Talk:Webby Awards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mentioning that the site links to porn

User:SJ, why did you remove my warning from the links list? Could you rephrase it instead of removing it? Mr. Jones 17:16, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

sure! I didn't think it needed to be there twice, but left it in this time w/ a rewording. +sj +

Um, what on earth is the porn warning referring to? There's nothing remotely pornographic on the Webby site itself, and it's hardly our problem if one of the nominees has titties (eek!). Jpatokal 14:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mentioning Wikipedia

What's wrong with mentioning Wikipedia in the article? Guaka 19:17, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The comment that was deleted was about Wikipedia, not about the Webbies. It didn't belong in this article. Markalexander100 21:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that. But why doesn't it belong in the article? Guaka 00:06, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you mention Wikipedia, then you'd better mention some other winners and nominees, too. Kent Wang 00:15, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But why doesn't it belong in the article? Because the article is for information about the Webbies, not for information about Wikipedia. The info might be worth putting in the Wikipedia article, but I'd wait until we actually win something. Markalexander100 06:51, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Won by default

In 2004, Wikipedia won by default the Community Webby award. What does that mean, "by default" -- didn't we just win? jengod 02:11, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

yes, I second that question. I had a quick look at the webbies site and I thought there were other nominees in that category. I would have thought "by default" would suggest something like "no-one else entered so W had to get it." I am, I think, going to change the article, with advance apologies if I have misunderstood. If someone can explain why it IS by default - and perhaps reword the article so that it is clear - then of course I will not intervene further. Nevilley 07:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, congrats all around! JB82 20:30, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "The voting system is famously easy to game," ?

In the awards categories bit it says "The voting system is famously easy to game,". I wonder if:

(1) this is accepted fact or just a matter of opinion. I wouldn't know, but to the casual observer there may be the whiff of sour grapes about it and I wondered if a more encylopaedic wording is possible; and

(2) if it does have to stay in, is there something other than "easy to game", which does not really work in my dialect of English? Presumably it means "easy to influence" or "easy to cheat at" or something, but "easy to game" just doesn't make sense to me even though I can infer the likely meaning. Thanks. Nevilley 08:10, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Nor in my dialect of English, either. Furthermore, even if true I do not believe it to be the kind of thing which ought to be in an encyclopedia. Victor Gijsbers 14:00, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 5 days left— is Wikipedia in?

We didn't win Best Practices, and it would be nice to win the People's Voice in Best Community. Waste of money, or worth our while? -- user:zanimum

[edit] Are web awards just click-through scams?

I was always under the impression that website awards were mainly just ways of getting people to put a link to the award site on their pages, driving traffic to the award site. "Your website won an award! Put this image (and link to our site) on your site!" was all it took. Then the award site would make money from ads or partnerships with sites they linked to. Maybe the Webbys are above that, but I'm skeptical. A lot of awards sites are/were scams. — mjb 11:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)