Talk:Etsy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 6 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 Archives |
| 1 |
Contents |
[edit] Why "Etsy"?
Does anyone know where the name ETSY comes from? It would be an interesting bit of information to have on here, as it is the main reason I came to this entry. -Sebastian notregistered http://www.sspeier.com
--- They refuse to tell anyone the origin of the name. The founder has referred to several different origins in different interviews and on the Etsy forums. One can only assume that it is meaningless. If it does have a meaningful origin, that is fairly irrelevant since it is only known to a few people. Therefore, for all intents and purposes it is a nonsense word. - Sand Moonie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandmoon (talk • contribs) 17:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Keep
i just came here to learn more about this site. wikipedia is generally the first place i like to go for this information so please do not delete 98.195.185.125 (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Put back information
Can we please put back the site features information?! They were deleted as spam by The Ringess but it's actually very important information for someone researching Etsy. The site has unique features from other sites, particularly its competitors, that would be information journalists or detractors would need for articles.
The Ringess, if you read this, please revert your changes! And do a little research before you mark something as spam. 216.166.236.226 (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Alicia P
The page omits any constructive reports concerning the site and its issues. Edits have been made to the page to remove informative issues concerning the site. This page reads as a press release and not an informative article concerning this company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EltheaRosa (talk • contribs) 06:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] External links
Hi TheRingess! What part of WP:NOT are you referring to? I'm going by Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked, which says we should include links to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail...or other reasons." Both EtsyWiki and Unofficial Etsy News fit those critera - the first because it has more detail than would be appropriate in this article, and the second because it's an updated news source. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry that it took me a while to get back to this. Please see Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. Wikis and blogs are listed as links normally to be avoided. I took a look at the Wiki link. It looked to be primarily personal success stories. It's also prominently linked to on the etsy website. It doesn't seem to be too helpful to include it here. It seems to be primarily of interest only to those who might wish to buy and sell on Etsy. We are not a how-to guide. Including it here doesn't improve the article, but possibly makes it less neutral as the wiki seems to be designed to promote Etsy. Also regarding the news link, once again this link can be found on the official site. The news link seems to consist primarily of press releases that promote Etsy, rather than independant articles (just my opinion) and including it here seems unnecessary at best and possibly promotional. It too is also available on the official Etsy website. Perhaps it's time for a third opinion. TheRingess (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I really don't understand at all why the Unofficial Etsy News link keeps getting removed. It is not linked to from Etsy because it is not part of Etsy - thus the 'unofficial' part of the name. I'm sure Etsy would prefer it not to be linked from here, but as I understand it that should have no bearing on what actually appears on this page. It is the only dedicated news source regarding Etsy which is not written by Etsy itself. While it is a blog, you might like to read a recent post about policy to better understand that top level posts are made up of verifiable information, while comments may contain editorial content and opinion: http://etsynews.com/619/an-editorial-from-your-friendly-uen-editors/ Sparkells (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The page reads as a promotion without any articles or links addressing issues concerning Etsy. The UEN link is one of those links but it seems as though there is an interest in making the article seem uninformative concerning relevant reports. It is also interesting that these links have a tendency to disappear quickly. (Elthea (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC))
I also do not understand why the link is removed. The Unofficial Etsy News is not linked to from Etsy, it is not full of press releases, in fact it is full of useful information culled from the forums that might otherwise be lost as those topics are buried by new topics! Maybe it is because it does not always show Etsy in a positive light? (````) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.209.251 (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that there is any hidden agenda to keep this a positive article. I wrote a lot of the text as it stands right now, and I do like Etsy but not that much. I don't even use it very often - I just thought it deserved a decent article. The reliable sources I found were generally positive about Etsy, so that's what I cited. There are a few editors who are very interested in keeping the External Links section pared down, however, no matter whether those links are positive or negative. HiDrNick, can you contribute with an explanation? In the meantime, I'll try to incorporate this recent news into the article itself. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of articles on Wikpedia that take into account controversy about a business' practices, or even additional sources of information. The eBay article includes THREE links to independent sites that write about eBay. The Unofficial Etsy News is the same. It should be kept in the external links section, and someone needs to stop acting like Wikipedia is strictly for company press releases.--Tashagirl (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that TheRingess has once again removed the UEN link from the Etsy article. Considering that The UEN is the source for another article written by The Consumerist, itself cited in the article, The UEN is clearly considered by others to be a valuable source for information about Etsy not readily (or at all) available from Etsy itself. On the Edits page, TheRingess refers to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS as his/her justification - implying, I guess, that the UEN is not a reliable source? Is Etsy itself the only reliable source about Etsy? As I said earlier, the eBay article includes THREE links to independent sites that write about eBay. This seems to be a clear attempt to keep any information other than corporate PR even offered as a link to article readers.Tashagirl (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tashagirl, since you're a little bit of a new editor, I'm not sure you saw TheRingess' response to your talk page question: User_talk:TheRingess#Etsy.com_entry. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to make a few points here. The main purpose of Wikipedia is to create an online free encyclopedia. It is not a forum, nor is it a how to guide, nor is it meant to replace search engines like google. Merely adding a link in an article does not improve that article. The only thing that improves an article is content that is verifiable and sourced. To that end, I keep adding the comment that the link is perfectly acceptable if it is used as a citation for material in the body of the article (as long as that material has been fact checked). Though as far as I can tell, this website contains primarily information of interest to the customers of Etsy and not material of interest to an average reader of an Encyclopedia. The website appears to be little more than a blog with multiple editors, with no written policy describing how/when/where the content on the website was checked for factual accuracy. Any comparison to other articles is irrelevant as each article and link should be considered on its own merit. At the ris of breaking one of Wikipedia's core policies, that of assuming good faith on the part of every contributor, the repeated addition of the link by contributors who've made no effort to contribute to other articles seems to be an attempt to drive traffic to that particular website. The community at large considers any attempt to use Wikipedia to drive traffic to a particular website to be spam and a misuse of the project. If you continue to disagree then I might suggest we pursue any one of the various avenues for calm dispute resolution that the community makes freely available. For instance we might start with a request for comment or if that isn't sufficient we might go to mediaton. With all that said, I encourage you to contribute content to the project in this article or any other article that might interest you, but please don't continue to simply add links in order to drive traffic to your site. Thanks.TheRingess (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time/effort to back up your position again, TheRingess! I've grown ambivalent about this link, but I hope we can all come to a consensus about it. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] geographical distribution
What is the geographical distribution of sellers and buyers? How many outside US? How many outside North America? How global is this? To what extent does it facilitate direct sales from underdeveloped areas directly to consumers in developed areas? Is it crafted items only, or also say foodstuffs like coffee, tea, and cacao (cocoa, chocolate)? -69.87.204.50 (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hand-made only?
The article is still just barely more than a stub -- please add more information.
The listings do seem to be mostly hand-crafted modern items. But some are modern commercial supplies. Some are older "vintage" commercial items. Most of the sellers seem to be in the US.
There is a feedback system, and completed items can still be viewed. But the price disappears. Is there any way to find out how much items actually sell for? How do sellers set prices? How do buyers research what is a fair price to pay? Selling prices seem fixed. Is there a way to negotiate? How often is this done?
How much of the transactions go through PayPal? What problems are there with this, since PayPal is owned by the competitor Ebay? What sources are available comparing how big ebay, etsy, and any other top category players are? -69.87.204.50 (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Those are all great questions. If anybody can track down sources, I'll happily add this stuff to the article. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
