Talk:ASmallWorld

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. Owen× ☎ 23:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me...?

I, for one, find the entire concept of such a website to be incredibly offensive. Anyone else agree?

Believe it or not, excluding people can be useful sometimes; on LiveJournal, for example, it gives you a lot of control over privacy which makes writing a blog much more enjoyable. But in this case, I have to agree that this network is more snobbish than it is useful. From the Gawker articles, I gather that it's mainly used for talking about uber-exclusive locations that the members don't want "lay people" to know about. Its members aren't so much celebrities who value their privacy, as much as no-name upper crust characters who have inherited a lot of money and want to feel like they're part of the in-crowd (half of the members cited in news reports didn't have Wikipedia articles). Ashibaka tock 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahh... validation of my opinion. Thanks. NorphTehDwarf 05:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much spot on - I was a member, and decided that it was a load of crap - mostly nouveau or inheritance-kiddies. It used to be a very useful resource, but it's now a bloated mass of creme (or scum - both float on top of liquids). --MAdaXe 14:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Neat, could you give us a better screenshot? Ashibaka tock 02:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That probably violates some bit of legalism or something. I wonder if SA might end up putting some of this on the Weekend Web. That'd truly be magnificent. NorphTehDwarf 05:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

We have a special tag for it, {{web-screenshot}}. Ashibaka tock 19:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, excluding people can be useful. However, this entry is an obvious case of shameless self promotion. People arguing about the concept is probably just what was intended.

(1) Invite some celebrities. (2) Start a controversy to increase awareness.

Ads should be deleted.

This is more than an ad, it has 100,000 members or so. Ashibaka tock 22:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• i hope this site gets hack to bits someday. Owwmykneecap 04:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been said that one of the main reason for the creation of aSmallWorld is to provided it's 50 year old owner Erik Wachmeister and his close associates access to young women and to celebrities parties.

Why would you want to converse with such snobs anyway? XdiabolicalX 12:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Erik Wachtmeister's father

Who is he?--MoMo the Pirate 19:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem reference

This [1] reference is not valid from its appearance. It appears to be a wiki that anyone can create an account login, and edit. Other wikis cannot be used as references here on wikipedia. They are unreliable sources, see WP:V and WP:RS. Does this website operate different than it appears?--Crossmr 23:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems like it is not an open wiki; it is restricted to owners of a certain book about SNSes. Also, it was last updated in July 2005, which is when the author of the site, David Teten, received the information about aSmallWorld from its owner. So, I believe we can attribute this information directly to him rather than the wiki. Ashibaka tock 21:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: I downloaded the book and signed up, and I discovered that the following message is at the bottom of the wiki page when you login:

"Locked Page | Help | Home | Recent Changes"

So, this isn't a wiki after all, it was written by David Teten. Ashibaka tock 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There are two different logins there. A corporate profile wiki, and a readers login. I wonder if its editable if you have a corporate profile account.--Crossmr 22:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

List of social networking websites on AfD

List of social networking websites is currently a candidate for deletion. You are invited to partake in the discussion.--Crossmr 14:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)