Talk:IUniverse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Nebraska, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Nebraska. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
[edit] Please do not whitewash this page
It appears that current management or those with vested interest are whitewashing the company history. Corporate history and management changes are relevant to the context of the company and its subsequent sale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ne-publishing-maven (talk • contribs) 13:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please read through my contribution history; I have no connection whatsoever to any of these companies, and I frequently scrub whitewashing off articles. I deleted the info that was unsourced and kept the information that was included in the one independent news source that I found. Since Driscoll is no longer CEO, there was no reason to include a photo. If we can adequately source the information about compensation and employees losing their jobs/iUniverse being completely dissolved (as the edits seemed to indicate to me), then the info should certainly be part of the article. If you are new to Wikipedia (and welcome if you are!), then you might want to take a look at a couple of policies/guidelines to see where I was editing (or trying to edit) from: reliable sources, Verifiability, conflict of interest and neutral point of view. Flowanda | Talk 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Flowanda, I appreciate your concern. However, much of the information being posted as it relates to the "scandal" cannot be cited as it is taken from anonymous insiders. I've attempted to cite as much as possible regrading a number of the subjects involved, but nevertheless there are things that are widely understood amongst employees at both organizations but are not reported publicly. The information is important to understand the context of the sale of the company.Ne-publishing-maven (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Material not verifiable using reliable sources (as we narrowly define them per the policies and guidelines Flowanda linked to above) is not allowed here. There's a lot in Wikipedia that's based on consensus and compromise but verifiability is not one of them -- it's a core policy. Also see our No Original Research Policy, another core policy applicable to this case. --A. B. (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then I'd seriously, and I am not being contrarian; I really *do* want to know, like to know how I can cite information gleaned from people involved with the issue but choose to remain anonymous. I have sources and I need to protect them. Their privacy is paramount!Ne-publishing-maven (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- That material just can't go in here until it surfaces in some sort of reliable source such as the mainstream news media. Sorry, it's our rules. As an "encyclopedia anyone can edit", it's a key safety feature to keep from getting overrun with hatchet jobs, conspiracy theories, urban legends, etc. --A. B. (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- That policy seems completely absurd. I can point out dozens upon dozens of Wikipedia articles that contain "insider" information that cannot be tracked back to a "mainstream news media" article. Good heavens! I use Wikipedia a lot, but if important, contextual information is getting removed out of the fear that it may become a "hatchet job", then what good is it? That's why the section was clearly labeled as "Scandal". I am more than happy to call it "Allegations of Scandal" or something else to signify that it's not verified. Regardless, the information is of extreme importance for those who are involved with iUniverse. I will circle back around with them and see if anybody is willing to go on the record, but even then I fear that the statements will be erased because it's not from "mainstream media". Additionally, who decides what is mainstream media and what is not? This is bordering on surreal... Ne-publishing-maven (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've included swfa.com's Writer Beware blog in other articles because it meets WP:RS requirements of a blog written by a known, authoritative source with editorial oversight, but there has been nothing recent in either WB or PW. Just adding quotes from sources "on the record" does not make them a reliable source -- their quotes need to be part of a published article. Secrecy is not anything that Wikipedia is about. It seems like this will be covered soon in "mainstream media"; for now there are other places more suited for breaking news than an encyclopedic article. Flowanda | Talk 18:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ne-publishing-maven, all the guidelines and policies we laid out cover this. Any questions of interpretation are addressed based on community consensus. There are other sorts of reliable sources besides mainstream media that can be cited -- see the guideline. I just mentioned mainstream media because that's what's most likely to be usable in this case.
- I've included swfa.com's Writer Beware blog in other articles because it meets WP:RS requirements of a blog written by a known, authoritative source with editorial oversight, but there has been nothing recent in either WB or PW. Just adding quotes from sources "on the record" does not make them a reliable source -- their quotes need to be part of a published article. Secrecy is not anything that Wikipedia is about. It seems like this will be covered soon in "mainstream media"; for now there are other places more suited for breaking news than an encyclopedic article. Flowanda | Talk 18:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- That policy seems completely absurd. I can point out dozens upon dozens of Wikipedia articles that contain "insider" information that cannot be tracked back to a "mainstream news media" article. Good heavens! I use Wikipedia a lot, but if important, contextual information is getting removed out of the fear that it may become a "hatchet job", then what good is it? That's why the section was clearly labeled as "Scandal". I am more than happy to call it "Allegations of Scandal" or something else to signify that it's not verified. Regardless, the information is of extreme importance for those who are involved with iUniverse. I will circle back around with them and see if anybody is willing to go on the record, but even then I fear that the statements will be erased because it's not from "mainstream media". Additionally, who decides what is mainstream media and what is not? This is bordering on surreal... Ne-publishing-maven (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- That material just can't go in here until it surfaces in some sort of reliable source such as the mainstream news media. Sorry, it's our rules. As an "encyclopedia anyone can edit", it's a key safety feature to keep from getting overrun with hatchet jobs, conspiracy theories, urban legends, etc. --A. B. (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then I'd seriously, and I am not being contrarian; I really *do* want to know, like to know how I can cite information gleaned from people involved with the issue but choose to remain anonymous. I have sources and I need to protect them. Their privacy is paramount!Ne-publishing-maven (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Material not verifiable using reliable sources (as we narrowly define them per the policies and guidelines Flowanda linked to above) is not allowed here. There's a lot in Wikipedia that's based on consensus and compromise but verifiability is not one of them -- it's a core policy. Also see our No Original Research Policy, another core policy applicable to this case. --A. B. (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Flowanda, I appreciate your concern. However, much of the information being posted as it relates to the "scandal" cannot be cited as it is taken from anonymous insiders. I've attempted to cite as much as possible regrading a number of the subjects involved, but nevertheless there are things that are widely understood amongst employees at both organizations but are not reported publicly. The information is important to understand the context of the sale of the company.Ne-publishing-maven (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- As for all the unsourced junk in Wikipedia, you're right, there's a ton of it. If you're not totally sick of reading Wikipedia rules, here's another page "Other stuff exists"; if you are fed up with reading guidelines and such (I would be), I'll summarize: the existence of junk elsewhere does not justify its retention in the article under discussion.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- PS All this talk of guidelines,etc. -- 90% of what a new editor needs to know can be found in the Simplified Ruleset. We've got over 200 guidelines and policies -- I doubt anyone's read them all, other than maybe Adrian Monk.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] extreme lack of professionalism
- I deleted this comment complaining about an experience with iUniverse. I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the writer's experience -- it's just that this is not the place for that sort of stuff. See What Wikipedia is Not and our Talk page guidelines for more information. --A. B. (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
