Talk:Steve Hoffman/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

I vehemently object to this abuse of Wikipedia for commercial purposes

I am aghast that I am being called a "vandal" by an employee of Steve Hoffman's commercial enterprise. All I have attempted to do is to add a link to a forum that often discusses Mr. Hoffman's work. Unlike Mr. Hoffman's own forum, the forum link I attempted to provide (which has been continuously deleted by Mr. Hoffman and/or his employees) discusses Mr. Hoffman's work in a critical manner. It is obvious that Mr. Hoffman does not tolerate objective assessment of his work.

Now, Mr. Hoffman is of course free to run his own forum in the manner that he sees fit, but I find it an abuse of the spirit and philosophy of Wikipedia to allow an entry on a subject to be nothing more than an extension and promotion of said subject's commercial enterprise. If objectivity and dissenting opinion is deemed "vandalism" by the Wikipedia editors, I strongly believe this sets a dangerous precedent.

I ask you: should the subject (or his employees and associates) of an entry dictate the content of said subject's Wikipedia entry, particularly when the subject and his associates have created the Wikipedia page solely for the purpose of linking to and promoting the subject's commercial website?

Critical/dissenting opinion is not "vandalism." It is a shame that Mr. Hoffman and his employees believe that to be the case. So be it. However, it is truly unfortunate that Wikipedia has allowed itself to be hoodwinked into facilitating the whims of a self-promoting, commercial enterprise.

Audiophool 22:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I vehemently object to this abuse of Wikipedia for personal attacks

One of our forum members thought that it would be nice to have an entry for Steve in the Wikipedia and created it. Your editing of the article was neither objective nor a dissenting opinion. It was a personal attack on Steve Hoffman and his work. Sean Zloch　—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zloch1 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 1 January 2006

200.38.162.11 21:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)As a moderator for the Steve Hoffman forums, I do believe your point of view is 100% biased.

A retort

"Bob" and Mr. Zloch clearly identify themselves as associates of Mr. Steve Hoffman. Whether or not aforementioned "association" is voluntary or not is no concern of mine -- nor should it be a concern of Wikipedia. What ought to be concern Wikipedia is this: the simple fact of the matter is that it is Mr. Hoffman's associates who are objecting to and continually deleting links that do not meet their (and presumably Mr. Hoffman's) personal approval. The "sole purpose" of the link in question is NOT-- contrary to Hoffman's associates' paranoid claims -- to sully the name of Steve Hoffman, but rather to offer a dissenting view of Mr. Hoffman and associates' rigidly held philosophies concerning audio reproduction. If parody and sarcasm occasionally occur at said forum, such is the trappings of being a public figure.

I do find it interesting that it is Mr. Hoffman's "volunteers" who are shrillingly and ceaselessly objecting to our link and not the author of the entry. Why is that? And why is Wikipedia allowing representatives (paid or otherwise) of A COMMERCIAL SITE INTIMATELY CONNECTED TO THE SUBJECT to dictate content on Wikipedia simply because they fear it may cast doubt upon the reputation of their hero/employer/mentor? The link "Steve's offical website" points to a high volume commercial website and forum, operated by Steve Hoffman and overseen by the "volunteers" attempting to dictate all editing decisions concerning this particular Wikipedia entry.

I do indeed hope that Wikipedia does not likewise extend such "privileges" to, say, representatives of General Motors, tobacco companies or any other corporations or political parties who wish to censor Wikipedia entries simply because they object to content (or weblinks!) which may present their companies/parties in a light of which they do not "approve." Audiophool 03:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The error of Audiophool's ways

Clearly audiophool is hesitant to mention the actual vandalism in the article. While he has repeatedly defended himself for posting the "dissenting link," he has failed to apologize or accept responsibility for such unnecessary comments as "sports a mullet" (non-sequitur), or posting sarcastic comments such as "he has remastered the CCR catalog 18 times." You have defended yourself enough regarding the link you have posted, enough is enough. You have yet to explain your reasoning for vandalizing the text within the article. Likewise, the Steve Hoffman official website is NOT a commercial website. It is sponsored by volunteers, and nobody is required to give money or pay a fee for registration, and just the same, there are NO items for sale COMMERICALLY on the website. In the meantime, while I and many would agree that such actions should not have to be resorted to, I see no problem with keeping the article locked. Grow up and take some responsibility, my friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.11.165 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 1 January 2006

Link to the Forums

A link to some forums is repeatedly being added and removed, with the description "More about Steve Hoffman". Of course, I end up in a forum that doesn't seem to be about Steve -- at least not directly. There's a lot of innuendo and some opaque content, plus some folks calling those who have been valdalizing this article "justified" or "deserved". What's the real story? Why don't the people who have something negative to say about Steve say something clear and articulate, and have it added to the article properly? -- Mikeblas 05:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

To put a finer point on it: why is this guy so controversial? -- Mikeblas 19:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Instead Of Fussing.

This petty childish fussing should stop. Get in agreement with the "facts" and let it go. The fact is that Steve Hoffman has "REMASTERED" many things and "MASTERED" nothing as far as I can find. Not correctly defining yourself (both of you) seems to be at the core of this disagreement. I have made the proper contacts at Wikipedia and they understand why his name cannot be listed on the original individual albums, since he had no involvement with them, and they are correcting all of those. Maybe someone should begin a new entry for "Remastered Works". Give the guy the credit he deserves and nothing more. Nobody cares about why one of you hate the guy and no one cares about SH Forum members lip service. All we care about is the "facts of the man and his works" Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.31 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 11 March 2006

Yes, it is rather like giving an encyclopedia entry to the guy who did nothing more than put a new air filter in your 1971 VW. I look forward to future Wikipedia bios on the guy who scanned the original Juice Newton LP cover, as well as one on the person who opened the resulting file in Photoshop. What with compelling information such as a Steve Hoffman biography, Wikipedia certainly is building an immortal cyber tome. Future generations will shake their heads in gratitude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.136.168 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 20 March 2006

Why are there two articles on one page?

Could someone please split these up into Steve Hoffman (audio engineer) and Steve Hoffman (business man)? GOOD LORD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.70.206 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 15 October 2006