Talk:Maka-Maka

Crystal Ball Article?

The "Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball" article is in reference "a collection of unverifiable speculation." All information in the Maka-Maka article, therefore, must be verifiable. In this perpendicular case, this requires that all content refer to verifiable aspects of Google's attempt to add a social layer to their services which has been internally codename "Maka-Maka." I would be very interested to hear what content does not adhere to this standard and welcome any edits which allow this article to adhere even more closely to the standards than it already does.

One last point: Open Social is but one aspect of Maka-Maka and therefore the Maka-Maka article should not simply consist of a redirect to the Open Social article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordna (talk • contribs) 23:47, 29 February 2008

1. Sensationalistic tone, often mirroring that of its blog sources. Not in keeping with neutral point of view: "Much more than an effort to update orkut," "take social networking to the next level," etc.
2. All but the first two paragraphs in the History section appears to be original research, due to the fact the sources cited for the rest of the section do not actually assert a connection to Maka-Maka.
3. The Future Development section is an opinion, not attributed to the source cited, but presented as fact in an non-encyclopedic, editorializing tone: "Google will need to move quickly," "Google already has a strong mobile platform and powerful content".

I made the page a redirect to OpenSocial because there aren't enough verifiable sources that directly cover Maka-Maka to sustain a neutral and informative article, and the ones that do generally have the strongest verifiable associations with OpenSocial. I'm actually glad that Orangemike agreed with me on the problematic nature of the article, even though he directed the proposed deletion notice to me. Dancter (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)