Talk:OUTeverywhere

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 12 April 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 20 July 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Gaydar (remove)

Why keep reverting to the Gaydar website link? This website is only one of a possible list of slightly similar websites, but is very different in ethos. It seems like a blatant attempt at advertising by Gaydar to have the link there. It doesn't add anything of value to the article. [Unsigned]

It is being reverted primarily because you keep deleting it without explanation. It is always helpful to add a reason when you make an edit.
I think it is a helpful link. It is not a link to the Gaydar site, but to the article. Its presence does not make any comment about similarities or differences, but invites the reader to compare two related subjects for themselves. David L Rattigan 21:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Yes. They are the same thing - so obviously that it doesn't seem worth discussing it. I'll happily merge the two myself later today if I get a moment. David L Rattigan 09:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. This article has the correct title, but I don't know if they have different information or which one is better, so your efforts will be greatly appreciated. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary sandbox here

[edit] Merged and tidied up

I merged the articles and cleaned things up. It still needs some sources. David L Rattigan 09:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks really good! Which statements need sources? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
For example, the statement about the founder and why he created the site needs a citation, and the membership stats etc. I don't dispute anything in the article, but it will need citations eventually. David L Rattigan 10:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advert

This looks too much like an advert. Recent controversies on the site are not even touched upon.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.223.76 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately it's in the nature of an article like this that some of the more controversial aspects are not touched upon, as there is not much research to draw on, and original research is not permitted. David L Rattigan 12:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopedic

I see the article is now marked as potentially unencyclopedic. I what way is it unencyclopedic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corky1979 (talk • contribs)

I've made some changes to remove some of the "unencyclopedic" content...

[edit] This Is Gay

Should "This Is Gay" be mentioned in the article? Not sure what exactly is happening with it, but it was mentioned in the Daily Star briefly. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably not worth it now as it's being abandoned as a bad idea... Corky1979

[edit] Criticisms

We should maybe add a criticisms section to make this article more balanced. I personally love this website but looking at the number and nature of reverts there are those that don't and they should have a voice provided they can cite their sources. what does everyone else think? -- 81.102.100.105 19:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So long as the criticisms don't soley consist of /removed/ and others anti-out agenda because of their association with ThingBox. 83.146.13.233 19:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think naming users is appropriate: I've removed the reference. 81.100.166.192 19:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

what's a thingbox ? -- timdew (Talk) 19:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

ThingBox is a rival site, with a high proportion of ex-OUTeverywhere members on it (www.thingbox.com) Neil Evans 19:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

i see, thank you, i've never heard that term used before . i must be out of the loop-- timdew (Talk) 19:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section header for Criticisms with an expand tag. hopefully this will stop the article being littered with uncited allegations and trivia about what "so and so" did to "so and so". If there are legitimate CITED criticisms they should go here, don't you think? Let's play nice-- timdew (Talk) 23:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, possibly. But I'd be dubious if increased activity here and in the Criticisms sections was then taken as a justification for removing facts from the main article which are in some way or other embarrassing to Out's owners or less dispassionate users. I note, for example, that my correct addition - that the number of users online is based on a four hour window - has been removed, as has the reference to The Daily Star in connection to thisisgay. Why? Re the measure of user numbers, Sno himself has said that this is how user numbers are measured (or at least, that's what he used to say). And The Daily Star episode is clearly factual; it reflects badly on Out's management, but that's tough. It's part of the history of the site, and should be in the article.

Sorry, that last section beginning Hmmmm possibly is by me BdC 00:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted users of OUTeverywhere have axes to grind, such as the four hour theory. I coded the site, I know how it works. I don't need to OUT look more popular than it is, it's a successful social networking site with no need to fake figures, despite such false allegations. The online now figure is calculated by looking at the activity over a ONE hour period. Full stop. BdC you've been corrected on this fact at least once, stop reverting to the incorrect statement that it's four hours. The login timeout is four hours, the online now counter is one hour. Got it? Good. One hour. Why does this entry always have to be a playground for muppets who want to diss OUTeverywhere just because they're disgruntled ex-OUTers; there are more productive things to do with your time. SnoBoardr 00:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please moderate the language you use in your comments. At the moment, your allegations contravene this guideline: Wikipedia:Assume good faith and they are not backed up at all.  DDS  talk 00:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? Has the online now figure always been based on activity over a one hour period?BdC 00:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a muppet nor am I colluding with "OUT management" so let's put silly name calling to one side please. If user User:Baron de Charlus has legitimate criticisms they belong on the entry including references to the DAILY BLAH BLAH (if they are cited references). All the entries for other social networking sites have criticisms against them for example, child porn on face party and gaydar apparent responsibility for sti and hiv clusters. Mr SnoBoardr if a "P.R event back firing" is the biggest criticism then you shouldn't lose sleep over this. --timdew (Talk) 10:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Re the measurement of users online, in May 2005, at the time of the relaunch, the login timeout was increased from one to four hours. It was noticeable that at the time this change was made, the count of users online jumped considerably, suggesting very strongly that the count of users online was simply the measure of users who had not been timed out. Given that fact, SnoBoardr's unsubstantiated assertion that the number of users online is measured by looking at activity over a one hour period isn't wholly credible. I'm prepared to accept I'm wrong on this, but I'd like to see evidence from someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest.BdC 13:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

why do you care about session length and timeouts? -- timdew (Talk) 22:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, we are asked to assume good faith (See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this), and so questioning an editor's motives might not be a good way forward. Indeed, the User:SnoBoardr needs to pay attention to this as well, given the tone of some of his writing here.
On the substantive issue, I think it is an issue of accuracy and, hence, of verifiable facts. It might be prudent and good sense to verify the details under dispute by reference to help or information screens that users have, since I would have thought any would include clear and accurate information about time-outs, etc. Doing this would have avoided a large amount of this dispute, and it would help prevent any future ones. My suggestions would protect all sides in this dispute, and it does not, in any way, cast any doubts as to the veracity of any people who are involved in this dispute. Indeed, I have information that I know is of relevance to many wikipedia entries, but I would expect to be challenged if I included any of it and could offer up no other verification other than my own experience or my belief that I was correct.  DDS  talk 23:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
your suggestions? did you actually make any -- timdew (Talk) 00:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I draw your attention to the following in my message: It might be prudent and good sense to verify the details under dispute by reference to help or information screens that users have, since I would have thought any would include clear and accurate information about time-outs, etc. The suggestion bit is implicit in this, but I guess it could have been made more explicit. Finally, as a gentle reminder, please moderate your language, there is no need to be as combative about all this. (See Wikipedia:No angry mastodons).  DDS  talk 00:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
this isn't combative, a question (especially the original one) doesn't have to put you on the defensive, it's just a SIMPLE REQUEST . why does it matter what the session length is? this is a question you are not qualified to answer because it wasn't asked OF you, my friend, it was asked of someone else. ironically you said "assume good faith (See Wikipedia:Assume good faith", maybe you could take your own advice before proffering it up . -- timdew (Talk) 00:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Timedew, the issue of how the number of users online is measured matters because that measure is a key way of gauging how busy Out is. If the measurement is "number of users who have been active in the past four hours" this is clearly going to give a higher number than if the measurement window is just one hour. Users of Out are logged out automatically if they have been inactive for four hours. As I said above, the site used to operate a one hour time out policy. It was noticed by a number of the site's users that when the timeout was increased to four hours, the counter that shoed the number of users online also jumped. Hence the assumption that usage is measured over a four hour period, not a one hour period, would seem, on the face of it, to be well-founded. The site's owner has declared on this discussion thread that it usage is indeed measured over a one hour period, and I would be happy to accept that, were I presented with evidence more compelling than his blunt assertion.82.35.90.204 22:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that last post was meBdC 22:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

These need citation. If none can be provided they'll be removed. NPOV doesn't require us to include material which cannot be properly cited to add artificial balance to an article. Forums and blogs are not reliable sources, so something like a news article, professional review of the site, etc is required to cite these as criticism. Its original research to go to a forum, read what members are saying and decide that that is a significant criticism of the website and add it to this article.--Crossmr 16:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

One wonders precisely how you get a citation for facts that only the users of a registration based site can verify, these facts that you're proposing to delete are important as they are fundamental in understanding the different (and sometimes odd) ethos of the site in question - without them this article is worthless and wouldn't give a balanced or neutral view of the website, so if you're going to delete, put the whole article up for deletion instead. --Neil Evans 20:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've undone the previous edit for precisely the reason I've stated in the above comment, *all* of this article bar the basics that it is a) a website and b) was going to throw sausages at David Blaine is 'original research'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil Evans (talk • contribs) 17:50, August 28, 2007 (UTC)