Talk:Public recursive name server

Since DNS server usage is orthogonal to web traffic, perhaps a better ranking could be based on something other than alexa? I don't have anything specific to suggest, but ranking based on web popularity doesn't seem right. Esb (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with whoever mentioned Alexa here. The Alexa ranking has nothing to do with the DNS ranking.If not one is against it, I can try to remove it from the table and just rank them alphabetically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fljack-scott (talk • contribs) 01:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that alphabetical is the best listing order. Even if there were an objective source for relative size, it wouldn't help to order the list by it, because a reader wouldn't know where in the list to look for something. Bill Woodcock (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Include 4.2.2.1, which is run by level3 communications (level3.net), a major internet company. Esb (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion Level3 should not be included due to their hijacking of NXDOMAIN responses. 68.117.32.237 (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

4.2.2.1 is *not* for public use and should not be included. See: https://www.tummy.com/articles/famous-dns-server/ David G (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Would this new thing belong on this page? Seems to be kicking up some news articles.https://blog.cloudflare.com/announcing-1111/Ronabop (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Some of the name server providers in this list do not have Wikipedia articles. Should we be listing them here? -- The Anome (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, of the three in question, two of them are referenced by self-citations, and the other does not have any citation at all. Removing. -- The Anome (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • And again. Removed with Special:Diff/862581792. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• Maybe, we should create Wikipedia articles for the ones missing? Meatsgains / The Anome I can try taking a stab at doing it?

Just because some DNS provider has an article on Wikipedia does not make it "notable". Likewise, not having an article on Wikipedia does not imply that the subject is not notable. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a list of public recursive nameservers, not a list of Wikipedia articles. Gatekeeping by deleting public recursive nameservers from a list of public recursive nameservers just makes Wikipedia less accurate. Specifically, the Emerald Onion entry keeps getting deleted, and it's particularly notable since it's the the first major DoQ supporter, and one of only a few that are specifically privacy-centric. Bill Woodcock (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory site, we need some form of inclusion criteria to avoid becoming an indisriminate list of poorly sourced information. If Emerald Onion is particularly notable it has no doubt been noted by several reliable, independent sources and you should have no trouble getting the draft on the subject approved. I look forward to seeing the final article. - MrOllie (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Also pinging @The Anome:, since quite some time has passed since they started this section. - MrOllie (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Given how trivial it is for anyone to turn up a public recursive DNS server, it clearly doesn't confer notability of itself. I think we should be guided by WP:GNG here, and only add entries those services that pass the GNG notability criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

There are objective criteria here, of scale and features deployed. Which is exactly what this table is for. Anyone looking at the table can judge for themselves, based on the actual objective criteria that matter, whether any particular recursive resolver is notable for their purposes. MrOllie's subjective decision that the DNS-over-QUIC protocol and its implementers (which are, essentially, all of us in the industry, we just didn't happen to be first) aren't notable, in his opinion as someone without any connection with the field being documented here, is entirely to the detriment of both Wikipedia and DNS users. The set of DNS users, of course, including everyone who uses the Internet. Bill Woodcock (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Paid-only services are currently out of scope of this article. Also, please don't misrepresent MrOllie's argument. We don't give a damn how innovative or ground-breaking a given item is – if it's not notable, then it has no place in this encyclopaedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello all. I arrived at [1] and Google Chrome browser "on top of the content" offered to translate from Italian to English. If I change the subdomain in the URL from "it." to "en." (English), OR if I search "freenom" in the Wikipedia Search box, the user is redirected to "Public Recursive Name Server." This latter page has a major first section called, "Public DNS Resolver." The company Freenom is *not* one of these OpenDNS or Public Name Resolver companies, such as CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 / 1.0.0.1 or Google Public DNS 8.8.8.8 -- Freenom allows the world to register FREE .ga, .tk (and a few other Top-level_domain's) for 1yr (their site mentions renewability 15 days prior to expiration). MY QUESTION: Wiki Community: Why the erroneous redirection?? Vid2vid (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

AFAIK Freenom offers many different services like https://www.freenom.world/ and is not only a registrar for .tk domains. There is currently no page for Freenom and it's just a redirection to .tk that's wrong in my opinion as they are not even limited to .tk domains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi89999 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Mimi89999, Freenom was deleted/redirected as the result of an AFD discussion which you can find here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freenom. MrOllie (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

User MrOllie is deleting entries from the list of recursive nameservers, asserting a criterion that this is a list of public recursive nameservers with Wikipedia pages, rather than a list of public recursive nameservers. If such a criterion now exists, it's not clear who established it, or how or whether consensus was reached that it should be applied. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Usually lists on Wikipedia include those that have articles, we are not an indiscriminate collection of information, neither are we a directory. Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

A chicken-and-egg situation is being created here, though. A new criterion, which had not reached consensus on the talk page, is being unilaterally applied, with a lot of collateral damage (the DoQ column keeps being deleted from the table, for instance), by one person. His criterion is that the table should not be complete, but should be a curated list of some but not others of the things which the table purports to list, based on whether the things being listed _also_ have Wikipedia articles about them, rather than whether they are notable significant and important examples of the thing the table is supposed to list. This is not a norm on Wikipedia (Wikipedia is full of tables of things which are not other Wikipedia pages), this is just some guy appointing himself an arbitrary gatekeeper of a resource that other people actually depend upon, and rendering it valueless. Make no mistake, an incomplete list is valueless, and the same thing will happen here as happens with other lists where people who don't know anything about the subject matter decide wikipedia is a PvP video game... people who actually need to work with the information will move elsewhere. So, anyway, folks who cared about the list being complete tried to appease him by setting up a page which describes the specific recursive resolver in more detail. Other self-appointed gatekeepers over there keep shooting down that page because they think it's not notable because they don't know anything about the subject matter, so they can't distinguish notable from non-notable. Which, by the way, would be obvious if the DoQ column weren't getting blown away in this dude's excess of zeal. This tedious gatekeeping drastically lowers the quality and utility of Wikipedia, and people should be ashamed of vandalizing a commons to gratify their egos. Bill Woodcock (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you'll find that 'has a prexisting wikipedia article' may not be the only possible inclusion criteria for a list, but it is the most common one. I suppose that means it is a 'norm' on Wikipedia. Also, when we use the word 'notable' on Wikipedia, we are using a bit of local jargon which you can read about here. In a nutshell, we mean that it has been 'noted' (that is, written about in some length) by independent sources that meet our sourcing requirements. All the reviewers are doing is looking at the sources. They don't really need to 'know anything about the subject matter' to do this. You've had an account for a long while, I'm surprised you haven't been exposed to these policies before. As to DoQ, it only stands to reason that we're not going to include a column if it is just going to be 'No' across the board. - MrOllie (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I've been using Wikipedia long enough to remember when it didn't consist of people who didn't know anything about the subject matter treating it as a game to amuse themselves. Yes, you're very very clever to be able to create a circular definition, in which you delete a column to hide an advance in the field, so that you can claim that the folks who made the advance aren't notable, so you can delete them, so you can claim that the column isn't needed, because, with the advance deleted, it wouldn't show anything else. So clever. I'm sure your cleverness is being lauded among those who think this is a game. Bill Woodcock (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Please have a read of WP:NPA, since you seem to have missed that policy as well. - MrOllie (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have anything at all to say about the actual content of the article, or do you want to just keep going around and around about your preferred process? Do you have a rationale for deleting the DoQ column that's not circular? Do you have a rationale for deleting the Emerald Onion listing that's not circular? Bill Woodcock (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, see my above comments. I know it is easier to cast these as circular instead of engaging with what I actually wrote, but I don't think that's going to convince anyone else. - MrOllie (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It is quite normal to screen entries for their notability before inclusion on a Wikipedia list, otherwise we end up with heaps of spam. We wouldn't like to include all the servers from this list, would we?

By the way, dnsbycomodo.com is outside of the article's scope not just because it's a non-notable service but primarily because it is not public DNS - the service is only provided to the company's own paid customers. Whereas, as it can be seen in the lead section, we list only free services here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, then shouldn't the article be re-titled "Notable free public recursive nameservers," since it's not about public recursive nameservers, or even free public recursive nameservers, anymore? And the bit about "private enthusiasts" is no longer accurate either, given all the new constraints, so you should probably clean that up too, for consistency. Bill Woodcock (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The article is Public recursive name server with a section called "Notable public DNS service operators" so we don't need a name change? Theroadislong (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article tells the reader what the title topic (public recursive DNS server) is, and then gives a few notable examples. Wikipedia never aims at providing comprehensive listings - we even have policies called WP:NOTADIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Basically, this article even could go about without the server list – it's not rare that listings are removed from articles because of being spam bait. Also recommend: WP:WTAF. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea (to remove the partial list). Your reason seems like a good one in your context, and the problem that I was trying to resolve is also fixed that way: researchers trying to depend upon this as a canonical list. The one you pointed at on dnscrypt.info, which I was previously unaware of, is actually much more useful that way. So, getting rid of the partial list, and citing that one as an external link with enough description that people can find it, seems useful. Bill Woodcock (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it will be necessary to obtain a consensus here whether removing the list altogether would improve the article. Feel free to start an RfC. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

IMHO notability should be defined in respect either to objective criteria (e.g., in this case, amount of traffic) or to reputable and independent third party sources, but not circularly by the existence of a Wikipedia page on the specific company or service. Of course Wikipedia is not a directory, but if the list of examples is too arbitrary it easily becomes a tool for (self-)promotion and this is another no (WP:PROMOTION). Bottom line: if you want to include a list, then define reasonable criteria so that any service meeting them can be added to the list without question (this would be my preferred solution). Otherwise, just remove the list. Vbertola (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see my discussion of what the term 'notable' means on Wikipedia further up the page. If the sources to establish notability exist, we should have the article. After all, the purpose of this project is to write and maintain encyclopedia articles, not to build directories of external resources. - MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)