Matt Williams attempted to address some of the users' concerns in a blog post on October 12, 2010, promising to reinstate many of the features that had been removed.

Facebook[edit]

In 2006 there was a Facebook user revolt regarding privacy concerns with the creation of Facebook's news feed feature. Users worried that the news feed would show their posts to individuals outside their friend network. Facebook staff replied to users.[37][38][39][40][41]

In 2007, there was a Facebook revolted over the automatic displaying of online purchase data and other online activity in news feeds.[42][43][44][45][46] In response to the backlash, Facebook rolled back the changes.[47][48][41]

In 2009, Facebook users revolted over changes to the terms of service.[49][50][51] In response to the backlash, Facebook rolled back the changes.[49][46]

In 2010 roughly 34,000 users left Facebook over loss of control over privacy settings (users could not opt out of sharing information publicly) as a part of the May 31 "Quit Facebook Day" campaign.[52][53][47] Facebook rolled back some of the changes, allowing users to opt out.[54]

In 2018, revelations about election subversion on Facebook in 2016 led to the popular hashtag #DeleteFacebook.[55]

In June 2020, a social media campaign urged advertisers to stop or pause their Facebook advertising campaigns, in response to the company's hands-off approach to moderating content. Major brands including The North Face, REI, Patagonia, and Verizon took up the cause. The NAACP, Color of Change, and the Anti-Defamation League formed a coalition to drive the boycott, and Prince Harry and Meghan Markle worked behind the scenes to support the effort.[56][57]

Instagram[edit]

In 2012 a change to Instagram's terms of service triggered a user revolt.[58][59]

Even during the revolt Instagram continued to get many new users.[60]

Livejournal[edit]

Livejournal users revolted in 2007 when Livejournal deleted some site content.[61]

The Pirate Bay[edit]

In 2009 Global Gaming Factory X sought to purchase The Pirate Bay.[62] This led to a user revolt when community participants protested that the sale was a betrayal of community values.[62]

Reddit[edit]

See also: Reddit § 2015 CEO change and subreddit bannings

On July 2, 2015, Reddit began experiencing a series of blackouts as moderators set popular subreddit communities to private, in an event dubbed "AMAgeddon" – a portmanteau of AMA ("ask me anything") and Armageddon. This was done in protest of the recent firing of Victoria Taylor, an administrator who helped organize citizen-led interviews with famous people on the popular "Ask me Anything" subreddit. Organizers of the blackout also expressed resentment about the recent severance of the communication between Reddit and the moderators of subreddits.[63] The blackout intensified on July 3 when former community manager David Croach gave an AMA about being fired. Before deleting his posts, he stated that Ellen Pao dismissed him with one year of health coverage when he had cancer and did not recover quickly enough.[64][65] Following this, a Change.org petition to remove Pao as CEO of Reddit Inc. reached over 200,000 signatures.[66][67][68] Pao posted a response on July 3 as well as an extended version of it on July 6 in which she apologized for bad communication and not delivering on promises. She also apologized on behalf of the other administrators and noted that problems already existed over the past several years.[69][70][71][72] On July 10, Pao resigned as CEO and was replaced by former CEO and co-founder Steve Huffman.[73][74][75]

2023 API changes[edit]

Main article: 2023 Reddit API controversy

Twitter[edit]

In 2013 Twitter users organized a revolt when Twitter took away a defensive tool that allowed people to protect themselves from other users that they chose to block.[76][77][78] In response to the revolt Twitter restored some rights to its users.[79][80]

Wikipedia[edit]

Spanish fork[edit]

Main article: Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español

The Enciclopedia Libre was founded by contributors to the Spanish-language Wikipedia who decided to start an independent project. Led by Edgar Enyedy, they left Wikipedia on 26 February 2002, and created the new website, hosted free by the University of Seville, with the freely licensed articles of the Spanish-language Wikipedia.[81] The split was provoked over concern that Wikipedia would accept advertising.[82] After Wikipedia made a commitment to not use advertising, the Spanish fork attracted no more attention, and was mostly abandoned within a year of its founding.[83][84]

VisualEditor[edit]

Main article: VisualEditor

In 2012 The Daily Dot suggested that the Wikimedia Foundation's pursuit of more users may be at the risk of alienating the existing editors.[85] Some experienced editors have expressed concerns about the rollout and bugs, with the German Wikipedia community voting overwhelmingly against making the VisualEditor the new default, and expressing a preference for making it an "opt-in" feature instead.[85][86] Despite these complaints, the Wikimedia Foundation continued with the rollout to other languages.[85] The Register said, "Our brief exploration suggests it certainly removes any need to so much as remember what kind of parenthesis belongs where."[87] The Economist's L.M., said it is "the most significant change in Wikipedia's short history."[88] Softpedia ran an article titled "Wikipedia's New VisualEditor Is the Best Update in Years and You Can Make It Better".[89] Some opponents have said that users may feel belittled by the implication that "certain people" are confused by wiki markup and therefore need the VisualEditor.[90]

The Daily Dot reported on 24 September 2013 that the Wikimedia Foundation had experienced a mounting backlash from the English Wikipedia community, which criticised the VisualEditor as slow, poorly implemented and prone to break articles' existing text formatting. In the resulting "test of wills" between the community and the Foundation, a single volunteer administrator overrode the Wikimedia Foundation's settings to change the availability of VisualEditor from opt-out to opt-in. The Foundation acquiesced, but vowed to continue developing and improving the VisualEditor.[91][92]

Superprotect[edit]

Satirical cartoon depicting the Wikimedia Foundation building a wall to prevent the volunteer Wikimedia community from participating in Wikipedia

"Superprotect" was the name for a superuser tool granted to Wikimedia Foundation staff but denied to all Wikimedia community members. In 2014 Wikimedia Foundation staff used the tool to force the installation of a new software feature on the German Wikipedia against the wishes of the Wikimedia community, who felt the feature was buggy and not ready for general use.[93][94] This conflict was unprecedented.[93] Erik Möller, then director of the Wikimedia Foundation, managed the Superprotect tool.[94] Wikimedia commentator Andrew Lih described the superprotect feature as "Orwellian-sounding".[93]

The MediaViewer and Superprotect conflict between the Wikimedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation was called a revolt.[95] The controversy demonstrated that the Wikimedia Foundation was unable to control the Wikimedia community with technical features, but rather, that mutual understanding and discussion among stakeholders would be required to develop Wikipedia's software.[96]

Representative dismissals[edit]

Wikimedia users organized a revolt to call for the removal of Arnnon Geshuri, a member of the board of the Wikimedia Foundation.[97][98]

Wikimedia Foundation head Lila Tretikov resigned in February 2016 during a user revolt calling for institutional changes.[99]

Wikimedia Foundation ban of Fram[edit]

On 10 June 2019, the English Wikipedia administrator Fram was banned by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) from editing the English Wikipedia for a period of 1 year.[100] According to Joseph Bernstein of Buzzfeed News, this took place "without a trial", and WMF did not "disclose the complainer nor the complaint" to the community. Some in the editor community expressed anger at the WMF not providing specifics, as well as skepticism as to whether Fram deserved the ban. Another administrator unblocked Fram, later citing "overwhelming community support", but the WMF reblocked Fram. Two weeks after the ban of Fram, nine English Wikipedia administrators had resigned.[101]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Parr, Ben (16 May 2009). "Why Social Media Revolts Take Place (and How We Might Prevent Them)". mashable.com. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  2. ^ Fox, Zoe (7 December 2011). "9 Social Media Uprisings That Sought to Change the World in 2011". mashable.com. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  3. ^ KAPLAN, KAREN (25 July 1997). "AOL Drops Plans to Sell Members' Phone Numbers". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 23 December 2016.
  4. ^ Bray, Hiawatha (24 July 1997). "AOL's subscribers to get new 'service': telemarketing calls". DeseretNews.com. Retrieved 24 December 2016.
  5. ^ Wu, Tim (2016). The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads. New York: Penguin Random House. p. 211. ISBN 9780385352017. an inadvertent leak of the plan prompted a user revolt and the telemarketing part was abandoned
  6. ^ Nizza, Mike (2 May 2007). "The Day Digg Users Revolted". thelede.blogs.nytimes.com. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  7. ^ Stone, Brad (3 May 2007). "In Web Uproar, Antipiracy Code Spreads Wildly". The New York Times. New York. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  8. ^ Doctorow, Cory (2 May 2007). "Digg users revolt over AACS key". boingboing.net. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  9. ^ Gupta, Jitendra (4 May 2007). "What Happened At Digg? - ReadWrite". readwrite.com. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  10. ^ Greenberg, Andy (2 May 2007). "Digg's DRM Revolt". forbes.com. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  11. ^ Fisher, Ken (4 May 2007). "AACS LA: Internet "revolt" be damned, this fight is not over". arstechnica.com. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  12. ^ Stone, Brad (2007-05-03). "In Web Uproar, Antipiracy Code Spreads Wildly". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-07-02.
  13. ^ Adelson, Jay. "Digg the Blog: What's Happening with HD-DVD Stories?".
  14. ^ "Cease and desist letters backfire horribly against AACS". TGdaily. 2007-05-01. Archived from the original on 2007-05-04. Retrieved 2009-02-27.
  15. ^ "Digg losing control of their site". Weblog.infoworld.com. Archived from the original on 2008-12-22. Retrieved 2009-02-27.
  16. ^ Sanders, Tom. "DRM lobby tries to get HD DVD genie back into the bottle". Computing.co.uk. Retrieved 2009-02-27.
  17. ^ Yam, Marcus. "DailyTech: AACS Key Censorship Leads to First Internet Riot". Archived from the original on 2007-05-04. Retrieved 2007-05-02.
  18. ^ "BBC News: DVD DRM row sparks user rebellion". 2007-05-02. Retrieved 2007-05-02.
  19. ^ Forbes.com, Digg's DRM Revolt
  20. ^ Rose, Kevin (2007-05-01). "Digg This: 09 F9 [...]". Digg the Blog. Digg Inc. Retrieved 2007-05-02.
  21. ^ Lavrusik, Vadim (30 August 2010). "Users Revolt Against New Digg". mashable.com. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  22. ^ Parr, Ben (3 January 2011). "Reddit Grew 230% in 2010 at Digg's Expense". mashable.com. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
  23. ^ Lardinois, Frederic (30 August 2010). "Digg User Rebellion Continues: Reddit Now Rules the Front Page - ReadWrite". readwrite.com. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  24. ^ Owens, Simons (23 July 2012). "With Digg on the Wane, Where Are its Former Power Users?". usnews.com. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
  25. ^ Tassi, Paul (13 July 2012). "Facebook Didn't Kill Digg, Reddit Did". forbes.com. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
  26. ^ Halliday, Josh (31 August 2010). "Digg users revolt after redesign". theguardian.com. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  27. ^ Milian, Mark (31 August 2010). "Reddit considers itself a benefactor of Digg user revolt". latimesblogs.latimes.com. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  28. ^ Ingram, Mathew (August 26, 2010). "Digg Redesign Met with a Thumbs Down". Retrieved August 29, 2010.
  29. ^ Rose, Kevin (August 27, 2010). "Digg v4: release, iterate, repeat". Archived from the original on August 29, 2010. Retrieved August 27, 2010.
  30. ^ Ohanian, Alexis (May 28, 2010). "An open letter to Kevin Rose". Retrieved August 29, 2010.
  31. ^ Lardinois, Frederic. "Digg User Rebellion Continues: Reddit Now Rules the Front Page". ReadWriteWeb. Archived from the original on August 31, 2010. Retrieved August 31, 2010.
  32. ^ Friedman, Megan (August 30, 2010). "Digg Users Lash Out At New Format, Join Forces with Reddit". Time Magazine. Retrieved August 31, 2010.
  33. ^ McCarthy, Caroline. "Angry Digg users flood home page with Reddit links". CNet News. Archived from the original on July 13, 2012. Retrieved August 31, 2010.
  34. ^ Kanalley, Craig (August 30, 2010). "Angry Users SLAM Digg With Links From Rival Reddit". The Huffington Post. Retrieved August 31, 2010.
  35. ^ Wilhelm, Alex (23 September 2010). "Digg's traffic is collapsing at home and abroad". The Next Web. Retrieved October 20, 2010.
  36. ^ Plocek, Keith. "The Digg Effect v4". Social Keith. Retrieved October 20, 2010.
  37. ^ Arrington, Michael (6 September 2006). "Facebook Users Revolt, Facebook Replies". techcrunch.com. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
  38. ^ Gosden, Mark Sweney and Emily (2006-09-08). "Facebookers protest over privacy". the Guardian. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
  39. ^ Zuckerberg, Mark (5 September 2006). "Calm down. Breathe. We hear you". facebook.com. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
  40. ^ Zimmer, Michael (2006-09-08). "More on Facebook and the Contextual Integrity of Personal Information Flows". MichaelZimmer.org. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
  41. ^ a b "A timeline of Facebook's privacy issues — and its responses". NBC News. 24 March 2018. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
  42. ^ Mesure, Susie; Griggs, Ian (17 November 2007). "The Facebook betrayal - users revolt over advertising sell-out". The Independent. London: INM. ISSN 0951-9467. OCLC 185201487. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
  43. ^ Story, Louise; Stone, Brad (2007-11-30). "Facebook Retreats on Online Tracking (Published 2007)". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
  44. ^ "The Facebook Ad Backlash Begins". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
  45. ^ "Facebook's behind-the-scenes tracker of your web behavior". VentureBeat. 2007-12-02. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
  46. ^ a b Parr, Ben (30 December 2009). "How Facebook Dominated in 2009". Mashable. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
  47. ^ a b Vaidhyanathan, Siva (2011-03-08). The Googlization of Everything. University of California Press. pp. 91–92. doi:10.1525/9780520948693. ISBN 978-0-520-94869-3.
  48. ^ "Facebook relents - a little - on Beacon". the Guardian. 2007-11-30. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
  49. ^ a b Journal, Jeff Rauschert | Flint (2009-02-22). "Facebook reverses terms of service changes after member revolt". mlive. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
  50. ^ "Facebook 'withdraws' data changes". BBC News. 2009-02-18. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
  51. ^ Carlson, Nicholas (10 December 2009). "So Far, No User Revolt Over Facebook's New Privacy Settings". businessinsider.com. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
  52. ^ Robinson, James (22 May 2010). "Facebook users revolt against Mark Zuckerberg over privacy". theguardian.com. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
  53. ^ Brewster, Tom (June 2010). "Quit Facebook Day inspires over 30,000 to leave". ITPRO. Dennis Publishing Limited. Retrieved 2 December 2017.
  54. ^ "Report: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Doesn't Believe In Privacy". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
  55. ^ Mills, Stuart (2020-12-08). "#DeleteFacebook: From Popular Protest to a New Model of Platform Capitalism?". New Political Economy. 26 (5): 851–868. doi:10.1080/13563467.2020.1858777. ISSN 1356-3467. S2CID 230649465.
  56. ^ "Meghan Markle & Prince Harry 'Working' with Civil Rights Groups to Support Facebook Boycott: Source". People. June 29, 2020. Retrieved 2020-06-30.
  57. ^ "Participating Businesses".
  58. ^ Montandon, Maccabee (21 December 2012). "Facing User Revolt, Instagram Changes Course On TOS". Fast Company. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
  59. ^ Gross, Doug (19 December 2012). "Instagram backtracks after user privacy revolt". cnn.com. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
  60. ^ Owens, Jeremy C. (26 February 2013). "Instagram hits 100 million members, belying reports of user revolt". mercurynews.com. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
  61. ^ McCullagh, Declan (31 May 2007). "Mass deletion sparks LiveJournal revolt". cnet.com. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
  62. ^ a b Greenberg, Andy (30 June 2009). "The Pirate Bay's Revolt". forbes.com. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  63. ^ "Reddit in uproar after staff sacking". BBC News. BBC. 3 July 2015. Retrieved 3 July 2015. About 100 chat sections, or sub-reddits, that together have millions of readers are believed to have been shut. Reddit's only comment about the issue has been to say that it did not talk about 'individual employee matters'. The protests were led by the volunteer moderators of the AMA section, which said in an explanatory posting that they needed Ms Taylor to keep the sub-reddit functioning. Ms Taylor helped organise guests for AMAs and worked to verify that people due to answer questions were who they said they were. There had been no explanation of why she was suddenly sacked, said the administrators.
  64. ^ "Reddit: Laute Rufe nach Absetzung von CEO Ellen Pao". 4 July 2015. Retrieved 5 July 2015. Zwar sind einige Foren wieder entsperrt, trotzdem ist Pao weiterhin Ziel vielerlei Angriffe. Zusätzliches Öl ins Feuer goss ein ehemaliger Community Manager der Online-Community, der angab von der Reddit-Chefin aufgrund seiner Krebserkrankung gefeuert worden zu sein. Zuvor wurde dem an Leukämie erkrankten Mitarbeiter eingeräumt, beim Unternehmen zu verbleiben – allerdings meldete sich Pao nur wenig später und gab ihm zu wissen, dass er aufgrund seiner Erkrankung nicht mehr bei Reddit verbleiben könnte. So zumindest die Behauptung, die wenig später offline ging.
  65. ^ "Reddit's CEO Allegedly Fired an Employee For Having Cancer and Not Recovering Fast Enough". 3 July 2015. Retrieved 5 July 2015.
  66. ^ McGregor, Jena (6 July 2015). "More than 200k people have signed a petition calling for Reddit's Ellen Pao to step down". The Washington Post. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  67. ^ Musil, Steven (5 July 2015). "Petition for Pao resignation from Reddit grows to 130K". Cnet. Retrieved 5 July 2015.
  68. ^ Malik, Naureen; Jones, Tim (5 July 2015). "Reddit CEO Pao Under Fire as Users Protest Removal of Executive". Bloomberg. Retrieved 5 July 2015.
  69. ^ Reddit CEO Ellen Pao apologizes: 'We screwed up' By Laurie Segall and Chris Isidore CNN.com July 6, 2015
  70. ^ Reddit CEO Ellen Pao Issues an Apology for the Direction of the Site by Laura Entis FoxNews.com July 06, 2015
  71. ^ Jack Linshi (July 6, 2015). "Ellen Pao: Reddit CEO Apologizes After Petition for Her to Resign". TIME.com.
  72. ^ Titcomb, James (7 July 2015). "Petition calling for Reddit boss Ellen Pao to resign hits 200,000 as she admits 'we screwed up'". London: The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  73. ^ "An old team at reddit • /r/announcements". reddit. 10 July 2015. Retrieved 2015-07-10.
  74. ^ Mike, Isaac (10 July 2015). "Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit's Chief". The New York Times. Retrieved 10 July 2015.
  75. ^ Frier, Sarah; Newcomer, Eric; Muoio, Danielle (July 7, 2015). "Reddit Revolt Shows Site's Users Rule No Matter Who Has CEO Role". Bloomberg Business. Retrieved 27 January 2016.
  76. ^ Lowensohn, Josh (12 December 2013). "Twitter turns its block function into a mute button, leading to user revolt". The Verge. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  77. ^ Fung, Brian (4 September 2014). "Why Twitter's users are in open revolt". The Washington Post. Washington DC: WPC. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  78. ^ Shih, Gerry (12 December 2013). "Twitter users revolt over changes to abusive behavior policy". reuters.com. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
  79. ^ "Twitter backtracks on block feature after users revolt". CBS News. New York: CBS. Reuters. 13 December 2013. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
  80. ^ Gilbert, David (13 December 2013). "Twitter Reinstates Blocking After User Revolt". ibtimes.co.uk. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
  81. ^ Tkacz, Nathaniel (20 January 2011). "The Spanish Fork: Wikipedia's ad-fuelled mutiny". Wired UK.
  82. ^ Tkacz, Nathaniel (15 January 2011). "'Good luck with your WikiPAIDia': Reflections on the 2002 Fork of the Spanish Wikipedia". networkcultures.org. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  83. ^ Lih, Andrew (2009). The Wikipedia revolution : how a bunch of nobodies created the world's greatest encyclopedia (1st ed.). New York: Hyperion. ISBN 978-1-4013-0371-6.
  84. ^ Dewey, Caitlin (2 December 2015). "Wikipedia has a ton of money. So why is it begging you to donate yours?". The Washington Post. Washington DC: WPC. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 3 December 2015.
  85. ^ a b c Tim Sampson (2012-07-04). "Will Wikipedia's pretty new editing software solve its recruitment crisis?". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 2013-07-27.
  86. ^ Andrew Orlowski (2013-08-01). "Wikipedians say no to Jimmy's 'buggy' WYSIWYG editor". The Register. Retrieved 2013-08-05.
  87. ^ Simon Sharwood (2013-06-07). "Wikimedia edges closer to banishing Wikitext". The Register. Retrieved 2013-07-28.
  88. ^ L.M. (2011-12-13). "Changes at Wikipedia: Seeing things". The Economist. Retrieved 2013-07-28.
  89. ^ Lucian Parfeni (2013-07-02). "Wikipedia's New VisualEditor Is the Best Update in Years and You Can Make It Better". Softpedia. Retrieved 2013-07-30.
  90. ^ Simonite, Tom (October 22, 2013). "The Decline of Wikipedia: Even As More People Than Ever Rely on It, Fewer People Create It". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved January 17, 2014.
  91. ^ Andrew Orlowski (2013-09-25). "Revolting peasants force Wikipedia to cut'n'paste Visual Editor into the bin". The Register. Retrieved 2013-10-06.
  92. ^ Tim Sampson (2013-09-24). "Wikipedia faces revolt over VisualEditor". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 2013-09-25.
  93. ^ a b c Lih, Andrew (20 June 2015). "Can Wikipedia Survive?". The New York Times. New York. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  94. ^ a b Kleinz, Torsten (16 August 2014). "Wikipedia: Superprotect-Streit spitzt sich zu". heise.de. Heinz Heise. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  95. ^ Orlowski, Andrew (18 August 2014). "Class war! Wikipedia's workers revolt again". The Register. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  96. ^ Dobusch, Leonhard (23 August 2014). "Kommentar: Der "Superprotect"-Streit in Wikipedia, oder: Souverän ist, wer über Root-Zugriff verfügt". netzpolitik.org. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  97. ^ Mullin, Joe (25 January 2016). "Wikipedia editors revolt, vote "no confidence" in newest board member". Ars Technica. Condé Nast. Retrieved 27 January 2016.
  98. ^ BBC staff (26 January 2016). "Wikipedia editors sign vote of no confidence". BBC. Retrieved 27 January 2016.
  99. ^ Motherboard team (25 February 2016). "Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Resigns Amid a Community Revolt". Vice. Retrieved 27 February 2016.
  100. ^ Harrison, Stephen (2 July 2019). "Wikipedia Is in the Midst of a Constitutional Crisis". Slate Magazine.
  101. ^ "Wikipedia Has Been A Safe Haven From The Online Culture Wars. That Time May Be Over". BuzzFeed News. 27 June 2019. Retrieved 2019-06-27.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_revolt&oldid=1180441387"