Talk:The Freecycle Network

General tone of this article

The general tone of the "background" section reads like marketing/pr copy. It's not encyclopedic writing at all, loaded with speculation and POV. TheQuandry 19:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, what was there previously was so dry and sparse of detail that it was completely useless. If you can come up with better wording that relays their develop in a less PR copy manner, go for it. Dharmaburning 09:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Environmental technology template

I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwanders^Talk 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Forest as a habitat

The head paragraph, stated a forest as something that the ethic is trying to preserve. Conservation doesn't strive to preserve forests. Conservation strives to conserve the natural processes of life, INCLUDING if a forest were to change into a swamp (for example) as long as humans didn't have anything to do with it. --FUNKAMATIC ~talk 18:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WARNING (to the editor): There are some problems with the added paragraphs in the introduction: >>> 0px|High energy advertising in Shinjuku, Japan.]] Text is incomplete at the end: "Energy conservation is often the most economical solution to energy shortages, and is a more e"

Unreferenced external sites

Removed the following as they are unused and so should not just be added for the sake of it (see WP:EL). If you are keen to add one of these and they are appropriate as a source, refer to it in the text and it can be a footnote.

• CNN Technology - Web site finds new homes for old junk
• MSN Money - Don’t need that old blender? Recycle it
• Wall Street Journal Home & Garden - New Services Available To Declutter Your Home
• Waterloo County Courier - Free-4-All
• Wisconsin State Journal - Web site swapping
• Click2Houston.com - Want To Get Rid Of Stuff? Or Get Stuff For Free?
• Freecycle Newswire - many more local and national media coverage links

—Ashleyvh (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

These were added back in. You seem to have a misunderstanding of WP:EL as it clearly states in the "What Should Be Linked" section, that linking is for "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." Which is exactly what these links point too. 76.254.60.217 (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, wp:EL states: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.". The opinion pieces and review articles can easily be integrated into the body of the article as footnote references where appropriate, there is no reason to have them as unjustified links randomly added to the external links section. As they are, they fall foul of Wikipedia is not Google. Some of the links you have added back in don't even mention Freecycle! For these reasons I am removing them again.—Teahot (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Freegle (or ILoveFreegle) links

A number of recent edits in the last 48 hours have attempted to add references or links to the Freegle website. These have been removed as no reliable source has yet been found stating that this is the "breakaway" organization. Please ensure you have a source meeting the guidance of WP:RS before adding this information. Without a source, the information is considered original research and is not suitable for Wikipedia.—Ash (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that - I haven't edited WP for a while and was a bit un-mindful of the ethos. I've rewritten the reference to FreeGLE in a way that references its own claim to be the break-away organisation referenced by the Guardian article, which seems to me to be in the spirit of WP:SELFPUB (source of information about its author) and/or Extremist and fringe sources. I trust this conveys the relevant information without relying on information that can't be used as valid WP source material. John Stumbles (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This does not meet the requirements of WP:SELFPUB as the article is about Freecycle not Freegle and so it does not apply (for example I could set up a web page and declare myself Queen of England, this does not mean my site could be a source for Queen of England under WP:SELFPUB, though if my website were notable enough for its own Wikipedia entry then WP:SELFPUB would work in my favour). Freegle itself does not appear to meet WP:RS so there is still a need for a reliable source. Instead of being pedantic and reverting your text again I shall add a {{fact}} tag to encourage editors to keep an eye open for an independent reliable source.—Ash (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Fairy Nuff, from an objective POV (which WP must, or strives to, be); though from the POV of a member of any of the affected freecycle groups it's obvious enough that FreeGLE _is_ the breakaway organisation: our groups are running exactly as before bar the change of name and the spate of emails from the mods telling us what's been going on (which, of course, does not make for verifiable sources). I think we're really waiting for a reputable source like the Grauniad to publish something we can use as a reference. And hopefully not something they've just cribbed off the WP article :-/ John Stumbles (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As a side point, has there been a discussion or agreement about how the email lists legally transferred to Freegle? I'm surprised that a different organization has used the email addresses for mass mailing without going through another sign-up process that I would expect in order to be compliant with The Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations in the UK (ICO guidance).—Ash (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph referring to ilovefreegle.org, on the basis that the site name has apparently just changed. With no reliable sources it is premature to start linking to sites that may be hoax or draft, under construction and not even discussed in a press release, let alone an independent reliable source.

Note that ilovefreegle.org has an anoymous private registration in Scottsdale, Arizona, freegle.org is registered to Sebastiano Mestre in Milan, Italy and freegle.org.uk is registered to Edward Hibbert of Edinburgh, UK. With no reliable source to confirm, it is not possible to say the last site or the first is "official" or that any of the others are either mistakes, hoaxes or mirrors.—Ash (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ash, with regard to your comment (in a recent edit of yours) about RECENTISM I note that in the article about this phenomenon it is acknowledged to have benefits as well as otherwise - WP:RECENTISM#Benefits_of_recentist_articles - e.g.: It would greatly weaken the encyclopedia project if article development about ongoing events were discouraged in a campaign against so-called "recentism". John Stumbles (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I was probably trying to be over-clever, which never turns out well. Though it was just an edit comment. If I could edit the edit comment I'd probably weaken it to just point to WP:RS as the real issue is just one of finding a good source that confirms the story, names the new group(s) and names the official new website(s). Obviously editors are motivated by current events, sometimes overlooking the need for sources and that was the point I was trying to make.—Ash (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Unsourced / Improperly Cited Material about GreencycleSussex

I have added unsourced template in regards to changes to page in late January. I have also edited the modified section to reflect the previous version, which included proper citations. (Paul Thompson (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC))