Talk:DreamHost

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.

Contents

[edit] Magazine

I have tagged this page as it uses peacock terms such as, but not limited to; DreamHost hosts over 540,000 domain names (16th-ranked web host in the world, 12th-ranked web host in the United States) and DreamHost is notable for being unusually transparent about its business practices. I think the article needs a general proof read to remove the peacock terms - Wardhog 19:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the unwarranted tag. The information about the number of domains hosted is completely consistent with articles on other hosting companies. Furthermore, it is because of DreamHost's weird transparency that the company is notable, and thus warrants the article in the first place. You have made many edits to the DreamHost article, and none of them have added value to it. -- Scjessey 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not want to remove anything from this article. I was simply saying that some of it needs to be rephrased - Wardhog 15:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previous AfDs

[edit] non-censorship policy

I added the following which was subsequently reverted:

__________________

For instance, DreamHost hosts a websight called "redwatch" which publishes names, addresses, photos and other personal data of human rights activists in order to encourage violent attacks against them. According to Indymedia.org, on May 16 2006, an antifascist activist was followed, attacked and nearly killed in Warsaw after his personal data appeared on this sight.

Consequently, a post on the DreamHost forum, from "the main person who handles these sorts of issues", states:

"... we have a long and cooperative relationship with law enforcement. Upon receiving complaints regarding the legality of a given site we investigate it internally, calling upon law enforcement in situations where we feel that it is warranted. The nature of such investigations is such that we are often unable to comment on their status or provide details on what is going on behind the scenes.

As for this case in particular, I can only say this: We're aware of the site, and of the concerns and facts surrounding the recent incidents in Poland. If any of you can provide us with additional information that could be of use, please don't hesitate to let us know. Beyond that, though, I'm afraid that we cannot comment on this matter any further."

__________________

The reason given is "Revert, the specific sites DreamHost hosts (as mentioned before, over 260,000 domains) are not subject for this article".

So, which article is the relevant place for this information ? Surely there should be a link to the relevant place ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heysan (talk • contribs) .

Apologies. I'd meant to note that it might fit better in the Redwatch article. Of course, others there may disagree — I can't say for sure. jareha (comments) 18:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The information is better suited to the Redwatch article, although I'd argue it is ludicrous to single-out DreamHost for specific mention. There are thousands of web hosts, many more popular and well-known, that host material that is similar to this. -- Scjessey 19:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I certainly did not mean to single out DreamHost as a particular offender. But I think it is better if there is some mention of the fact that a non-cencorship policy of this sort has possibly directly facilitated a violent crime.--Heysan 20:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, and also I think your argument makes no sense at all. Should the Wikipedia mention that AT&T/Verizon/Cingular/whatever have possibly directly facilitated a violent crime because the alleged perpetrators have used telephones to communicate with each other? What about GM/Ford/Chrysler/VW/whatever for building the vehicles that allow perpetrators to travel to the locations where the crimes are committed? What about the internet service providers? Should they be mentioned because they failed to block access to the website in question? In all seriousness, the involvement (if it can even be called that) of DreamHost in the activities of Redwatch is completely irrelevant, and not worthy of mention in this (or any) Wikipedia article. -- Scjessey 21:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Scjessey. A pen can be a tool to write with; it can also be used to jab someone in the eye. Does that, therefore, mean we should discuss the pitfalls of pen manufacturing on the BIC Corp. article? jareha (comments) 21:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the content because it is more pertinent to the debate of freedom of speech on the internet than it is to DreamHost. jareha (comments) 21:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I think your examples of the pens, vehicles, and telephones are not comparable to the current situation. The fact is that DreamHost itself will block an illegal site -- infact, as I quoted before, they will, "Upon receiving complaints regarding the legality of a given site ... investigate it internally, calling upon law enforcement in situations where we feel that it is warranted", a responsible position to be sure; while pen, vehicle and telephone manufacturers do not nead to take such a position. Why is that ? I think it is because, unlike your examples, DreamHost is in a position where the legality of the sites it hosts might come into question.
For the sake of this argument, lets assume that DreamHost is advised to block the site because it violates their own policy prohibiting illegal sites. Then is it worth pointing out that in the interim, they hosted a site which facilitated a violent crime ? Now, from your comments, I assume you find the phrase 'facilitated a violent crime' too broad to be reasonably applied, but my point is that why else is DreamHost legally obliged to remove the content ? That is, to test whether a party 'facilitated a violent crime', or (the clunkier) 'possibly directly facilitated a violent crime' seems simple: are they legally obliged to take responsibility for their action (of hosting the site)? If they are legally obliged, then I would say that they did, in this case, facilitate a violent crime.
I have a related query: the article previously stated that "There is, for example, no barrier to "adult" sites, or sites that state extremist views." I changed this to "For instance, they do not allow the hosting of child pornography or death threats. On the other hand, for example, there is no barrier to "adult" sites, or sites that state extremist views." Why was this reverted ? At least there should be a link, under the heading non-cencorship policy, to an article discussing the meaning, consequences, and debate of such a policy.--Heysan 00:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the protocol at his point ? Do I add to the article my suggested link, or wait for some sort of consensus from those involved in this discussion ? --Heysan 16:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
There is already a consensus that your proposed additions are inappropriate. In fact, I think the "Non-Censorship Policy" section should be removed as well. -- Scjessey 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I think what we have now is a fair compromise, Scjessey — no need to remove the "non-censorship policy" section. jareha (comments) 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did expect a response to my last comments -- its a bit disingenuous to stop a discussion midway. --Heysan 17:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't responded because I'm sure neither of us will budge on our opinions. I've said my piece, you've said yours. I disagree with your opinion, but you're free to hold it.
Also, I didn't notice you'd requested to add a link. How about linking censorship? jareha (comments) 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
How about freedom of speech on the internet as someone suggested earlier ?--Heysan 19:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I suggested that link earlier. Works for me. jareha (comments) 20:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Neutrality

[edit] Biased Article

I think the promotions section isn't very good. First off, every hosting company that has a referral program has spammers and dissatisfied customers. Specifically mentioning it on the DreamHost page and not on other pages for web hosts is unfair. If you look at the Godaddy page, you'll find nothing about spammers or dissatisfied customers. Also, there are things under Promotions that have nothing to do with promotions.

In addition, why bother mentioning the control panel? Every webhost has a control panel! The points made are someone's opinion and don't relate to Dreamhost as a subject.

I think the first two paragraphs before Promotions along with a few things from the sections below it are more than enough for a good, fair article about Dreamhost. -- Sleepy Sentry

I totally agree with Sleepy Sentry's assessment about promotions. I think there is evidence that disgruntled and former customers are shaping the article more than they should be. In the matter of the Control Panel, I do feel its uniqueness is worth mentioning. I think it stands head and shoulders above cPanel, and its uniqueness makes it less of a security vulnerability too. Note to Sleepy Sentry: Please sign your comments with four tilde characters (~~~~) -- Scjessey 15:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Supporting information re: control panel: Ours is a one of a kind, developed in-house and improved over the course of the 7 years we've been in business. Some people love it, a few don't, but the fact that we don't use the everyday cPanel or similar is noteworthy to anyone who wants to know more about DreamHost. -- 66.92.39.177 19:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding external links

Added [http://dhstatus.com unofficial dreamhost status] site to Dreamhost page, but it was removed... who decides what goes on the dreamhost page? is that site just not cool/useful enough or what? thx, 70.56.68.135 19:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

External links must follow Wikipedia guidelines, and such decisions are made by the Wikipedia community, or (if necessary) by Wikipedia administrators. The site in question did not add significant value to the article, and appeared to be designed mostly for the owner's personal enrichment (AdSense everywhere). -- Scjessey 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement

I don't know if it's just me, but this article sounds pretty advert-ish to me, only stating that "DreamHost does this, DreamHost does that", without any criticism, and no real sources — the only "sources" (besides the statistics) are DreamHost's own public announcements which are naturally not reliable sources.

Back when I left DreamHost, there was a lot of grumbling about their excessive overselling, although I don't think any published research has actually touched this topic. I will admit leaving DreamHost partly due to their reliability and other problems, so I will not be bold in doing this. But would anyone mind if the fluff was removed and the article stubbified? -- intgr 16:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is purely descriptive, and free from any "fluff" I can see. It isn't really any different from other hosting companies on the Wikipedia. Although not a particularly long article, I think there is more than enough information to justify the absence of a stub tag. -- Scjessey 17:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
"Stubbifying" is the process of turning an article into a stub, e.g., removing content. -- intgr 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The article is "descriptive", but there is no basis for saying that the content is notable, given that no reliable sources are cited. For example, there is no way that we can say that they actually respect their "no-censorship" policy, etc — as far as I can tell, this conflicts with the verifiability policy. -- intgr 20:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I know what stubbifying is, but I don't think it should happen. What information is currently presented in the article is relevant and important, with the possible exception of the "press coverage" section (which I am tempted to remove). I totally disagree with you about the notability of the content, and I cannot see how you could get a more reliable source of information about company facts than the company itself. -- Scjessey 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that the company itself is notable (for its unusual transparency, its weird control panel, etc.), but what the company does (web hosting) is not. -- Scjessey 20:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
We have no way of knowing (verifying) whether the company's advertisements are actually true, and it cannot be reliable since their interest is to promote their service, not to provide neutral information. Please refer to WP:RS. -- intgr 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any "advertisements" in the article. The business data (ownership, services offered, etc.) is a matter of public record (like any other business). Their status as a registrar is also verifiable (see ICANN list of accredited registrars). -- Scjessey 20:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would remove the "Non-censorship policy" section — the "DreamHost does not censor the content" claim is clearly unverifiable at this point.

The rest of the article indeed isn't bad, which I perceived differently yesterday. But I would also remove the "A new version of the panel was deployed on March 1, 2007." statement which is useless, and section titles, since the article has too little content to warrant them IMO. I also agree that the only link under "Press Coverage" is useless. -- intgr 09:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've nixed those things that you have mentioned. -- Scjessey 11:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! -- intgr 21:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BBB

There is no reason at all to put a link to a BBB study on an article for a business. The BBB ratings misrepresent companies because they are based solely on complaints. Attempts to add BBB links (when spotted) are usually removed, as per WP:EXT. -- Scjessey 12:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to question your ability to write a neutral article on this subject. Do you have any potential conflicts of interest? While I can understand removing a sole external link under WP:EXT, the removal of the referenced text which I've added is clearly not governed by that guideline. DreamHost has been the subject of many complaints, and their rating with the BBB has been the subject of much talk. I don't see any reason not to include this information, and I think to not include it would be extremely biased. If you have a problem with the BBB this article is not the place to discuss that. They are a highly respected organization and qualify as a reliable source on the number of unanswered complaints received about an organization. anthony 12:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The article is completely neutral, and simply presents basic company information and explains what the company does. There is evidence of POV in the article. Each piece of information given is properly cited. DreamHost has not been the subject of many complaints from a relative standpoint, and you cannot cite any statistic that will prove otherwise. The only person who feels the article is biased is you, and WP:NPOV guidelines explain that your opinion in the matter is not sufficient to warrant the neutrality tag. If you look back in Wikipedia's history, you will see numerous examples of BBB links being removed from company-related articles - almost all of which are to do with editors having an axe to grind with the company in question -- Scjessey 13:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Please read the comments from others above. I am not the only person who feels this article is biased. You are an affiliate of Dreamhost and you have inserted your biased opinion into this article from the start, ignoring multiple people who have suggested a lack of balance and edit warring over anything which suggests a critical point of view. Please read over WP:COI and think very long and hard about whether or not you should be contributing to this article at all. anthony 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It appears you have failed to grasp the essence of WP:COI. No conflict of interest occurs in this instance because my contributions/additions/removals from the article have all been in the interest of a neutral point of view. The negative comments on this page of all come from individuals who definitely do have a conflict of interest, because they feel they have been slighted by the company in some way. Your own motivation remains unclear. I won't be reverting your last edit because I'd rather not violate WP:3RR. Also, please don't confuse Wikipedia guidelines with Wikipedia policy. -- Scjessey 14:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
A google search for "dreamhost jessey" yields the quote "I don’t know anyone who preaches Dreamhost more than Simon Jessey." And that from a fellow DreamHost supporter. WP:COI applies regardless of whether or not you think you're contributing neutral information. My motivation is to present an informative, well-balanced article. I don't make money off DreamHost, and I don't make money off any competitor either. I've never been slighted by the company, and in fact I've never used their hosting service at all. I have absolutely no conflict of interest, and my comments are merely factual, not negative nor positive. I hope we can work together to create a balanced article, but reverting anything which you feel is negative is not the way to do so. anthony 14:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, you don't understand the essence of WP:COI, and you appear to be struggling with the concept of neutrality as well. I'm not opposed to any article with a balanced point of view, but adding a misleading BBB link will skew the currently balanced article into a negative position. Remember that the BBB link would not be appropriate for any article about a company. I'm not sure what your agenda is, but by briefly looking at the history of your contributions I see that you are no stranger to controversial editing. -- Scjessey 15:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Scjessey in that it is the *article* that is subject to WP:NPOV considerations. You surely are not suggesting that anyone with an opinion should not be allowed to edit a Wikipedia page! We all have opinions, but good editors are able to contribute without allowing those opinions to encroach upon the neutrality of the article. Given the clear statement in WP:COI that edits should be constrained "where your close connection to the subject may cause a conflict between your agenda and Wikipedia's goal of producing a neutral encyclopedia", one should evaluate the applicability of WP:COI based on the contents of the article in question. I have reviewed the article repeatedly, and see no non-neutral statements in it and no reflection of any "pro-DreamHost" bias. In fact, the only "neutrality" issue I see at all is the attempt to link the BBB into the article. As the BBB is a purely commercial interest in its own right, whith its own financial interests and motivations to encourage companies' membership and participation, reference to the BBB's relationship with, or rating of, *any* company should be suspect from a neutrality and POV standpoint. The argument that Scjessey's support of DreamHost or his "affiliate" status, absent any demonstrable bias in the article, is a strawman. I agree with him that the BBB verbiage is inappropriate in the article, and as *that* seems to be the basis for your neutrality tag, I disagree that the tag is proper and have removed it. -- Rlparker 16:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
And what is your bias, Rlparker? Your only contribution at all to the encyclopedia was the edit you just made on DreamHost. anthony 17:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
That looks rather like a personal attack to me. -- Scjessey 17:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
C'mon, it didn't take much searching to reveal that both you and rlparker are both admins of wiki.dreamhost.com. Pointing out that fact and questioning the bias of an editor doesn't seem to me to be a personal attack. anthony 17:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe I have a bias, though I'd be happy to entertain and/or consider any discussion of bias you would like to allege. You can allege "bias of an editor" all you want, but you have yet to indicate where you think bias is evident in the article. I And, yes, that edit *was* my first Wikipedia participation; every person who participates here has to have a "first edit". Unfortunately, it looks as though I chose mine to be one where some kind of emotional knee-jerk is in play. Your comment is without foundation, non-responsive to the discussion in which it was posted, and frankly, just childish. Given that, and the lack of logic you have evidenced in this whole POV/COI/neutralilty issue with this article, I can only assume you have some deeper agenda than the quality of the article and you are certainly entitled to that agenda; you are not, however, entitled to detract from the quallity of the article in furtherance of it. To simply tag the article COI in response to my removal of NPOV tag is less than productive and demonstrate an unwillingness opn your part to engage in serious dialog with those that disagree with you. I've already stated, as has Scjessey that it is the *article* that should be free of COI and should maintain NPOV. I cannot find any evidence of COI in the article and, therefore, would have reverted your adding of that tag had another editor not already done so. As a courtesy to a Wkipedia newbie who is trying to take seriously the social contract in play here, would you please respond in this talk page with some discussion or indication of where in the article you feel that COI or lack of NPOV is in evidence before re-adding either tag? BTW, thanks for the intelligent and productive welcome to WIkipedia! -- Rlparker 17:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, everyone has a first edit on Wikipedia, but that first edit is usually not to revert an edit for an associate who just ran up against the three revert rule. It's usually not to revert a neutrality dispute tag from an article on a subject of which you have a strong bias. It's usually not too say that you agree with someone who you already know and work together with on another site, a site which in fact is used to promote the very product which the article you're discussing is about. anthony 18:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess there is something to be said for being "unusual", though I continue to reject the premise that I have a "strong bias", or any bias at all, merely by virtue of the fact that I have an online acquaintance with someone I agree with; I also have online acquaintances with whom I disagree. You seem to have a misunderstanding about the nature of the DreamHost Wiki and Jessey and my association with it. The site does not exist to promote DreamHost, rather it serves as a community resource for DreamHost, and DreamHost users, to document the use of the service. I am not an employee of DreamHost, nor is Jessey. We are merely customers who are active on that community resource wiki and who serve that community with limited Sysop privileges on that wiki. -- Rlparker 19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the reason I added the COI tag is because Jessey, who has substantially contributed to the article, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter. anthony 18:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand that clearly enough, yet still fail to understand why you feel that is a valid position to take, absent any demonstrable effect of such alleged COI on the article other than the BBB issue (which I have already addressed and reject as being driven by any COI). -- Rlparker 19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Once again I feel I must point out that you do not understand what the Wikipedia's guideline on Conflict of Interest actually is. As a customer of DreamHost, I am in a position to provide information about the company that a non-customer cannot. None of my contributions have been biased in favor of the company, which is properly represented in a neutral manner as the article stands. If I was to use my status to add a biased POV, I would be in breach of the guideline. I did not do this. That is why your COI tag is unwarranted.
Incidentally, I must ask why this is so important to you? As I understand it you are in Florida, correct? Why should you care what the Los Angeles Better Business Bureau thinks about any Los Angeles-based company? Do you have some history with DreamHost, or did you mysteriously stumble upon the article and then specifically seek a BBB report on it? Your actions indicate a clear personal agenda. -- Scjessey 18:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Being a customer of DreamHost is one thing. Running a website which "is basically the DreamHost Web Hosting manual" is another. Running an affiliate site which profits off getting people to subscribe to DreamHost is yet another. It was Jessey's overprotective behavior which first led me to suspect a conflict of interest. It was his affiliate site which sealed the deal in my mind.
I ran across this article when I was looking for information on DreamHost. I ran across the BBB report while doing a google search on the company. anthony 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is a guideline that suggests all corporation articles need a BBB link, I don't understand why this article would need one? (Disclosure: I am a customer, but I'm often unimpressed with the reliability (particularly of the mail servers). Though ya gets what ya pay for, and I'm on the cheapest plan.) --Quiddity 18:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DreamHost in particular had a problem with the BBB, received an F rating, which was later raised to a B, and has been lowered to CCC in the last few days. I'm not sure if the link is relevant for all companies, but it is relevant for this one. anthony 18:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Any company that does not participate with the BBB in addressing BBB generated complaints will experience the same history. DreamHost has, at various times, both been a BBB member, and has not been a BBB member. Your attitude about the relevance of a company's BBB experience evidences a lack of appreciation of the nature of the BBB (as a profit-making organization with it's own business interests to protect and enhance)and a limited understanding of how BBB ratings are assigned (there is a lot of information on that at the BBB site). It is erroneous to assume that the BBB is an "authority" that is in any way objective in nature. Some consider the BBB, and it's marketing and publicity tactics, to be little more than thinly veiled attempts to extort membership and participation from businesses. For these considerations alone, BBB ratings are highly suspect by many. This only enhances the argument that BBB ratings should not be included in *any* "corporation article" unless, as a matter of policy, they are included in *all* corporation article. To do otherwise could be construed as unfairly maligning corporations that do not do business with the BBB, or have had sporadic business relationships with the BBB, and therefore have less favorable ratings from the BBB for problem resolution. -- Rlparker
No it isn't. The BBB rating was the result of an actual campaign by a handful of disgruntled customers, and has no bearing on the real credibility of the company itself.
Running a website which "is basically the DreamHost Web Hosting manual" is another. Running an affiliate site which profits off getting people to subscribe to DreamHost is yet another.
I'm not sure what you are referring to there. I am a customer who contributes to the DreamHost Wiki (I don't "run" it, although I was made a "sysop" of it to help weed out vandalism). I don't have any "affiliate site" of any kind. In any case, neither would affect my ability to edit Wikipedia impartially, as I have done on hundreds of articles. -- Scjessey 19:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't reporting on the credibility of the company itself, merely on the BBB rating. Do you deny that http://jessey.net/dreamhost/ is yours? You have made numerous positive comments regarding the hosting site all over the place. I'm sure you can edit Wikipedia impartially on hundreds of other articles, just not this particular article. anthony 19:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Er... that is a web page, not a website. Are you aware of the difference? It has nothing to do with my ability to be impartial on this article. As I said, some of the information on the article can only be provided by a customer. If you are going to report on the BBB rating, you might wish to consider how totally biased that organization is before you refer to one of their reports. Consider Better Business Bureau#Criticisms -- Scjessey 19:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Neither Jessey nor I "run" the DreamHost Wiki. It is operated by DreamHost, and we participate in its operation in the same way any wiki editor with sysop privileges participates in any other wiki. While I do not do so myself, I don't believe that the posting of an affiliate link on a site equates to "running an affiliate site". Personally, I do not utilize DH affiliate linking for reasons I have discussed at length on the DreamHost forums, but use of such links by an editor does not automatically make his edits tainted by COI or non-NPOV. The article should stand on its own merits, and I, and apparently others, believe this one does stand on it's own merits and is absent evidence of COI and respectful of NPOV. It is disingenuous, particularly in light of others comments on the subject, to assume and/or insist that the only reason anyone would feel the BBB reference should not be in the article is because of COI or to somehow extrapolate that into an argument concerning NPOV. You may ahve "sealed the deal" in your own mind, but you haven't articulated here how you felt the article was impacted improperly. -- Rlparker 19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I haven't been clear enough on this. Let's look at some other questionable edits by Jessey. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. You say the link to the BBB is inappropriate because we don't link to the BBB for all companies. What about webhosting.info? Do we link to that for all webhosting sites? A link to a BBB site is perfectly appropriate and neutral. Dreamhost's current rating is actually a good rating, and it's up to the reader to weigh the importance of that rating. It certainly is significant, the BBB is one of the oldest and most respected sources for this sort of information in the United States. The criticisms section linked to doesn't even mention any concerns over the rating system. The entire Control Panel section of this article is original research and should be sourced from reliable sources or removed. The links Jessey added to websites where he is an administrator were added inappropriately. This article needs major attention and it should be tagged in a way to attract it. anthony 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, let's see here. Direct links to the company's own(ed) websites versus a completely irrelevant BBB link? Why is it irrelevant you ask? Well first, this wiki article in itself tells a reader about the basics of Dreamhost's services and provides links to the company's website(s) that would allow them to investigate the contents of the article in more detail if they were interested. The BBB link on the other hand is not referenced at ALL in the main article, making it irrelevant in that aspect, and further it doesn't add consistency to the rest of the article *if* there were even actual information regarding the link to DreamHost's BBB rating. While I will agree with you that the Webhosting.info links are quite similar to the BBB link in that they really add nothing useful to the article itself, I'd say the BBB link provides even less usable information in that, as Scjessey has already pointed out, the BBB ratings are entirely biased in consideration of the fact that the BBB doesn't provide for positive feedback, only negative and thus a company's rating is subjective. I really don't see point in further discussion on this topic unless someone not affiliated with both DreamHost and yourself can comment. And yes, I am likewise a DreamHost customer, though not nearly as long as Scjessey or Rlparker so perhaps I can provide slightly less "bias" in this discussion, but I'd really prefer to see someone outside of both comment to hopefully completely resolve this debate. Madmousee 20:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The BBB link on the other hand is not referenced at ALL in the main article Only because Jessey took out the references. I agree with you that there is not much more to say until someone unaffiliated with DreamHost and myself come in. That was actually my purpose in adding the neutral template. Frankly, I don't care that much about the link - my main problem is that various editors have managed to take everything out of this article which is remotely critical, and have left in things which are not sourced by reliable sources. anthony 00:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
All of those edits involved correcting inaccurate information and removing POV material from the article. These edits were performed in complete harmony with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm sorry that my efforts to make the article neutral and informative don't fit in with your clear personal agenda. And what kind of "attention" do you mean? It appears that you want to add criticism of DreamHost in an attempt to balance out some sort of perceived bias that doesn't really exist. Jimbo Wales himself wrote, "And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, [criticism sections] are a symptom of bad writing. That is, 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." The Control Panel section is not "original research". It is just brief description of fact that I only had a small part in writing. -- Scjessey 20:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and don't edit or move around other people's comments. That's a severe breach of Wikipedia guidelines. -- Scjessey 20:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI

Conflict of Interest tag removed, there is little, if any way for there to be a conflict of interest in this article, it contains only easily-verifiable facts and references. Arkiedragon 17:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that summary, except for the section on the "Control Panel", which needs sourcing (of notability) or removal. --Quiddity 18:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The panel is notable for being proprietary, and not cPanel like everyone else uses. It is not possible to cite the information because only customers can access the panel. -- Scjessey 21:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not possible to cite the information because only customers can access the panel. If someone wrote about the panel in a reliable source, then you can cite that. If not, then I don't think it should be included, precisely because only customers can access the panel. anthony
There is a page in their site describing the panel. *Dan T.* 01:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some changes

Just made some edits to the article to clean it up.

  • removed redundant text about being an ICANN-accredited domain name registrar
  • cut out non-sourced description of control panel
  • removed link to staff blog which seems to be unrelated to company other than being made by staff
  • removed description of discussion forum which seemed to be inaccurate and poorly worded
  • removed link to unofficial dreamhost blog - there are hundreds of blogs discussing dreamhost and no apparent reason this one gets a link
  • consolodated into one section - having multiple sections for one or two sentences and a TOC was overkill
  • other minor rewording (fixed a run-on sentence, etc.)

anthony 15:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I have performed a significant rewrite of the article.

  • Added more information about some of the notable aspects of the company
  • Restored some of the important information deleted without consensus
  • Restored link to staff blog due to reference in Notoriety section
  • Split up text into logical sections - necessary following the addition of new information
  • Tidied up the (now longer) references section with refs template
  • Restored screenshot thumbnail that had been removed without consensus

The new version of the article mirrors the style used by articles for similar companies in related businesses. -- Scjessey 17:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The edits of Wardhog

I placed this on Wardhog's talk page, which was immediately deleted, after reverting and edit where an entire section was deleted without discussion:

I have reverted your recent edit to DreamHost. You deleted an entire (and significant) section without first discussing it on the talk page and seeking a consensus for the change. The paragraph you removed refers to the company's "disastrous power outage", so calling it "advertising" is illogical. You will find all sections of the article are properly cited. -- Scjessey 20:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wardhog immediately, and without offering any rationale, reinserted a NPOV tag. This I also reverted. -- Scjessey 20:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change

This article has too many short chapters. I think it should be reviewed. Have a look at this - Pheonix 21:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability

I'm seeing a lot of comments from two extremes, some saying that Dreamhost is very good and reliable, and others saying that it's crap. IMHO, if a hosting provider has an article here on the Wikipedia, readers should be able to get the real story. As it stands, what is the final word here: is Dreamhost a good, reliable host or not? How does it compare to say, Siteground? Bill Jacobs 11:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not for Wikipedia to pass judgment or give opinions on anything, let alone on a service like this. Wikipedia must present only verifiable facts in a neutral point-of-view, which this article does. -- Scjessey 15:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
If that's the case, then what makes this particular host notable enough for a Wikipedia entry? As it stands, the fact that an entry exists when none exist for most providers out there (including some of the oldest), makes it appear that this host is one of the very best. How many other web hosts have an article here? Bill Jacobs 16:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The notability of DreamHost is discussed in the article. The unusual transparency and large customer base makes the company noteworthy enough for an article. The article does not make DreamHost "appear one of the very best" at all. Many other notable web hosts have articles, including GoDaddy, Yahoo, Network Solutions, eNom, Register.com, etc. -- Scjessey 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Notability is established by what the company does, not by their customer service track or reliability. GreenJoe 18:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I hate to be one of those guys, but I have an overriding suspicion that some of the folks here are involved with DreamHost in some way, whether as employees or customers. I have to tell you, I've been finding a lot of bad reviews of DreamHost and nothing has been posted here about concerning such incredible negativity. As my original post states, people seem to either love or hate this host, *but* the more I search the more negative I'm finding than positive. Bill Jacobs 20:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
How you "feel" about the article, or the company, is not really relevant. As I have stated before, the article is about a notable web hosting company. All information in the article is verified and cited, and presented with a neutral point-of-view. Incidentally, you are always going to find more negative publicity than positive publicity. That is the nature of publicity. -- Scjessey 21:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Please try to assume good faith, and check out the notability guidelines. Scjessey is right. Bad publicity generates more bad publicity. GreenJoe 21:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Dreamhost's reliability sucks, but until that fact is brought to light by independent verifiable sources, you can't really put it in the article. --Neurophyre(talk) 20:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] referral system

Is there a reason behind why nothing about their referral system is mentioned? It's a fairly unique and successful strategy that's helped them a lot on the way, its way of bringing advertising for Dreamhost to the grassroots of the internet is quite notable if you ask me. EditorInTheRye 23:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Please leave personal attacks at the door. Thank you. J 04:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Only positive content allowed?

How come that GreenJoe keeps removing factual negative information about the company that can save many of its customers from being ripped off and then slaps me with a warning? To me it looks like GreenJoe is being paid to do so. This appears to be strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamripoff (talk • contribs) 04:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

1. It violates our neutrality policy.
2. You fail to cite sources. J 04:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the source http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=598172. It was properly cited as #14 in the list. Neutrality and positivity are difference things. I simply state the fact that they have one thing written in their marketing and help wiki and the other in fine print in Terms and Conditions. You can see it is a far from isolated case if you bother to check the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamripoff (talk • contribs)

The problem is, sources must be reliable, and web forums are not reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specific Editor Potential Conflict of Interest

Suggestions of potential bias have already been made. This is to add additional specific details. Contrary to Meat Puppet recruiting prohibitions, Scjessey did exactly that. Rlparker's limited appearance here may have been a result.

http://discussion.dreamhost.com/showthreaded.pl?Cat=0&Board=forum_offtopic&Number=44424

In my opinion, a review of this page editing history shows a systematic bias. As receiver of financial benefits from DreamHost's rewards program and an Administrator of DreamHost's wiki, Scjessey should recuse himself from further editing of this page. Guantanamo247 06:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

All Dreamhost customers are (at least potentially) able to receive benefits from Dreamhost's rewards program. Do you really want to restrict all of them from editing, which would exclude most people with knowledge and familiarity with the subject? *Dan T.* 13:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Rewards participation or other financial ties to Dreamhost success is one consideration. If they also actively recruit voters contrary to guidelines, are appointed to an authority position in a Dreamhost operation like Administrator of their wiki, and demonstrate systematic bias in editing, then they should probably also recuse themselves due to COI. Guantanamo247 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You have created a new user name so that you can conduct a personal vendetta against me. Very Wikipedian of you. You are seeing conflicts of interest and conspiracies where none exist. -- Scjessey 13:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The financial rewards for Dreamhost customers (I'm one myself) come only when people follow an affiliate-coded link or enter an affiliate offer code tied to that particular user. As long as we're vigilant to keep out attempted spam of these things into the article, nobody will profit from it. *Dan T.* 14:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Dan, Please consider the examples: Financial interests, Promotion, Close Relationships, and Campaigning. Affiliate links or codes are simple and blatant. This regards a more broad systematic COI influencing this article. A specific example. We all know 500,000 domains is not the same as 500,000 FTP accounts; there were probably much fewer than 50,000 FTP accounts. Yet the article says "less than 1%" of accounts were compromised, when it could have been "nearly 10%," or not imply 500,000 FTP accounts. Scjessey, please don't change the title again of my comment. Guantanamo247 14:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The facts are these:
  1. I have no financial interest in DreamHost other than small earnings from being an affiliate, along with tens of thousands of other customers. You will not find any example of my affiliate code anywhere except on my own website, and on the DreamHost forum.
  2. I have no "close relationship" with DreamHost. I agreed to be a sysop of their wiki to help purge it of spam and vandalism, and to try to improve the quality of articles.
  3. The "specific example" you refer to is a cited quote from DreamHost, and has nothing to do with me.
Finally, please do not use my user name in a page heading. This is not an acceptable Wikipedia practice and it is clearly an example of a personal attack. -- Scjessey 18:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The COI factors are a matter of degree and judgment. It is good for you to disclose your extensive posting of affiliate codes and links. Fact - you are an active Dreamhost promoter, for reasons including financial rewards. Fact - Of thousands of customers, you are one of 2 now acting on behalf of Dreamhost as Administrators of their wiki. Relative to most customers or wikipedia editors, this is a very close relationship. Fact - the quote has to do with your editing because you added it; referencing company news releases should not prevent one from using common sense. Guantanamo247 18:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "Scjessey did exactly that. Rlparker's limited appearance here may have been a result." - Well if Scjessey was recruiting meatpuppets with that forum post, it doesn't appear to have been very effective. I don't remember having even seen that (though I probably did, as I do hang put on that forum quite a lot).
That post was most certainly not what prompted me to post on this talk page, and I think that is pretty clearly evidenced by the fact that it was made over a year prior to my posting (14 months or so?). I stand by my earlier comments on this page regarding COI, and am still waiting for someone to point out any demonstrated bias in the *contents of the article* as opposed to simply taking personal issue with Scjessey -- Rlparker 19:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The Meat Puppet policy says, "It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate." Advertising this article to solicit support was explicitly done by Scjessey before, he just did similar implicit advertising in a posting again. And here you are again.
I gave a specific bias example above, regarding minimizing the significance of 3500 compromised accounts. For more details, First, Scjessey attempted deletion of the discussion criticising the panel, but that was objected to by another editor. Coincidentally (?), this occurred around the same time Michael-co-owner of DreamHost posted, "I noticed that the wikipedia article for dreamhost refers to our panel pretty negatively." This has the appearance of doing the owner's bidding, and COI. Subsequently, Scjessey moved the criticism to the end (less prominent), and added "(less than 1%)", based on faulty logic as I explained above.
Many more examples of biasing the article are available.
As for more general bias in the article, without identifying particular editors responsible, this article reads like an advertisement. 9 of 16 "Reference" links are in essence Dreamhost press releases (links to Dreamhost controlled sites). 5 of 5 "external links" are to Dreamhost sites. Guantanamo247 01:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Your arguments are based on a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. It is perfectly legitimate to refer to press releases for confirmation of offered services, and these services are presented in a descriptive and non-biased way. Your "evidence" of biased edits are just examples of where I have removed POV text from the article, in full accordance with W:NPOV. I take offense at your suggestion that I "do DreamHost's bidding", when all I am trying to do is maintain article accuracy and a neutral point of view. As I have said before, your accusations are baseless and obviously predicated on some sort of personal dislike for me. I shall not offer any further comment on this matter. -- Scjessey 12:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
COI in your edits in this article was previously suspected and questioned by others. I am aware enough of Wikipedia's problems with biased information in general, and editing history of this article in particular to bring new details for open consideration: repeated solicitation of support in Dreamhost's forums, and appearance of acting directly on the suggestion of Dreamhost owners - almost as their surrogate. The suggestion (recuse yourself, or at least take a less active role) is on the table. Let your ethics be your guide. Guantanamo247 18:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
My conscience is clean. -- Scjessey 18:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Billing issue

Everyone knows that this is a heated issue with customers of Dreamhost. Naturally, it should be documented, but you shouldn't attempt to spin the article with words that invoke emotions or scorn ("half-naked Josh"?). Let's keep it to the facts of the issue and not try to cast Dreamhost in a bad light by throwing in how many customers have reportedly lost money. Crazed Ewok | Talk 20:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The number of customers who have lost money seems like a verifiable, objective fact to me. If the facts cast Dreamhost in a bad light, isn't that just a side effect of the *truth*? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.231.28.58 (talk) 15:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Wtroopwept keeps adding uncited and undocumented original research regarding this billing issue, in violation of policy WP:NOR, and guidelines WP:WEASEL and WP:CITE, and essay WP:RECENTISM. The last edit adds a source which doesn't really support User:Wtroopwept's edits. I would argue that the entire section, and indeed the section on the 2007 FTP issues are not notable enough for the article in any case. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I'm unsure in this case. While Wikipedia is not a forum, Wikipedia is also censored. If we look at the Go Daddy article, it has very similar material in it. While we shouldn't compare to other stuff, I'd say it probably merits inclusion. It was a major blunder with major media coverage. GreenJoe 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "major media coverage", and this sort of issue is fairly common. Needless to say, my issue with the recent edits revolves around a change of emphasis from reporting the event to characterizing the event by deleting relevant information. Words in the section like "most" and "some" appear to violate WP:WEASEL, with a blog being used as a reference to back them up. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll agree with you on that. We don't want any weasel words, and certainly blogs are not a reliable source. GreenJoe 19:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) The material in my first edit was cited and documented and was not original research. (2) Any weasel wording was changed in my second edit. (3) Any issues of recentism stem from the fact that the event in question happened recently, not from over-emphasis. (4) That the event was the subject of coverage in several media outlets makes it clear to me that the event is notable. Even if this sort of issue is fairly common, this particular incident happened to get picked up in the media. (5) My edits added relevant information to the article; other recent reversions deleted relevant information from the article. (6) If blogs are going to be an unacceptable source for this article, we need to take a look at the material supported by citations 4, 8, 11 and 17, all of which appear to be blogs. Thanks and cheers. Wtroopwept (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, those references do need to be replaced. GreenJoe 21:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the need to change those references. One of the blog references is from the well-respected ZDNet site, and the others are from Josh Jones (DreamHost blog) himself, and are referred to in the article directly because they are the only reliable source available. It seems to me that it is more likely that Wtroopwept has personally suffered from this billing issue (or knows someone who has), and wants to make point. Please understand that the article in its current form reflects the company in a very negative light, which is in no way a reasonable depiction of the overall service the company provides. The issues described may have some historical relevance, but they are certainly too minor to warrant dedicated 2nd-level sections. And weasel words still exist: "Most users" is referenced by a piece in the Register that does not even contain the word "most". I recommend a complete re-write of the two issue sections. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
So find the article from ZDnet and reference it directly. He's right. Blogs fail WP:RS. You can't pick and choose which blogs you use to suit your needs. I agree, it does need a re-write. GreenJoe 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)