Talk:Gracenote/Archive 3

Is it OK for Gracenote Employees to Edit ONUnicorn's Sample Page?

Because that would really improve the climate around here, and give us a way to make our point without pissing people off.Isotropy 02:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That's one reason why I started it; but I didn't think anyone had paid any attention to my comment at all. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted Scherf's reversion to the latest Voice of All version. Scherf had reverted the entire article back to an old version posted by Sooahs. This is frustrating since a Gracenote employee (founder?) made the revisions immediately after Voice of All unprotected the page. SteveSmurf 00:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this is frustrating. Just reverted the article to fix user:Scherf's revisionism which deleted most of the original article and replaced with POV a company press-release type of article. User:Scherf has been requested numerous times to point out the inaccuracies in the article, but has yet to do so. I am at a loss to identify the vandalism to which Scherf refers. Fatandhappy 15:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not interested in a Gracenote page that has numerous factual errors, and contains gratuitous negativity. Fatandhappy can say all he/she/it wants about being civil and how blanket reversions are bad. That does not explain why Fatandhappy and others have continually reverted all text anyone adds here to correct errors in a supported way, but just doesn't happen to be negative. They are determined to keep negative text in place simply because they are detractors of Gracenote. It makes little sense for Gracenote employees to be barred from posting here when people from the opposite extreme (much more extreme in the negative than Gracenote supporters have been in the positive) are free to perpetuate negative commentary at will. I do not accept that as valid Wikipedia policy, and the guidelines clearly support my view. As long as people with negative POV problems continue to post here, I am obliged to do the same. To Fatandhappy: Pay all the lip service to the rules that you like, Fatandhappy, but you have consistently reverted things that were supported with links to facts, while in your comments claiming they were not. You have also reverted corrections to logical impossibilities, also while inexplicably claiming they were unsupported. I have filed a request for mediation for the Gracenote article with you listed as one of the requested participants, and you posted negative comments to the discussion in an apparent attempt to scuttle the mediation. You have shown that you cannot edit the Gracenote article in good faith, and your apparent rejection of mediation is further evidence that you are not interested in being impartial. You should recuse yourself from further editing of this page, as should Kenta and others who have engaged in negative, nonfactual editing. If you are truly impartial, how about adding links to Gracenote in all of the competitor pages you and others have injected here? And put those links at the top of the link list, instead of links to their own websites, like you have done here. Also, remove all mention of those competitors' products by name (or at all) like you have done here. How about consolidating all of the AMG pages into one page, especially the ones devoted to entire products alone? How about listing all of the legal actions they have been involved in, especially the ones they started and the ones they lost. AMG has had its share, which is how it got its reputation for shady acquisition of data. Look it up if you are really, truly interested in impartiality. And once you have done all of these things, then you will have shown your impartiality (but not necessarily your ability to deal in facts). Until then, please cut the facade you are trying to put up here in the discussion. At least I am not hiding who I am and what my goals are. Steve Scherf 02:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And that is the issue. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service for your company. If you don;t like the criticism, tough. It has sources. If you've got an issue with that, you should be filing complaints against the websites that the statements originate from, not the people who are quoting them here to provide a balanced article. As for some bias, personally, I had no idea what gracenote was when I first came here. The article is only 'overly negative' in your biased eyes. You may find it hard to take criticism, but tough, this is an encyclopedia that provides ALL VERIFIABLE POINTS OF VIEW, not just a corporate endorsed point of view about their product. As for competitors being mentioned, the only way you could possibly be concerned about it is if it was stealing potential business away when people view the article, meaning that you are using it as an advert which Wiki is not. As an encyclopedia, we are supposed to provide links to related subjects in a 'if you found this interesting, you may also be interested in reading about' kind of fashion. The Kinslayer 10:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't give a rat's you-know-what about criticism here, if it were only factual. I have pointed out numerous inconsistencies here, but nobody seems to care. They prefer the negative "facts" over the "positive" facts, because, gee, we don't want these Gracenote people to benefit from this page... Here's a little something for you to think about. We don't care about advertising, and this is hardly the place we'd go if we wanted to advertise. The reputation of Wikipedia would quash any such desire anyway, even if it were something we wanted. What we DO want is something that does not spread misinformation about Gracenote, which this page does. When we have people coming to us asking, "I thought XYZ, but it says something else on Wikipedia", it's a problem. And as a person who seems interested in the quality and improvement of Wikipedia, I would think that you would be interested in fixing those things. The text you and others keep putting up, apparently only because, god forbid, my text shouldn't stand no matter what, is CHOCK FULL of errors and logical inconsistencies. For example, why, oh why, does this statement continue to persist in your edit: "commercialization of CDDB by Gracenote also caused friction with its former licensees"? I have said here at least once that this statement makes no sense, because before the commercialization of CDDB there were no licensees - how could there have been?! So how could commercializing CDDB have angered these nonexistent licensees?! Come to your senses. You are reacting emotionally to the fact that some person with a perceived POV bias is posting, and you are inexplicably willing to blindly accept obviously broken text as a result of that emotional response. USE YOUR BRAIN. I would rather not spend even a millisecond more here fighting with you people, but there seems to be nobody willing to actually check up on the factual issues here. I am perplexed why links to things that have been proven to be incomplete and misleading, such as the link to the "summarization" on Becker's page, continue to persist in your edits. I am guessing that you are not a lawyer and do not understand (or have not even bothered to read) the 7 legal documents we provided links to, but if you spend the time to understand them (or to have a lawyer explain them to you) you will see what I mean. What about the statement that large licensees like Microsoft dropped Gracenote? Where is that statement supported anywhere on the web? Did you read the Wired article linked to from the page? How about the full transcript of the Wired interview also linked to? If you had read those, you would understand that Microsoft was never a licensee, so the claim that they dropped Gracenote is totally impossible and false. Microsoft initially used third parties (who in turn used a wide variety of data sources, sometimes their own hand-entered data), not CDDB/Gracenote for its "Deluxe CD Player" product. And when they stopped supporting that application and rolled out Windows Media Player with CD lookup support, they used their own service. And in the same statement it talks about MusicMatch no longer using Gracenote. Never mind that MusicMatch is now Yahoo, and Yahoo is a Gracenote licensee; so that statement is misleading at best, because they are now, in effect, a licensee. Perhaps that statement is meant to be historical, but that's already discussed in the legal section, and they no longer exist as a company. I could go on, but as I've said before, I don't have all day and there is an error in just about every other sentence. You people are CLUELESS on this topic, and as a result are spreading misinformation in a manner unjustly harmful to Gracenote, and indirectly to Wikipedia as well. You may not care about the former, but you should care about the latter. Spend some time looking at the facts and see if perhaps the version supported by msooahs, myself and a few others here (whom I do not actually know) might have a bit of wisdom for you. You might also pay a bit of attention to the overall tone and impartiality, because the version you have been pushing has worse POV problems than the one I support. Look back in the discussion here a bit and you will see that the intro text we support was judged by at least one editor here to be more neutral than the one you and Fatandhappy have been pushing. Also, if you spend a little time looking way back in the edit history, you will see blanket reversions by the people you're supporting, with misleading and irrelevant comments, way before this edit war started. It didn't matter if edits were small or large, nor did it matter if they were supported with links to supporting information, they would revert it with misleading statements of "unverifiable". Fatandhappy is the king of falsely crying "unverifiable", and it's the bad faith actions of this and other editors that has led to the problems here. Before you or others cast your lot with them, why not think about what I've said here a bit first? Steve Scherf 22:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)