Talk:Bob Parsons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
Low rated as low-importance on the assessment scale
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Bob Parsons was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: June 14, 2006

Contents

[edit] Advert concerns

This page now has two advert flags on it. I tried to be transparent in changes. Made it clear that I was affiliated with Go Daddy and that changes made were designed to adhere to Wiki's policy on neutrality. Citations were added to make article more fact-based. If there are concerns about specific passages still not being in "neutral point of view" can we discuss specifically, rather than simply adding new flags?? Am willing to make further changes in conjunction with other users. Have also appealed for assistance to Wiki editors on this matter. ParsonsRep —Preceding comment was added at 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
went ahead and dropped anything like advertising - i think the article is fine now. ninety:one 18:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Radio show merge?

http://www.radiogodaddy.com/ Bob Parsons' radio show

Has an article: Life Online with Bob Parsons. Merge with this? — Omegatron 00:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I think a seperate article is warrented. Ardenn 00:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
What makes it especially notable? His blog doesn't have its own article. — Omegatron 04:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
His blog doesn't need its own article. What makes the radio program notable: Alexa traffic rank of 653,579, 36,000 results for a Google test. Ardenn 04:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Alexa is not a measure of notability, and his blog beats his radio show in the Google test, which is generally considered worthless for notability measurements, too. I don't really care whether his Internet radio show has its own article, but I don't see why it's especially notable. Lots of bloggers have podcasts and Internet radio shows. — Omegatron 04:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
His radio show is on satellite radio and regular AM radio as well. I think that sets it apart. Ardenn 05:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd support a merge of his radio show into this article. It's not like a Howard Stern size show, and would fit well within the article about the man himself. Jeffrey.Rodriguez
Welcome to Wikipedia. What are your contributions with us? Ardenn 23:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
That's your first and only edit? — Omegatron 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
First and only as a registered user. I've contributed to a few articles previously, long time user though :) Jeffrey.Rodriguez 02:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I support a merge, the talkshow isn't that notable, I've asked around campus and in my classes and I've not come across anyone who's heard of it, I live in a city with a pop of 1mil and it's a rather large campus. Everything that is said in the radio article could be said here in it's own section just as easily and people could do "one-stop-shopping" instead of having to word it just right to get to it. My two cents. →ΣcoPhreekΔ 13:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I also support merger - with the radio page being a redirect rather than a delete. there is not enough of a volume of text to warrant two articles Trödel 07:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I am against the merger. --The Mad Bomber (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Reason? This isn't a blind vote. — Omegatron 23:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged the text into this article - under Radio Show - unfortunately the redirect won't link directly to a section - but it is good enough I think. I would move the section up a bit - but not sure where (except above the guatanamo thing) since the rest are basically in chronological order. So I left it last Trödel 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The merge is still disputed. I still think they should be seperate articles. *goes to find a fitting tag* Ardenn 06:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok with leaving them seperate if we can't reach concensus - but the metatags need to go - as they have been on there for weeks (at least since May 13th). And such tags detract from the article - and it is common policy to avoid the long term use of such tags. See icon deletion where even unobtrusive icons are being debated as not being appropriate for the article space. If you want to leave the tag, {{mergedisputed}} on the talk page that is fine with me. Trödel 13:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omegatron's edits

The issue I have is:

1. You don't need to spell out what he said in his blog. It's sourced, people can read it for themselves. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

2. I don't see why both issues can't be under a general controversies section.

Ardenn 01:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  1. Spelling out what he himself said in his blog to cause criticism and then what he said in his later retraction is perfectly neutral. Put it back, please.
  2. Pointing out how many "controversies" he has surrounding him is soapboxical. Simply labeling the incidents for what they are is the most neutral way.
    • "The focus of a biographical article should be on the subject, not their critics." Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
    • "[...] it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." - Jimbo Wales
— Omegatron 04:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Then work it in better? I think, and several people would agree, it violates WP:NPOV not to include a balanced argument. I'm open to other options. Ardenn 04:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
A balanced argument about what?? — Omegatron 05:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Both sides of Bob Parsons. To create an article just talking about the good things of Bob isn't neutral. Ardenn 05:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
How is saying "he's been criticized as advocating torture" a good thing? — Omegatron 05:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. -WP:NPOV

Ardenn 05:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Now describe why my version conflicts with that. — Omegatron 05:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The critisizm is factual and there's no valid reason not to include it. Ardenn 05:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand at all. What did I do that removed criticism? — Omegatron 06:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You didn't, its the interiptation. You want the direct quotes in it, while I feel a simple commentary is sufficient, and readers can visit the blog itself for the whole article(s). Ardenn 06:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Why can't readers judge the quotes for themselves? — Omegatron 06:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I looked at it again. This debate is really just over the Gitmo section, not the Super Bowl one. Let me sleep on it. Ardenn 06:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It's also about your use of the section heading "controversies", which I have shown you is recommended against by both a guideline and Jimbo himself. — Omegatron 23:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there another name we can use for it then? It just seemed unorganized without someting there. Ardenn 23:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
They're two unrelated incidents. They should just be named for what they are. "Super Bowl Commercial" and "Guantanamo Bay". For instance, see George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden, etc. See any "controversy" sections? — Omegatron 00:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is an awful article

I came here to see if the Bob Parsons running godaddy was the same one that started Parson's technology - and like nearly always - wikipedia had the answer; however, the state of this article is utterly deplorable. One blog comment is about half the words of the article. This is really a shame for an internet pioneer who has successfully started 2 companies, though I wish he wouldn't have sold out to Intuit - I still miss my Money Counts software as I struggle through Quicken's do it our way and we'll make budgetting as complicated as possible - but who can blame him.

Anyway I know nothing about him other than I loved the software - but I do know this article needs serious work. Trödel 13:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Put your money where your mouth is. If you think it needs work, do the research and add to it. Make sure it is verifiable and has cited sources. Ardenn 04:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
So write more. — Omegatron 02:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some improvements

have been made. References below Trödel 06:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Type Title Link In Article
Magazine Worthwhile (WSJ) GoDaddy's Remarkable Daddy Yes
Magazine DNJournal Underachiever to Overlord: Go Daddy's Bob Parsons Started Slow Yes
Newspaper Marine Corps News Former Marine, Go Daddy CEO Talks About His Rise Yes
Newspaper NY Times Blogging While Browsing, but Not Buying No
Newspaper Arizona Republic GoDaddy Goes public No
Newspaper Arizona Republic Parsons divorces after 2 years No
Newspaper USA Today Chest Ads built buzz, but also animosity Yes
Newspaper USA Today GoDaddy.com surfs publicity wave on racy ad No
News Television CNN GoDaddy traffic soars No
Online News World Net Daily GoDaddy.com chief: From Bible to breasts Yes
Low Circ Mag Bible Software Review An interview with Craig Rairdin No
Newsletter Legalzoom Rags to Riches: Bob Parsons, Founder of GoDaddy.com Yes
Blog Red State Patriot Creator of QuickVerse speaks about GoDaddy and Parsons Yes
Blog McCarthy.vg Why I'm No Longer a GoDaddy Customer Yes
Blog Confusability.com NoGoDaddy Yes
Blog Daily Kos GoDaddy president retracts pro-torture blog posting Yes
Auto-Bio Craig Rairdin How I Got Into this Mess Yes
Auto-Bio Bob Parsons My Bio No

[edit] comments

Good additions. Can you put the blog quotes back in, though? — Omegatron 18:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - I am not sure what to do about the quotes - I got a copy of the articles off google cache but they are now gone - as I don't think those are necessarily the best quotes from the article to present a balanced (NPOV) view of his statements. Any suggestions? Trödel 18:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


For full disclosure, ParsonsRep is affiliated with GoDaddy.com. ParsonsRep (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ISO Dates

Just a quick comment - I don't care that much on ISO dates - I just think it is nice for international users of Wikipedia. if we link the dates (there are different ways to do it - I like ISO because it is easy to remember) then the dates will show the way the user wants. see m:Dynamic dates for info - also m:Help:Preferences#Date format. The style guide indicates its a nicety from what I can tell see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#ISO date formats and surrounding topics. Trödel 14:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ardenn, I am not sure why you keep reverting without discussion - however, it looks to me like the ISO date is supported by at elast a couple users - please help me understand why you don't want the dates to support international formats. Your first comment was that the change was useless (which I interpretted to mean that you felt it had no effect) - as explained above this change is "useless" to editors - i.e. there is no functional difference; however it has a positive effect for some users Trödel 22:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Bob Parsons has failed, for the following reason(s):

  • The lead section should be expanded to summarise more of the article's content.
  • Section headings should be capitalised according to the WP:MOS.
Worldtraveller 11:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go Daddy

Full Disclosure: ParsonsRep is affiliated with GoDaddy.com. We want the notice "This article or section is written like an advertisement." removed as we re-wrote the Go Daddy section to be more Bob-centric and fact based. ParsonsRep (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please look up my IP. I'm in the Philippines---you hear that? the PHILIPPINES! If there was ever a crappy place where adverts were out of control, its here. And after looking over this article, I cannot find a single reason for the Advert lables. Nothing on here looks like an advertisement. Not a single damn thing. The only thing glaring outright is someones animosity at Bob Parsons and his accomplishments. There are few other people in a similar position as himself, however aside from that, find those few and see of their pages look like this. I have seen some but its always by people with agendas. Personally, I'm beginning to wonder at th editors in here that might have affiliations with verisign or some anti-war / anti-american movement. Look above and tell me that these freaks weren't getting all bent out of shape over the specific wording to reference the Gitmo comments so so so long ago. Is that still an issue? One person tries playing barracks lawyer to use technicalities to allow his paraphrasing to terms of a negative slant. Another, actually on the same side, becomes a pissant to quote directly, again with the point of negatively impacting the image of this living person.
People, if you dont F*ucking like the guy, fine. Get on the intertubz and tell the whole world...put please keep you crappy little shots off of wikipedia...like adding those silly advert tags. What a bunch of children. I challenge anyone here to find advertisement material or promotional wording.210.5.75.10 (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)