Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Metroblogging

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think there are any socks here, just people voting. Don't act like wikipedia, because you don't. 12.111.139.2 01:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to not do a personal attack here, 12.111.139.2, but even though I voted to keep, it didn't mean me wanting to be "invited" to a Hurricane Katrina revert war on my talk page. Why is it so important to link Katrina to metroblogging? It's pure vanity. I voted to keep in spite of it being a blogging site, not because of it. Blogging is vanity driven attention seeking, the only people who think that it's important, and the next generation of news reporting are the bloggers, the only ones who actually read blogs. It's not like they're Moby or anything is it? - Hahnchen 03:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

No one is trying to link Katrina to Metroblogging, the fact is that major news sources [1] are sourcing Metroblogging New Orleans as a very good place to look for up to the minute details that aren't being reported elsewhere. I thought it would be a useful addition to the Katrina article, some people agreed, some people disagreed. The people who disagreed didn't like being questioned and here we are. Sean Bonner 05:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I give up. This site is a biased waste of time. Everyone here hates blogs, ... probably because you all know that blogs are superior to wikis because they don't let people foul up everything you say. Take your revisionist ruleset and shove it.12.111.139.2 03:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't hate blogs, just the vast vast majority of them. Nothing wrong with metablogging though, I voted keep. - Hahnchen 03:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] notablity

I'm not trying to be argumentative by asking this, I'm trying to better understand the Wikipedia editing process so if someone could explain this I'd appreciate it. The WP:WEB says that for a website to be notable it needs at least one of three things, #2 being

2. Having been the subject of national or international media attention within the last 2 years.

National or international media attention means editorial content produced by a national or international news content provider, with particular weight given to off-line sources of news such as newpapers and national broadcasters.

In the last week Metroblogging has been written about in the print newspaper The Chicago Tribune, on German Broadcast TV (Tagestheman), and online at News.com, ZDnet. I've personally also talked with writers from print news papers the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post as well as MSNBC that are doing articles including Metroblogging. That's mearly the past week. In the past two months Metroblogging has been written about in The National Business Review, MSNBC.com, The Guardian UK, Salon and The Wall Street Journal. As mentioned in the article it's also been recently choosen as a Best of the Web by Forbes, and covered not so recently in The Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post and The Houston Chronicle. In August 2004 The Associated Press wrote an article on local blogs and spent a lot of time talking about Metroblogging which was picked up by hundreds of new sources accross the country (here's the link to it on USA Today). What I'm getting at is that this is no small list of major press, all within the last 2 years as required. So my question is to the people who are voting for deleation with a reasoning being that Metroblogging is non-notable, what press would make it notable or are you not considering the WP:WEB guidelines and basing that decision on something else, such as the current content of the article or if you personally have ever heard of Metroblogging? Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm trying to get a better understanding of how this works. Thanks. Sean Bonner 15:41, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yep, and it just shows the power of spamming and self-promotion. If you've been agressive elseware as you have been on wikipedia in getting your sites mentioned wherever you can, it's no shock. But still a lot of work so, Good job... Jumping more than 10k in rank in two days might even be a record. --24.165.233.150 06:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you figured it out. It has nothing to do with the 500 or so bloggers who are all busting their ass to create a usefull network or the massive ammounts of media attention all those efforts have been getting in the past week. Puh-leese. Sean Bonner 06:56, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasonable questions. To me, you don't appear to be picking a fight at all, so I wouldn't worry about that. The best thing to do in these cases is putting the sources in the article, so everyone can see why this site is important. FWIW, the Tribune link is non-public. But since there are many, you may find that it's no problem at all getting this article kept. Friday (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Call For Votes

Since I'm getting the feeling Gmaxwell is wording things to try and sway a certain opinion, both in his original VFD and in this note, I wanted to provide a link to the post on my personal blog that he's referring to with this note. I think I'm being very clear that people should not create accounts here for the sole purpose of voting on this issue, nor endorsing sockpuppet votes. Sean Bonner 07:12, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Calling for people to vote on a VfD from your blog was totally inappropriate. You're not doing yourself any favors by going from page to page inserting links to your blogs, either. Sdedeo 18:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm honestly not trying to cause trouble here and if I'm doing something wrong I want to understand why so that I don't make the same mistake in the future. Dystopos said my appeal was not in bad faith, and I certainly didn't make it in bad faith - in fact I went out of my way asking people to vote for OR against it, so I'm curious why you feel it was totally inappropriate? If I found an article that I thought needed help would it be inappropriate to post something on a blog asking for edits? If not why is this different? I'm really just trying to understand the problems people are having and how to solve them. Sean Bonner 18:38, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sean. You are stirring up a lot of ill will by engaging in revert wars over insertion of links to sites that you have a personal interest in promoting. There is nothing wikipedians hate more than spam and vanity. If you want to contribute to wikipedia, do so in some way other than creating links to your sites. Sdedeo 18:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the above, but I'll comment on the original question anyway. This is just my own opinion, but many editors feel that bringing new editors into wikipedia in order to give input on a VfD is inappropriate. Commenting on a VfD should be done with respect to the deletion policy, which newbies are of course unlikely to be familiar with. Similiar things have happened before, with a bunch of new editors coming in and saying "Keep this article because.." and inserting some irrelevant reason. This has left a bad taste in the mouth of many editors here. Friday (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

What I said was that your appeal did not appear to be in bad faith. That's not the same as saying it was proper. People make mistakes in good faith rather frequently. In the context of a pattern of behavior in which Wikipedia has been improperly used to promote Metroblogs, others may take a more critical view. I suggest stepping aside from the VfD to prevent these lashes and backlashes. Dystopos 18:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the insight on this. I'm going to take your advice and step back and let things happen however they might. I was trying to do the right thing and I'm sorry if I offended anyone. 19:05, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth: I didn't mention the appeal on his blog out of any bad faith. When I saw the post it lacked the instruction to tell people not to go vote that it has now, and I didn't see why else he would he would mention it... Since such posts goof with the voting it's usually wise to mention them. On his blog, Sean implies that I don't like him but it would only be accurate to say that I do not think highly of his contributions. I didn't make my request out of any malice but rather made it after discovering the article while going through Sean's contributions after he added a link which I thought was inappropriate to the hurricane article multiple times (and was reverted multiple times). If I had any malice for Sean I would have lobbied for a 3RR violation banning too. ;) After I saw his edit history on his account and an IP he previously used and that it contained mostly vanity insertions, I thought this page is probably too (actually if I'd seen the summed alexa rank I would have been more certain of it). All of my interactions in this matter were prior to Sean making fun of my italicized blogosphere, and only resulted from my casual interaction as a wikipedia reader. At this point, I still can't say that I dislike him, although I now think in addition to having lame contributions he's also pretty petty and his friends are not the brightest bulbs in the pack... As for the vote, I don't really care about the outcome, as I've long since (in wikipedia time) stopped contributing to Wikipedia for multiple reasons... and cruft in an encyclopedia I'm not working on doesn't cause me 'pride in my work' issues. :) --Gmaxwell 23:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

So I gather, by defintion vanity means if you supply a link to a site which you own/run/contribute to? If you read the page multiple people have stated that the link had some relevance, and if you check out Metroblogging, you can see all the sources that referenced it and see it is clearly not vanity. Think about it, next time you link wikipedia from off-site, it's not to provide additional information, it's vanity. --Illtillwillkillbill 08:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Eh, go look at the version when I stuck the vfd tag on it. The content has improved a lot since then. The central notability rank we've used on wikipedia in the past has been alexa rank, and the site doesn't meet that criteria even according to it's operator. As far as vanity... Sean draws income from his sites and has linked them in many places on wikipedia. It does push the assumption of good faith. 24.165.233.150 20:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I draw income from the sites? That's news to me. Additionally Alexa isn't the only notability rank used according to the docs, one of three requirements needs to be met and we easilly meet the other two, additonally as of today the Alexa Rank of metblogs.com is 7,706 [2] putting us well above the threshhold. Sean Bonner 20:53, September 2, 2005 (UTC)