Talk:MacHeist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 20 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 6 July 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

The article is tagged as not citing its sources and is also tagged to having too many external links. I agree that there are a lot of external links, but I currently don't see any that are too unnecessary. Many are links to addresses that users come across while working on a heist, and it is valuable to have those as external links (until the sites eventually disappear). There are also links for all of the software products. What are everyone's thoughts on these? Nerd05 05:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Speedy deletion

it is not warranted. let's do it the right way. will nominate for deletion and let democracy play out.(Ke5crz 06:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

MacHeist was a fairly signifcant event for thos eof us inthe Mac World. Since wikipeida is editable by almost anyone, and the events in the article are in th epast, how can it be "blatant" advertising?--Erichd 09:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's blatant advertising because a price is given. It's also blatant advertising because the only people defending it are the ones that can't spell and the only one known who can't spell is Phill Ryu himself.

[edit] Yeah delete this! Wikipedia is not allowed to have useful information!

Once again, something that is marked for deletion just because it obscure, or relating to some sort of niche.

The reason traditional text encyclopedias don't have information about everything under the sun is simply because there is no room. Wikipedia does not have this constraint, yet people seem to want to keep taking Wikipeda from the great vast resource it is, and condense it down to something that could go into a far inferior format like a book.

Just because a certain entry is not popular, it doesn't mean it should be deleted!

Why do the people of Wikipedia keep trying to make Wikipedia into an encyclopedia?! Wikipedia is much bigger, better, and much more vast than any encyclopedia could ever be!

Comparing Wikipedia to an encyclopedia is like comparing Xeon based Workstation to the original IBM PC and saying that the Xeon Workstation should behave exactly as the original IBM PC. Although they both are computers, the Xeon Workstation has much more potential, and making it behave exactly as an IBM PC is a waist of it's abilities.

What Wikipedia should focus on is making sure that there is no spam, that all information is factual, and easily legible. Wikipedia should be a hub where you can go to learn anything about everything.

But, in the end, I don't run the joint, so do with it what you will. If you want to throw away all this potential, feel free. However, if you want to expand and truly take advantage of all the resources available, you guys have to learn to think out of the box, and out of the book for that matter.

Wikipedia IS NOT an encyclopedia, and never will be, get use to it!


-- As taken from the Oxford English Dictionary: " encyclopedia |enˌsīkləˈpēdēə| (also chiefly Brit. encyclopaedia) noun a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically. " --

Nabeel_co 08:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

the article was marked for a "speedy deletion" and since i tried unsuccessfully to save pownce, i figured if a vote was had then it might carry some weight(Ke5crz 08:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC))
Yeah, to be quite honest and blunt, I am quite frustrated about how the people at Wiki seem to always have their finger on the delete button... YOU HAVE VAST RESOURCES!!! USE THEM! 74.101.158.81 03:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
What is so useful about the information here? It's just an advertisement. People can goto the official Mac Heist website for information on it. Furthermore, encyclopedias are for research - who is going to research MacHeist!? This is extremely useless here. — Wackymacs 08:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Me for one! Thats why I came here! And your right encyclopedias are for research. Too bad Wikipeda is not an encyclopedia, and never will be until it starts being PRINTED! Wikipedia and a whole new type of research tool and can not be categorized as an encyclopedia. Nabeel_co 11:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I've lost you now. The slogan is "the free encyclopedia", and who said that an encyclopedia must be printed? Somehow, I don't think you know what you're talking about. The fact that this can be edited by anyone doesn't mean it isn't an encyclopedia. — Wackymacs 11:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The Oxford English Dictionary says an encyclopedia had to be printed. Nabeel_co 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Take a read through these numerous definitions of "encyclopedia": http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=define%3Aencyclopedia&btnG=Search — Wackymacs 11:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, most of those entries refer to an encyclopedia as some sort of book or printed material. Nabeel_co 11:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Look, I'm not saying that Wikipeida is not a valid research resource, in fact I place great value on the information in Wikipeda. However I just feel that wiki deletes things that would not show up in an encyclopedia to make themselves seem more valid to the public, however what people don't realize is that the reason encyclopedias have those limitations is purely because of space constraints that come in play when printing a book. Nabeel_co 12:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
If space, and ability to access the information were not a problem, encyclopedias would have information on everything under the sun. But you can not organize that in a physical book, and no one would be able to find anything. Thats what makes Wikipedia so great! It's not and encyclopedia, it's and information database, and you can easily search this vast database and get exactly what you were looking for in a quarter of the time it would take you to look up something vaguely in the neighborhood in an encyclopedia. Nabeel_co 12:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is informative, accurate, and fairly unbiased. The information presented about MacHeist would likely be useful for persons interested in conducting business with MacHeist.com, persons wishing to research alternative methods of selling software, and persons wishing to find creative fund raising alternatives for charity. For these reasons, this article would seem to be complimentary to the WikiPedia corpus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgage (talk • contribs) 17:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul

In light of the AfD for this page, and the longstanding tags at the top regarding lack of sources and excessive numbers of external links, I made some pretty major modifications to the page. I tried to add sources to statements wherever appropriate. I also completely removed the list of individual heists, as it was chock full of external links, read like an advertisement, and quite frankly didn't seem very encyclopedic. Feel free to leave any comments regarding my modifications on my talk page. Etphonehome 02:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for helping to improve this page, it is much more preferable to deletion. It is sincerely appreciated. 74.101.158.81 05:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a useful article to have in Wikipedia. It shouldn't feel like advertising, that's true, but it is/was a big deal in the sale of independent software within the Mac community and has since spawned several clones. It may well not last long as a way of selling software either (by some accounts), so it would get my vote as an historical record. I don't think it's just people wanting to do business with MacHeist that would research this, it's interesting from a web marketing historical perspective too. Apolaine (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MacHeist 3

Details please :P 86.160.100.132 (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reader Says "Useful"

I'm just a reader, but I ran across MacHeist, wondered about it, Googled it, and found this article useful. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Dan Holdgreiwe