Talk:Ning (website)

Policy Problems

The following sentence is a clear violation of neutral point-of-view: "There is a great value in the model of Ning's framework since it creates an environment where applications can be cloned, customized, and arranged."

Otherwise the article is generally factual in tone, although it does lack citations for its most specific statements of information, for example the difference between a paying account and a free account.

I do get the impression that it is somebody associated with the Ning organization who is primarily writing and editing this article. I suppose that's fine as long as it adheres to wikipedia policy, though I'm no expert on the finer points of that policy.

Jupitermenace 15:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ning now has ads

There are a number of different text ads on the network pages now. Maybe the business model paragraph should be altered? Unfortunately I don't have time for this right now, but I wanted to note the change here.

Another Resource....

I Was Reading On PCworld about Ning & Nexo. Here's The Link: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,130604/article.html if anyone wants to add content relating to the article. 67.86.247.138 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

PaidContent reported on additional funding here: http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-white-labl-social-network-kickapps-gets-20-million-secon-round-funding/ . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowanda (talk • contribs) 00:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Scripps Interactive is also using Ning for its FineLiving community, and there are probably other corporate clients as well. The only source I could find on it (other than the links from the websites themselves) were findarticles.com press releases that I couldn't source back to Scripps (or anyone). I can help dig up a news/PR source if that info should be addded to the article. Flowanda | Talk 21:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

If we're actually going to keep this page (amazing considering the lack of content and attempts to explain its notability after all these months), let's try and make it decent. I've started by removing a bunch of cruft, hopefully someone else can go from there. Newtman (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Standard?

"are built in standard PHP"

Is there a non-standard kind?

Well, this is completely irrelevant now that they shut down all development except stupid plug-in toys : ( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.100.214 (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced POV edits by 199.89.80.16

The IP 199.89.80.16 has made three unsourced POV edits, reverted each time, trying to get links to some blog called "Charting Stocks." Recommend banning this IP after these clear repeated Wikipedia terms violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.17.128 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Controversy section

There is a bit of an edit war over the Controversy section's content and neutrality, which is why I've started this discussion and asked for third party comments from the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. The dispute is over this two versions, the version on the left was primarily written by Muggzzi, and the version on the right is the one by me. The full history of the dispute can be seen starting with this edit.

I will now explain how I attempted to make the section more neutral:

• First paragraph of Controversy section in Muggzzi's version
  • "significant controversies" - "significant" is POV
  • "shut down of communications between network creators", "the removal of adult networks" - unsourced
• Second paragraph
  • "shut down Widget Laboratory" - inaccurate - Widget Laboratory was not shut down, the company is still up and running. Changed to "removed and banned the use of all widgets from Widget Laboratory"
  • "This dispute was hotly debated in response to an article in TechCrunch." - Peacockian sentence. Show, don't tell.
  • Expanded with citations. Explained impact, gave both company's side of the story.
• Third paragraph
  • Added by Ningipedia
  • Nothing controversial - moved to Features section
• Four paragraph
  • "makes the most dramatic change to date" - unsourced opinion
  • "Charting Stocks wrote an article detailing the controversies at Ning and asserting that Ning's new model is a scam." - Peacockian sentence. Show, don't tell. Also Undue weight - If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

That is not to say my version is perfect or complete but what I attempted to do was bring the section's neutrality down and lay the groundwork for further addition neutral information. - kollision (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your revision, though would also add that the "scam" section should probably be removed due to the source not being reliable. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Controversy section in Muggzzi's version; "significant controversies" - "significant" is accurate description as evidenced by sources referenced
• "shut down Widget Laboratory" changed to banned. Same expression as used by respected TechCrunch article. Added clarity of "from Ning."
• "combining all member data" - removes "makes the most dramatic change to date"
• Charting Stocks reference: Charting Stocks is referenced or quoted by the Wall Street Journal, Schaeffers Research, Dow Jones News Wire, and I.N.N. World Report. Refernces to "viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority" is not supported by the references provided, and is in itself a POV.
• Neutrality does not mean suppression of information. --Muggzzi —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC).

I saw the NPOV dropped on this page and wondered what was going on. So, I reviewed the history and the comments above.

Muggzzi - you need to stick to your guns, looks like these folks have an agenda. Many of their edits were really aimed at removing your work on this entry. I have looked at the articles and discussions you reference - and the controversies you describe are genuine, historically documented, and part of the history of this company Ning.

As the world moves more and more into exposed social networks, it is important for everyone to know the history and actions of those who own these technology platforms. Individual's information and trust are exposed. This is the great part about a living and breathing Wikipedia.

Thank you for fighting off those who would be pushing a POV while claiming to protect against POV postings. -- coolbreeze423 —Preceding undated comment added 14:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC).

I sense some sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry going on with the account above. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

How come somebody keeps trying to tie scripts4ning in with widgetlaboratory? The two are mutually exclusive. They have nothing to do with each other. If we're trying to get the record straight - how come this supporter of widgetlaboratory is insistent upon creating an unrelated tie between a legitimate Ning acquisition and a banned plugin maker? I don't want to see this changed to suit whims any longer. Widgetlaboratory was removed back in August and much has occurred since then. Scripts4Ning is not a competitor of Widgetlaboratory. Do not add "(see "banning of third-party provider above)" to the scripts4ning entry any longer. Ningipedia (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

How come someone with a "Ning"-related user name is seeking to change documented facts about the history of Ning here? All historical details provided in the "Controversies" are referenced for authentication. These controversies and the documentation of same are not "whims." It is very important to document in the history of social networking, the relationship between platforms, network creators, users, and third-party providers. Changing business models, TOS agreements, third-party providers, mergers/acquisitions are part of the vital history of this movement - not to be torn up by someone from Ning seeking to change history by erasing words from Wikipedia. Muggzzi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC).

Muggzzi, I've watched your exploits since august when you left Ning with the ousted Widget Laboratory. You defend them all over the place and you are skewing facts to suit YOUR personal infatuation with Widget Laboratory. We all saw you on Ning before the banning - and we saw you leave for Social Go afterwards. And we saw you fighting for them on TechCrunch. So who is biased here? You have been repeatedly changing these posts not to fight for truth and justice and the American way. You've been changing them to draw attention to your favorite 3rd party provider and everybody knows it. Scripts4Ning is part of Nings history and has nothing to do with Widget Laboratory. Please do not try to intermingle shame with legitimacy to buy credibility. If you change the facts again - I'm going to report you to wikipedia. They're already considering banning your IP. Ningipedia (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ningipedia, you seem very upset and sort of bullying. I have no infatuation with any business or service provider. However, I am very engaged in the history of social communities and the effects of community platform decisions and positions relative to community members, network creators, and world-wide social community development. The postings here at Wikipedia relative to the controversies associated with Ning's changes in policies and the effects of these changes on network members and creators are all documented and referenced in the article -- actually leveraging the sources you confirm and refer to above. Namely Ning's own blogs and Tech Crunch. Stripts4Ning is part of Ning's history - which also includes the history of Widget Laboratory - again as documented externally and referenced within the Wikipedia article. I am so sorry you feel the need to make threats online to me for merely pointing out that your great hostility towards me seems to grounded in some particular relationship with the business entity whose history is described within this article. I can understand why you would prefer to express a POV herein and block historical facts that are well documented. But, I am not clear on why you would think I would fear a ban from Wikipedia. If they choose to ban the publishing of well referenced, historically factual events - and support bully's who would make threats to promote the subversion of an accurate Wikipedia in favor of using it as a corporate marketing platform --- then, let them ban me. Muggzzi (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.82.76 (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You are unbelievable. The subject here is NOT WIDGETLABORATORY. This is not a wikipedia entry about WidgetLaboratory. By the logic you reference above - hey... Why not mention the relationship between Ning and all 25,000 NC's? Lets tell their lifestory and while we're at it - lets talk about who each person found the magnificent WIDGETLABORATORY! Tell you what - why don't you explain to the world your reasons for continually tying Scripts4Ning to WidgetLaboratorys downfall. Go ahead. Where, What and When specifically do you have anything relevant to the two COMPLETELY SEPARATE ENTITIES? Lets hear it... You tell me how Ning partnering with a company has anything to do with 'Controversies' and the banning of a 3rd party provider...Ningipedia (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As I look back through prior historical changes in the content of this Wikipedia entry, I see you and others have been trying to bully others who have been seeking to provide accurate, referenced historical information on Ning relative to its relationship with network creators and developers. This company, Widget Laboratory, is part of this history which also includes other partnerships, shutting of access to PHP code and REST APIs and banning adult network providers. The loss of time and money by network creators on the Ning platform, the shifting business and development models, and the numerous articles and discussions on these controversies throughout the social network and web technology world are very appropriate for Wikipedia. Again - Wikipedia is not a corporate marketing PR platform for Ning. It is a place people go to actually learn in living/breathing format about important topics. I wonder if you realize that your bullying and abusive dialogue is also part of the whole reason these controversies are part of the Ning history? Muggzzi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC).

Nice try. When are you going to provide any proof of anything you say? I didn't feel the need to post in here until 2 days ago when I got fed up with your slanted changes. Muggzzi, put your money where your mouth is and provide some evidence. Blank statements don't mean anything.

Hey - know why all of your attempts at actual hyperlinkage to widgetlaboratory's website were removed? Wanna know why Muggzzi? Because wikipedia is not a forum to push personal agenda. Do you understand this? I don't think you really get it. Do you see that by your own logic, I should add "See partnership with scripts4ning below." to the Widgetlaboratory piece. So you tell me - if I did that, what would the point be? How does Widgetlaboratory have anything to do with scripts4ning acquisition? You're not going to understand. Call me a bully. I'll call you an illogical, 1-sided factschanger with an agenda. You do not like ning. And you have a relationship with Widgetlaboratory. I don't think you really understand the point of Wikipedia.Ningipedia (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the Charting Stocks article a reliable source?

Is this article from the blog Charting Stocks[1] a reliable source for the article Ning?

Also see the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here [2] 21:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangaru99 (talk • contribs)

Charting Stocks provides stock market news and insight. Recently, the following major media organizations have quoted or referenced the ChartingStocks.net news site: Wall Street Journal, Schaeffers Research, Dow Jones News Wire, and I.N.N. World Report.Muggzzi —Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC).

How can a low traffic and otherwise unremarkable blog about the stock market be a reliable source in this case since this discussion isn't related to stocks in any way? Even if it has been "quoted or referenced" by "major media organizations?" (Citations would always be helpful here). My impression is that the blog is actually owned by the user Muggzzi, and that this link is being included in the article in order to improve the pagerank of the blog.Speckssommer (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As discussed previously, ChartingStocks.net reports on a wide range of corporate, stock market and media news and insights. The online social network tools are very much part of this focus area. I'm sorry Speckssommer jumps to unsubstantiated conclusions about my personal ownership of domains, blogs, etc. - as this assertions are not true. Please keep focused to real, tangible discussions instead of wild eyed accusations.Muggzzi —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC).

I can assure you that my eyes are not wild. I also note that you haven't provided citations for the claims you have made above. I have read much of the back-catalog of the chartingstocks blog and can assure you that the Ning related articles are quite out of character with the rest of the site. In addition, the referenced article itself is very much an opinion piece rather than factual reporting; it makes numerous unsubstantiated claims. I fail to see how it can be considered to be authoritative or even relevant in this matter. If you disagree, please provide some evidence of this "controversy" outside of this blog post. If there was such a controversy, it should be quite evident across numerous reputable sources. Speckssommer (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Muggzzi:I have again reverted your changes to the controversies section. Linking to a GetSatisfaction thread is not evidence of a controversy, and the review you linked to had no relation to the section it was added to. The scripts4ning relationship is mentioned in features and is not a controversy in any sense. You are trying to use wikipedia to push forward your own isolated point of view on Ning, and this is not the purpose or intent of wikipedia. Speckssommer (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Speckssommer: I ave again reverted your POV changes which seek to remove factual references to the many Ning controversies. Removing well referenced details and linking to one of Ning's own GetSatisfaction thread is simply expressing a POV that wishes to not have references to the many controversies Ning has experienced. The review from a reliable source also mentions these controversies - hence providing further documentation of the wide spread discussions, reports on the many Ning controversies. These controversies are very important as they are at the heart of the ever evolving social network landscape. Adult networks, third-party providers, member ownership, etc. -- very vital topics and controversies in the social network realm.