Talk:The Spot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Internet Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet culture. For more information, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an attempt to build consistent guidelines for articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.

It is obviously my opinion that the interactive nature of the site makes the fan contribution an integral part of the history of the site. I don't think it's appropriate to be simply stripping chunks wholesale based on Scott's "approval." In case you weren't aware, it is not up to the subject being discussed to approve or disapprove an article written about them. Members of Congress have been learning that lately.

Contents 1 What are you going on about? 2 What I'm going on about. 3 Some Wikipedia Policy 4 Resolution Proposal 5 Edit of 4/7/06 6 The Serial

[edit] What are you going on about?

Bishop,

You took my article and basically re-wrote it into a vanity page. Have you read what you posted???

This interactivity peaked in the summer and fall of 1996 when groups of fans were invited to actually participate in some of the photo and video shoots being done for the site, and perceptive readers could spot them in various scenes from the time period. When one character became pregnant, one of that character's most vocal fan supporters was surprisingly voted most likely to be the mystery father.

This is NOT anything that really needs to support what "The Spot" is/was. It's basically a

"Hey I'm cool! I was invited to a photo shoot and I was one of the suspects in who fathered Britt from the Spot's baby..."

The fact you changed the premise to "arguably" the first online episodic is incorrect. It WAS the first online episodic - no doubt AT ALL. Being the first; it garnered the most attention.

Another point on what you wrote:

"One of the compelling mysteries was the disappearance of main character Tara Hartwick who was played by Zakarin’s real life assistant Laurie Plaksin Shiers. The storyline coincided with Zakarin and his staff’s departure from the project due to alleged personality conflicts with Herman....While the collapse of the dot-com bubble may have contributed to its failure, there are also allegations that American Cybercast expanded too rapidly for the funding it had available. Another criticism was that many changes made by the new management ended up alienating the fanbase that made The Spot a success in the first place. "

Again you are making a HUGE suppositions. You were not there and what you have is hearsay. Remember... Wikipedia rules state: Cntent must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable.

How can you make sweeping allegations about allegations and alleged "personality conflicts" that cannot be substantiated? Your comments are almost bordering on slander and then you argue with me about the fact you changed my article and have every right to?

I don't think it's appropriate to be simply stripping chunks wholesale based on Scott's "approval." In case you weren't aware, it is not up to the subject being discussed to approve or disapprove an article written about them. Members of Congress have been learning that lately.

Of course it's not up to the subject but I figured you would have at least some respect for the amount of time and energy I went through to verify facts with the creator before creating this article before changing it to a "Bishop-fest" article based on your observation and hearsay of what happened 9 years ago.

I suggested that you create a Spotfans page where you can put things about your own experiences as a Spotfan and not dilute facts with observational hearsay.

[edit] What I'm going on about.

As I've said before, the proper way to go about this is to actually discuss the issues here, not strip out practically the entirety of what I added. I will freely admit that there are edits that could and should be made to what I wrote. But you seem to be making this into a personal attack, and that's neither friendly nor how things are done around here. To address some of your points:

• First, I disagree with the contention that I turned this into a "Bishop-fest" about me. One of the items was solely about me. Furthermore, the only way anyone would have even known that was by being around then to begin with. You are one of the few people that could possibly interpret it a "Bishop-fest," considering I never even mentioned my own name or used first-person. I included examples of how several of the readers of the site were included in it, as a means of demonstrating the interactivity that I believe was characteristic of the site. If you think that such examples are superfluous, I'm willing to listen to your arguments regarding that. A possible compromise may be to have a separate section of the entry for "Fan Interactivity," distinct from the strictly historical portion.
• The information which, admittedly, I provided no substantiation for, was how I now remember things that happened back then. I am willing to accept that this should not be included unless and until there is corroborative evidence from other sources. As for "slander," I firmly disagree that anything I wrote is even close to slanderous.
• Fine, it was the first episodic web site. Please don't make it sound like this single word implies that I have some sort of agenda. That particular wording was from text I had written some time ago -- I meant to remove that word, but simply forgot.
• I certainly have no disrespect for any effort you went through to work with Scott on this. However, that cannot and should not be the "end-all" of any Wikipedia article. I'm glad that you did check and confirm things with Scott, but that does not mean that additional information not "approved" by Scott should not be included as well.

As for your claim that I am arguing about how I "changed [your] article and have every right to?", remember that:

• once you post it to Wikipedia, it's no longer "your" article, and therefore
• I have as much right to change it as any other user.

However, I am honestly trying in good faith to resolve this in a way we can both live with. Accusations of slander and vanity don't help. Bishop^ 04:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Wikipedia Policy

Hi, folks, just a reminder that articles in Wikipedia should only contain information which can be cited from another source. The policy of No Original Research specifically prohibits the insertion of ideas and descriptions based on our own beliefs and experiences, rather than on info published elsewhere. Thus, unless there can be Verifiable and reliable sources found for the assertions made to this article, such claims need to be removed. The original version I created was based on the only two sources I was able to find, which I have listed as references. If additional sources for the claims made here can be uncovered, such material may be included. However, any discussion of the history of The Spot, and specifics of its traffic, membership and activities is not appropriate to Wikipedia. You may publish this history yourself, elsewhere, but unless you can reference a specific article or other published resource, your personal recollections of the site would qualify as "Original Research" -- regardless if they are true. —Leflyman^Talk 05:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Leflyman for your input. Bishop and I know each other from original TheSpot.com site.

Bishop,

If you want to add some fact that I have forgotten; that's great - add it to the bottom or add a sentence to the article but please don't change the focus of the article by doing a total rewrite. If you were to look at the edits; I appended some of the points you brought up in my rewrite of the document after you changed it so I'm not being stubborn about the facts just having to be my facts about the Spot.

I, however, took ZERO liberties in trying to provide a factual recount of what the Spot was and how a fan would experience the site. I even made sure of my facts by asking the original creators; so everything is verifiable.

I had just as many interactive experiences as you on The Spot, if not more, but you don't see anything about it other than a generalization of what the fans experienced and how The Spot followed a formula to create and retain its audience base. This isn't the place for that that's why I called it a "vanity" rewrite.

I had not forgotten to include Elgonquin.com I purposely didn't put it because most of the sentiment there was that; while they were a part of the former community; they specifically distanced themselves from the fact that they were founded by members of the old Spot community. You added them and I didn't argue. The articles on AMCY are OK as background to what the press said at the time; but offer little about The Spot itself.

I also added tonight a link to a clip of the Extra TV piece done on The Spot in August 1995.

I am assuming that this 'change the document' battle is now over?

[edit] Resolution Proposal

Leflyman: I presume when you say "any discussion of the history of The Spot, and specifics of its traffic, membership and activities is not appropriate to Wikipedia," that you mean unverifiable discussion of that nature. Certainly, verifiable information about the history of a subject is appropriate for a Wikipedia article about it, right? Do correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Verifiable means that material put into an article can be directly cited from a published source; not one's own memory or experience. Please look back at the original version I wrote which was based on the articles used as "references" not merely my own recollections. The version I created is neutral, and does not use flowery opinion-laden claims like "the most successful interactive fiction site to date"; "creating intense loyalty to the project"; and, "the movers and shakers of the Hollywood elite eagerly watched the site." Such is Original Research of the self-promotional kind. If there's no movement to cleaning up the article, I'll revert to something closer to that more neutral language. —Leflyman^Talk 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

SpotV: Please realize that rather than a "total rewrite," the changes I initially made were an attempt to weave in information from an article I wrote 2 years ago. I believe it's important when adding information to make sure that the overall "look" of the article is consistent, rather than adding it to the bottom when it would fit better within the existing text. Remember; this is not "your article," and you cannot expect anyone to preserve the focus, theme, or style of what you write.

I am glad you have backed down from claiming that I tried to make the article about me. It certainly was not my intention, and I don't think the average reader could have concluded that from my changes. While I do think that the nature of the site is such that fan interactivity was an integral part of it, I can also see that such mentions should be in moderation.

Here's my proposal for a consensus:

• I am willing to accept the article as it is now, if --
• You are willing to accept that I may add information in the future that is:
  • Independently verifiable,
  • Appropriate for a Wikipedia article, and
  • Integrated in a reasonable manner so as to make the article read smoothly.

Deal?

Bishop^ 15:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If I can add a suggestion...shouldn't the opening paragraph also acknowledge the roles of Rich Tackenberg, Laurie Plaksin Shiers and Troy Bolotnick in helping create and formulate the original Spot website in 1995? Bob (ever the media historian)

Bishop wrote:

Here's my proposal for a consensus:

I am willing to accept the article as it is now, if -- You are willing to accept that I may add information in the future that is: Independently verifiable, Appropriate for a Wikipedia article, and Integrated in a reasonable manner so as to make the article read smoothly.

While I am certainly willing to end this quickly; I'm not going to give you a blanket OK to rewrite my work.

Referring to this article as "my work" is an inaccurate assessment of what happens on Wikipedia. No one owns the articles here; by submitting your writing to this project, you give up all rights to it. Anyone can (and likely will) edit it. In this particular case, especially, if either of you have been involved in some capacity with the topic, you should review the the discussion at Wikipedia is not a soapbox. —Leflyman^Talk 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What I find incredulous now is that you claim your article is 2 years old.

There is another article at Thespot.com which this one should be merged with; it's likely that's the article that's being referenced as two years old. —Leflyman^Talk 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to my article previously written at everything2, much of which I had attempted to weave in to the article SpotV wrote. His incredulity could be easily assuaged by simply looking at the date stamp on that article, which is in 2003.-Bishop^ 12:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It was not posted here previously and yet you just took it upon yourself to overwrite other people's work to make your own work the predominant article here without regard to any previous author's work?

That's ultimately not in the spirit of Wikipedia nor is it "appropriate" for you to have done, is it? Wikipedia is about information sharing not overwriting other works to post your prose.

You have yet to address WHAT facts and information are missing? The Spot only has a history at this point; it's not a current site other than a static placement holder for the URL. So all facts and information should be 'known' at this point, right? So what information could possibly come to light that hasn't been addressed?

I just feel you are asking me to agree to something that you will just use as an excuse to give you carte blanche to completely overwrite this article again in the future. If you come up with something that is new information I believe you should have every right to add it to the article. HOWEVER that 'right' to add information should not grant you contract to rewrite everything. You should be able to put it into the flow of the current work unless you can verify that every major point made in the current article is wrong and you have to rewrite it.

Why don't we cross that bridge when we come to it and agree to discuss any future changes to this document here or via e-mail. Also I need to make clear that silence does NOT equal agreement on my part in the future - if you don't bring a new fact to my attention and think that my lack of response means I accept a major change in the document; that would not be correct.

Also, response to Bob

Rich, Troy and Laurie were not co-founders nor were they co-creators of the Spot. They were the core set that made up the staff that launched the site and used their images and writing skills to portray characters.

[edit] Edit of 4/7/06

As someone who enjoyed and respected The Spot and its place in online history, I just found this article and thought it sounded like it held a lot of POV. I did a rewrite to try to make the text more encyclopedic, and added some context for what features of the site (documented in the references) were in fact pioneering.

I came over to this talk page to note what I had done, and found the debates above -- and realized I should have looked at the talk page before trying my rewrite.

In any case, I think I may have inadvertently responded to comments from several editors. I'd like to invite feedback and comments on the changes I made.

I apologize to any editor who may (justifiably) feel that I bypassed their opinions on this talk page -- I just didn't consider that such a debate might be going on and no disrespect was intended. Coll7 00:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Serial

Coll, putting in more info about the Quantum Serial into an article about "The Spot" than Spot info and then claiming that there was too much POV just seems like another case of "my info is better than your info."

Your edit basically reduced the Spot to a shadow of this other drama's existence. Does that not show a ton of bias and personal POV in and of itself?

You also fail to mention that your definition of "online" is skewed in that Quantum was a private network that did NOT have internet access available until it became AOL and even then it was well into the 1990's (1996 or 1997) before AOL even allowed its users onto the world wide web. By then the Spot was gone.

You also are incorrect in that the cost of that project was supported by the monthly fee for AOL. At that point AOL was an hourly rate service where one could also go and view premium content for an addtional cost on top of the hourly rate for connection. The AOL one price unlimited program did not launch until 1997.

I've done a quick edit to remove the Serial from the Spot article as it really does have no bearing at all on the creation or development of The Spot as the Serial was not known to exist. I'm sure you'd like to think that one led to the next but their creation and development are unconnected. They are a parallel path of development within the same genre at best but there are marked differences between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpotV (talk • contribs)