Talk:EHow

I think it would be stronger to discuss the history of the writer pay using external sources rather than just links to the current compensation page. The article could use more more sourcing according to WP:RS. I can't add to the article right now, but here is at least one articles from 2007 to get started: http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/06/demand_media_offers_payforplay.php. Are there other news articles that discuss the history of payment? Flowanda | Talk 02:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

source for much of the history section

I added much of this material, it was adapted from Jack Herrick's writeup about the history of eHow, on wikiHow. At some point Jack split the history into two pages, one for eHow and one for wikiHow - my original reference pointed to the history article before it was split. I'm guessing that's why it was removed. I'm not sure where this page falls in the WP:RS/WP:OR category.. it's certainly self-published by Jack.. Anyway, if it seems appropriate to use this as a ref in the article.. please add it. --Versageek 03:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

1932

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think eHow was founded in 1932... What is the correct date please? - Verity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.98.47 (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

1st paragraph says arts. by Pro and amateur, at end says Pro only

1st paragraph says

eHow content is created by both professional experts and amateur members

Near end, says:

In September 2006, eHow launched weHow.com, which allowed registered users to create new how-to articles (eHow articles continued to be written exclusively by professionals). [bolding added]

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 

Wikipedia blacklisting

User:Damiens.rf has now removed this twice with the edit summaries "This is not relevant. egocentrism" and "this is egocentrism by wikipedia." I have asked him to stopped edit warring and discuss. Personally I did not add this section but I think it is worth including as it shows the level of reliability of eHow, with a reliable ref cited. - Ahunt (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay User:Damiens.rf has now removed this three times and been reverted. As per WP:BRD you have to discuss and gain consensus to remove this. So far you don't have that consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, discuss content, not me. Why should we cite an wikipedia policy in an article? Which other serious encyclopedia would do that? --Damiens.rf 23:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't discuss the subject without describing your actions in editing the article and thus precipitating this discussion. I didn't add this sentence, but personally think it ought to stay because Wikipedia itself is a significant social subject. Wikipedia is mentioned in some articles, when relevant to the subject at hand. A couple of examples where Wikipedia is subject in an article: Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement and Jim Prentice. - Ahunt (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

We need sources independent from Wikipedia mentioning the blacklisting to make sure this was relevant. --Damiens.rf 20:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Not correct - if you check WP:ABOUTSELF you will see that an organization is considered authoritative on its own policies and a third party ref is not required. So far you not not have a consensus to remove this, but I see you have removed it again. I could report you for WP:3RR and WP:EW, but instead I will ask you to revert yourself until we have a consensus to remove this. We know you want it removed and I oppose that, I would like to also hear from other editors watching this article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The independent sources are not for proving such policy exists. They are required to establish this policy is relevant to an encyclopedic article about EHow. --Damiens.rf 00:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if other editors agree with you that it should be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on his or her edit and edit summary it looks like User:68.32.94.161 disagrees with you. - Ahunt (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

How convenient. --Damiens.rf 18:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry I don't understand the nature of that comment, perhaps you can explain it to me? - Ahunt (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Try again. --Damiens.rf 17:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Editors here shouldnt edit war about this, User:Damiens.rf removal has been challenged so really Damiens should gain consensus here for it to be removed and not edit war. I will not protect the article for the time being as you are all experienced editors and should know the right thing to do is to discuss it and not edit war. If you guys cant come to an agreement about it then perhaps a WP:RFC may be appropriate. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User:141.214.17.5 has also reinstated this text, which totals three editors in favour of keeping the text and one opposed. - Ahunt (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Dont disagree that three editors have opposed the removal but the IP should not have changed the article until a conclusion had been reached on this page. MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, consider drafting an RFC. --Damiens.rf 17:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That is up to you to submit an RFC - so far three editors have reinstated the text and you have removed it five times. You need to gain consensus to remove it, there is already a consensus to keep it. I also wanted to ask you what this edit summary means "Undid revision 425838625 by 141.214.17.5 (talk) this is being discussed. reverting suspect sockpuppet". I checked both these IP address that reverted you on ARIN. The first one is on ComCast in New Jersey, the second one is a direct assigned IP address to the University of Michigan Medical Center. For my part, as per my user page, I live in Canada and am on National Capital FreeNet for an ISP - so whom are you accussing of being a sockpuppet of whom? - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have protected the page from editing as despite a request users have continued to edit. It may be the wrong version to some users but should not be changed either way until a consensus is reached on this talkpage. Please remember to discuss the removal of the section and not each other or thier motives, thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

So what exactly is this debate about? Whether or not to include ehow to the blacklist, or whether or not to mention it on the page? AGiorgio08 ^talk 22:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)