Talk:CyberArmy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Advertisement/ego page?

I've had a look at the site in question and it seems to me that this article is a self-promotion/self-glorification. I will trim it substantially rather than put it up for deletion, as it does have press references and therefore deserves some coverage. --Sanguinus 03:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restored Factual Information

CyberArmy has been around since 1998, in the news since 1999, and has a very established history. It is similar to other Internet organizational entries, such as slashdot, which includes structure, membership information, and organizational links. Information included is purely factual, giving very brief historical information, including its basic structure and membership. The only other information included are news articles about CyberArmy and links to sites run by CyberArmy. I have restored that information, including actual news article links to CNN, ZDNet, and Pc Pro, which confirm included information.

It may help in the future for the article creators of posts like this to include available news links so that others can see them and not assume that news coverage is simply a "claim". One cannot assume every editor is going to do a search for claims not backed up by actual links. --DeWayne Lehman 7:40, 7 April, 2005 (EST)

No doubt that it's been around a while. I took a look at it, and it certainly does merit coverage. However, I'm sure you've heard of so-called "vanity pages" - and it seems to me that the previous incarnation of this page certainly is. "CyberArmy" is not a particularly well-known organisation outside of certain hacker/security cultures - is somebody really going to come to Wikipedia and search for CyberArmy? If they do, are they going to want to know who the current leader is, and her deputies? I doubt that. I'm not going to edit the page again until I receive a response, although it disheartens me that you've totally reverted it rather than considering what I'm saying: that it's a whole lot of information about a website which you're a former leader/senior member of and a current member of the organisation CyberArmy is affiliated with - are you sure you're looking at its worth dispassionately? CyberArmy is nowhere near as well-known as Slashdot and is therefore, imo, not deserving of such detailed information: it really does look like an infomercical to me. Also, I did indeed search for the news coverage you included ("it does have press references") but I was not able to find all the articles you've now linked to (I see there's still no link to the MSNBC story - I'm not disputing whether it exists, but a link would be good.) --Sanguinus 18:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed things like rank and leaders shouldnt be mentioned here. However i added some relevant information about the brigades again, but i am leaning on Sanguinus suggestion. --Cybertnt 02:08, 9 Apr 2005 (CET)

I only restored factual information, which was the majority of that information. I did, however, edit parts of that content to show more impartiality of the sources of information. For instance, while CyberArmy claims 60,000 members at one time, however, the only documented external claim was 35,000. Also, the decline in membership claims had no been explained fully. Link to MSNBC article does not exist anymore (nature of the internet). However, the story did exist, and is referenced by this news letter: http://www.sans.org/newsletters/newsbites/vol3_4.php?printer=Y This page has an MSNBC link that is broken. Are there broken links for the other articles? I would be interested in exactly which information is not neutral, specifically. The information you removed was about leadership, brigades, and ranks. Leadership is just the names of those in charge of the organization, brigades is a couple of sentences describing how the organization works, and ranks is a simple listing. It is my view that as an encyclopedic entry, which we both agree does warrent a page, should contain at a minimum basic information. It answers, who, what, when, where, and why. So, I would ask, exactly which information, specifically, is unbiased. That I was a former member should not be a topic of this discussion. I am also a member of Slashdot. I simply have insight that others do not about the topic, which is preferencial when editting an entry. One could point to your lack of knowledge on the topic clouds how you may descern which information to include is important. I would also say that popularity is not the sole limitter of a page size of an article. For instance, the google of "time cube" only returns 21,200 hits, but has a very large entry page. CyberArmy has 134,000 hits, and even has an ad targetting that search. So, moving beyond who I am and who you are, specifically, about the article, which information is not neutral, which specifically is vanity, and which might be discreditable. Then, let us prgress from there. Thanks for reading my rather long response. :) --DeWayne Lehman 7:20P, 8 April, 2005 (EST)

The current version (cybertnt's edit) is good for me. If we can agree to leave it at this, we can remove the NPOV tag and move on. :) --Sanguinus 02:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the current version looks good as well to me. As always, I'm interested in improvements, which is why I asked for specifics. If this edit brings the article better in line with views on what constitutes a vanity page, then it is all the better. I only edit on pages of direct interest to me. I'm not wonderful at spelling/grammer, so content/formatting is usually what I stick to. I would say though, that I always favor ways that can not just shift around an article, but improve upon it, even if the improvement is spurned because of a negative issue. Out of this, the text has been cleaned up, relevant news links added, and possible neutrality issues resolved. If only all articles with such issues resolved as positively. ;) --DeWayne Lehman 8:30A, 9 April, 2005 (EST)

Sounds great! I will remove the NPOV flag then Cybertnt 14:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)