Talk:Fotki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 April 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] clean up

someone needs to clean this up, because as it is now it reads more like an advertisement than an entry on an encyclopedia. Rchamberlain 05:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please site the facts - where do you see advertisement? Let's discuss it point by point.Nata-Ly 13:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons, please

Please site the facts - where do you see advertisement?

Let's discuss it point by point. Nata-Ly 10:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The history section needs citation, as well Currently, millions of pictures are stored there, and daily averages of visitors viewing pages and images scanned come to many tens and hundreds thousands, respectively. these figures need to be specific.

Fotki’s popularity is based on its compatibility with all mainstream operating systems, including Unix, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, OS/2, Microsoft Windows and Apple Macintosh Do you have any sources to back that up?

Its servers are situated in a world-class data center with 24/7 monitorin This is subjective, be more specific as to the center. Let readers draw their own conclusion about what type of data center it is.

advanced enterprise-level hardware protection. again be specific and let readers draw their own conclusion about how advanced they feel it is.

The aim of the company is to constantly master the online photo space by suggesting to both photo amateurs and photo professionals new options: This reads like a mission statement.

The speciality section is highly subjective. Do you have any data to back up who uses those two sections and how? --Crossmr 03:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Text editted. Its easy to edit wording to take out clear praise and seems lazy to complain rather than change. --Rhooker1236 11:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only did I edit text, but I've also rewrited some sections, because the site has changed since the article was written. Please review the changes and leave your valuable remarks. --Nata-Ly 17:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

All the replies in the deletion debate were concerning the amount of traffic received by the site. Where is this supposed to be a basis for keeping the article? The WP:WEB and WP:CORP guidelines make no mention of that. -- Barrylb 04:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just gone through the article and taken the offending "marketing" material as best I could. Some things were pretty obvious. Though the original version of the page did read like an ad the entry is in itself important and should not be deleted out of hand. Fotki is the 889th ranked site on the Internet, and part of a growing Web 2.0 Social Internet. I did not add or remove any content because I don't personally like Fotki very much, I think Flickr is far better. For that reason I assume my good faith effort to bring some more "objectivity" to the subject.

Many people are very active in photo blogging and sharing and with tags and other Web 2.0 tools they are building a massive sementic network of images and it would be a grave error to start deleting significant players in that activity because an original post was rather ad like. It is critical that Wikipedia keeps this area of current technology fully covered and edits should be the rule over deletes on any site which is containing an "internet of things", in this case images.

On the other hand I hope that employees or investors of Fotki.com will not try to make this more ad like and that the future of this article will be marked by edits with make the companies servies more objectively understood for people studying or researching social networking.

I suggest the delete threat be removed as long as the article does not revert to its earlier forms and would want to know personally if any delete is made at rhooker1236@hotmail.com. Remember I do not like fotki.com, but because I do extensive work with studying social networks I am personally invested in preventing mass deletes on this subject and will personally follow up if this article is deleted for any other reason than a reverting to advertising text.

As an independent person doing research in this area I feel I have a right to demand why the article would be deleted over editing and will actively follow up on this matter.

--Rhooker1236 11:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)