Talk:Boards.ie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Legal Action
2 Vote for Deletion
3 Response from the articles originator
4 Too much detail
5 Really?
6 Slow servers
7 Sources

[edit] Legal Action

MCD PRODUCTIONS currently have taken legal action against Boards.ie. Maybe a sentance on that. --Dark archeus 07:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 02:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response from the articles originator

When I first wrote this article I was worried that it might be seen as spam for what is technically a private website. However, boards.ie is a company solely for the reason that at the time it was impossible to get an Irish domain unless you were a company. It remains a privately owned operation simply due to backward Irish legislation. I think it is important that the internets emerging cities like Off-topic, Something Awful etc. are documented and updated to reflect the importance of how the internet is changing how people interact with each other and the growth of forums websites which could be comparable to the Industrial Revolution and the growth of real world cities.

Also, this article inspired our use of wiki technology (Biki) which in turn has popularised Wiki itself among the 40,000 boards.ie users as an authoritive source of information.

It is my humble opinion that deleting this article would not benefit Wiki in any way.

Thanks,

amp

[edit] Too much detail

This article reads like a church newsletter.

2004 saw a great deal of change with the upgrading of vBulletin 2 to vBulletin 3 and the addition of a new server

There is too much detail. How many gigs of data they transferred in 2003. Not interesting. What about: short description , short history, anything unique about it. Curtains99 13:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Really?

I was not aware that articles in Wiki had to be interesting. I thought that they had to be merely factual.

amp

You are correct; articles do not have be interesting. They have to be notable (WP:N). Articles should be neutral, referenced and encyclopaedic, containing notable, verifiable knowledge (WP:RES). Otherwise, wikipedia would end up with articles about people's pencil collections or what they had for dinner last tuesday. So, if you have any neutral, encyclopaedic, notable, verifiable information to add to this article, go ahead. Put yourself in the position of a person who has never heard of boards.ie and looks up this article to understand what boards.ie is and how it differs from any other internet bulletin board. Curtains99 11:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

They have to be interesting. 193.1.160.112 09:29, 15 September 2006

[edit] Slow servers

Curtains99, I claim that your re-edit of this article is not impartial, since highlighting the fact that boards.ie is slow on Wikipedia indicates some personal dislike for or issue with the site, in that you have to "broadcast" to readers that it is slow in such a prominent place in the article. You have the statistics to back it up, but I believe that posting those statistics in a factual article indicates a grudge. Please feel free to contact me if this is so, and I will see what I can do to resolve it. --Cloudie 22:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning. You accept the facts as presented but believe that the presence of any factual, critical information in a Wikipedia article is proof of a personal dislike or grudge. This is the appeal to motive fallacy. Would you prefer a Wikipedia that contained only positive information about its subjects?

Have a look at the Wikipedia guidelines on writing vanity articles (Wikipedia:Vanity Guidelines). In particular , this section:

The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them.

and

A word of caution. Before you write a vanity article on yourself, your group, or your company, remember that, once the article is created, you have no more right or ability to delete it than does any other editor. More than one user has created a vanity article, only to find that, in the normal course of research, other Wikipedia editors have found new material that presents the subject in a less-than-flattering light. Generally, such material will be added to the article, providing it is verifiably true and noteworthy — to the chagrin of the original creator. So, before you create a vanity article, you might want to ask yourself if there is anything publicly available in your past history or that of your group or company that you would not want included in the article — because such material will probably find its way into the article eventually.

Curtains99 08:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also have a look at Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Please assume that other editors mean well unless you have proof to the contrary. Thanks Curtains99 11:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)