Talk:ChinesePod

Someone keeps adding a number of statements to the popularity section without any citation whatsoever. If the editor actually thinks this is wikipedia worthy (although it would definitely need citations) please discuss it here. Maxintman (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why the 'controversy' section was deleted? It is relevant and factual information. This is Wikipedia not a promotional site where the owners of a product can whip off negative material at whim. Therefore I'm going to repost it and if this develops into an edit war I think we all know what the outcome will be. - Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.123.89.16 (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Kris, we all know it's you, but no-one knows why you need to be so disgruntled. The section was was deleted because you make unfounded criminal accusations and slur the organiztion. This isn't something you would dare to do publicly, so you do it here and try to hide behind the anonymity. The team at ChinesePod works hard and deserves better than to have their good name dragged through the mud. Not everyone who works here is an owner. Get a life, Kris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.46.181.57 (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, if you like we could add you under the Controversy section, Kris and include details of your abject failure when you worked for the company. It explains why you're disgruntled and how cowardly you really are. That would make a good addition to the article, wouldn't it Kris? That's relevant and factual too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.46.181.57 (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Language note, If the team have better English Language skills - they use a lot of loose "slangy" terms, they would often find there is a better translation in English (UK) than they are using.Having said that this is a good course. Their is a slant towards Local Shanghainese of course,Presenter Zhou does not have the most standard accent - (comment from Chinese relatives)

I removed the request for deletion (in regards to notability) owing to the fact that ChinesePod has been mentioned on NPR and the Shanghai Morning Post and is ranked highly by Yahoo. It also apparently has in excess of 10,000 downloads a day and is the 3rd most popular podcast in China. Because of the rising status of China, and hence interest in spoken Mandarin, it's likely (although not assured) that the visability and presence of this service will continue to increase as well.--Daveswagon 03:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I cannot agree with you. Chinesepod is a business service, not a academic site. Any commercial sites all offer some free trial contents. Visitors need to pay to get most of services. [Subscription Price]. For 'been mentioned on NPR and the Shanghai Morning Post', in China, if you hope to promote your business, you can bribe a newspaper reporter easily. Generally after a reporter gets $100-200, he will report your business. If you hope to do more promotion, you also need to bribe editors and related people. So 'been mentioned on NPR and the Shanghai Morning Post'. For 'ranked highly by Yahoo', SEO or another online promotion business service can help. For 'has in excess of 10,000 downloads a day', Which authority or neutral statistical agencies can give out the data? In China, there is no such body. I guess most of the description are from the operators for the promotion. For 'the 3rd most popular podcast in China', in my opinion, it is not convincing. In China, the most popular podcast services are related to music. It is the same as in the other countries. Moreover, China's lack of copyright protection, and free music podcast is of course the most popular. BTW, any Chinese people need to learn Chinese through downloading podcast? If only foreign people in China use it, how we can say 'the 3rd most popular podcast in China'. So the article is written only for Advertising and SEO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesjaneiss (talk • contribs) 10:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - this article is pure advertisment. Should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.34.188.42 (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't be deleted. The tone certainly isn't very objective - should probably be changed - but Chinesepod is popular enough that many people will probably come to Wikipedia looking for more information about it. And the website listed under John Pasden's name is one of the only (if not the only) websites written in English that offers visitors a chance to hear words and their translations in Shanghainese... in other words, it's noteworthy. This page is helpful (to me at least). Biased, yes, but helpful. Reform it, don't delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.253.52 (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In lieu of deletion, I overhauled this article. As everyone previously agreed, it was written like an advertisement and was full of grammatical errors and outdated information. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, we can probably remove the Advert template, but I'll leave it up for now until others weigh in. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section/Original Research

I think the criticism section raises some interesting points, but without citation it smacks of original research, and at worst, mere supposition. Even if well founded, the line about the site being an entertaining gimmick doesn't seem very encyclopedic. If anyone knows more about linguistic principles, especially language instruction, this section could use your help. --Thomas B♘talk 00:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the criticism section should be cited, but that does not look likely to happen given the content. Plus, "The lessons are heavily based around explicit translation of content" is written, which is true for the Newbie levels, but completely false for the advanced levels. Is there an appropriate tag that we can use for the time being? Hajikami (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where the idea that an encyclopedia article should have a "criticism" section stems from. Tacking on a section in which you can just list what you don't like about the topic at hand serves no purpose in an encyclopedia article and it is by its nature POV. I am removing this section. And, no, I am not in any way connected to Chinese Pod. You can view the history of my edits and see that I have removed similar criticism sections in the past. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth should an encycopedia article on a product not contain criticisms of that product. Would you rather the article only contains positive comments and leaves out all the shortcomings completely? Would you rather I changed the heading from 'criticisms' to 'shortcomings' or 'failings' instead? What about the thousands of other articles that have a 'criticisms' section?

If you can answer any of the points I rasied in the section, please do so. Otherwise I suggest you leave it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Easton (talk • contribs) 03:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

1. "Why on earth should an encycopedia article on a product not contain criticisms of that product."

The point of an encyclopedia is to present FACTS, not opinions. Criticisms are opinions.

2. "Would you rather the article only contains positive comments and leaves out all the shortcomings completely?"

The article shouldn't contain "comments" at all. And definitely neither "positive" nor "negative" comments. I do not care what the benefits or shortcomings of ChinesePod are. Those are opinions.

3. "Would you rather I changed the heading from 'criticisms' to 'shortcomings' or 'failings' instead?"

No, I'm not interested in opinions under any heading.

4. "What about the thousands of other articles that have a 'criticisms' section?"

They should all be removed. I am contributing to that effort.

Please view Wikipedia's entry on POV material. Thanks. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Opinions can represent facts if backed up with evidence. I have an opinion that the sun is hot, I also know this to be a fact. Now, you still have not challenged any of the points I made therefore I feel fully justified in reverting to the section. If you can prove that what I wrote was factually incorrect that would be a start.

By removing criticisms section from articles you are removing valuable, relevant and valid knowledge and facts.

I have read the POV pages, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Easton (talk • contribs) 09:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually you need to prove that the section has a basis by providing credible citations from people expressing such criticism. Having a criticism section is fine but each criticism needs to be cited else it becomes original research which is not allowed. The current criticism section is filled with weasel words that do not identify where the criticism comes from. Bashen (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

@Peter Easton

"Opinions can represent facts if backed up with evidence. I have an opinion that the sun is hot, I also know this to be a fact."

An opinion may or may not be based on facts; that does not make an opinion a fact. The sun is either hot or it isn't (a fact). If you happen to believe that the sun is hot and you aren't basing that on any evidence (facts), that doesn't magically turn your belief into a fact. That is called a "coincidence."

"If you can prove that what I wrote was factually incorrect"

You've got that backwards. The burden of proof is on you. You added a bunch of opinions (POV), which you are then telling other people to "disprove." This is confused on your part. First, you can't disprove an opinion. Second, even if you could, when you contribute information the burden is on you to prove/source it as factually accurate, not others to disprove whatever you happen to say.

"By removing criticisms section from articles you are removing valuable, relevant and valid knowledge and facts."

Please examine any encyclopedia and find the "criticism" section in each article. That is an impossible task, of course, because no encyclopedia contains random criticisms of its entries -- and for good reason. One example: Sammy Davis, Jr. I don't like his music. There are many people who don't, some of them even have blogs or write articles for newspapers. Should we then add a "criticism" section to the Sammy Davis Jr. entry listing a bunch of different people's opinions of his music? e.g., "Some people question the value of Sammy Davis Jr's music. One critic called it "atrocious." We could even add a link to "source" that. Criticisms are by nature POV and thus violate Wikipedia's editorial policies.

Now, let's say that a controversy or scandal erupted in the national media over a criticism. Then you have a case for adding a section that would deal with that, but not merely because someone criticized something -- it would be noteworthy because of the media attention, etc., it received.

Re ChinesePod, if someone added a "Praise" section to this article and listed a bunch of quotes from random sources online saying, "ChinesePod is the best way to learn a languange on earth!" would you object? I would -- and for the same reason that I object to your criticism section.

Adding criticism sections to articles on Wikipedia just invites people to editorialize and present opinions as facts. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ashe, I have cited my sources. If you bothered to read the section you would have seen that. Now I ask a third time, disprove what I have written. The burden of proof is now on you to discredit the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Easton (talk • contribs) 03:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

False. Simply linking to a random opinion that is posted online that happens to comport with your own does not constitute "sourcing." An opinion is an opinion. It is still POV. Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Random opinion"? More like relevant and factual observations backed up with references. Just because something is in a 'criticisms' section does not mean it is an opinion. It's pretty short-sighted and ignorant to think that way. Criticisms provide a more balanced view. At present the 'recognition in the media' section looks like a veiled advert, therefore it's only fair to say what is not so great about the product. If you haven't noticed, I have backed up the reasons for this with references.

Also, there's nothing inherently wrong with a 'crticisms' section, as someone has already pointed out. You seem to be denying that a product can have real shortcomings. If you argue the points in the section you will see that my comments are valid and fair.

Argue the points. You can't win this argument otherwise.--Peter Easton (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Talk:Chinesepod#Criticisms. Dispute about whether the comments are POV or facts. 03:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.228.188.22 (talk)

@Peter -

I hope you were being ironic when you said "argue the points." You have ignored virtually every point I have raised since the beginning of this debate, while I have addressed all of the points you have raised line by line -- as anyone can see above. So, I'll do it yet again...

"Criticisms provide a more balanced view."

-- You have a basic misunderstanding of what a criticism is. According to Merriam-Webster: criticism -- a. the act of criticizing usually unfavorably b. a critical observation or remark c. critique2: the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature  ; also : writings expressing such evaluation or analysis and for "criticizing" 1. to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly : evaluate 2. to find fault with : point out the faults of

To "judge, evaluate, analyze, find fault with" sums it up, wouldn't you agree? Well, that is exactly what Wikipedia policy prohibits. All of those fall under POV or original research (evaluation and analysis, etc.).

"More like relevant and factual observations backed up with references."

-- You wrote "Some argue that using ChinesePod.." and "Some find this methodology helpful.." Point 1 -- those are weasel words. Point 2 -- It may be a fact that "some" people hold certain opinions. That does not make the content of those opinions "factual observations." In fact, "factual observations" is exactly what they are not: they are subjective opinions.

"At present the 'recognition in the media' section looks like a veiled advert"

-- Then change that section. Don't add a new POV section to try to "counterbalance" it.

"If you haven't noticed, I have backed up the reasons for this with references"

-- You don't need to "back up the reasons" for facts, which again illustrates that you are not dealing in facts, but in arguments and opinions.

"there's nothing inherently wrong with a 'crticisms' section"

-- Yes, there is. See my above points which you never addressed.

"You seem to be denying that a product can have real shortcomings."

-- No, I am denying that the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to list the benefits and shortcomings of products. That is what Google is for. What people view to be benefits or shortcomings are opinions. They are entirely subjective and POV and are thus not allowed according to Wikipedia policy. It is that simple.

"If you argue the points in the section you will see that my comments are valid and fair."

-- You just have a basic misunderstanding of POV.

"Argue the points."

-- Please take your own advice here. I've been arguing the points the entire time..see above. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ashe,

You still haven’t addressed any of the points in the section. What this whole page consists of is you waffling about how three criticisms constitute POV. If so, then prove it! I have cited my sources.

“that [criticism] is exactly what Wikipedia policy prohibits”

Wikipedia does not prohibit this at all. This is a complete delusion on your part. Show me the specific rule regarding criticisms please.

You wrote "Some argue that using ChinesePod.." and "Some find this methodology helpful.."

A. I didn’t write either. Someone added the weasel words later but since they were more diplomatic than my original post I left them as they don’t detract from the point in any significant way.

B. You are emphasising the wrong part perhaps deliberately to direct attention away from the real crux. What I originally wrote was:

“It is highly debatable whether using Chinesepod is any more effective than a real teacher.”

Which is true, weasel words or not but this is not the main issue at hand. This is not simply an opinion. Anyone who has ever learned a second language knows there is no substitute for a teacher. You can’t learn language just from a book, a podcast or any piece of software. There are no real shortcuts. Although the people behind Chinesepod like to profess otherwise, for obvious reasons. In this case I think the source I have cited is particularly appropriate.

I’m quite prepared to remove the last sentence as I didn’t write that and it doesn’t add anything to the content of the page.

Again, it seems incredibly foolish to remove a criticism section just because you have a personal aversion to someone shedding light on a drawback of a saleable object. And as I have stated, there are no Wikipedia rules about not having ‘criticisms’ section. On the contrary, many articles have them and always have done. I find them often to be the most important or interesting part of the page. Here are 3 perfectly legitimate and well-referenced examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook

Get real. It's adds to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Easton (talk • contribs) 13:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

@Peter

"Anyone who has ever learned a second language knows there is no substitute for a teacher. You can’t learn language just from a book, a podcast or any piece of software. There are no real shortcuts."

-- You are unable to distinguish an opinion from a fact. That is the problem here.

"If so, then prove it! "

-- As I already stated (and you ignored), you can't prove or disprove an opinion. You can argue or debate the merits of an opinion -- and that is exactly what Wikipedia prohibits.

"I have cited my sources."

-- You are under the illusion that adding a link to back up an opinion or to illustrate an opinion is the same as sourcing a fact.

"there are no Wikipedia rules about not having ‘criticisms’ section"

-- Sorry, there are. It is called NPOV and "no original research." If you put POV material in a criticism section, then that section violates Wikipedia policy.

"I find them often to be the most important or interesting part of the page."

-- Wikipedia policy on POV material is designed to avoid debates like the one we are having. These debates are inevitable when someone starts adding personal criticisms and POV material to Wikipedia articles.

"Here are 3 perfectly legitimate and well-referenced examples:"

-- The fact that other articles may violate Wikipedia policy does not help your case.

"It's adds to the article."

-- Again, you are missing the point. The goal of Wikipedia is not to add as much "useful" information to an article as possible. The goal is to create FACTUAL articles that are as free from opinion, criticism, analysis, and bias as possible. As I mentioned earlier, if you want to read about different peoples views on the pros and cons of a product, use google or CNET or epinions, etc. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You can have a criticism section without violating NPOV (there is some discussion of criticism sections here, not a formal policy though). The NPOV policy does not mean that an article cannot present an opinion. It means opinions need to be stated as such, cited from a notable, reliable source and not given undo weight. Now whether this article is a candidate for a criticism section is another issue. The current criticism section references general opinions on a learning methodology and not ChinesePod itself. In my view, linking the two qualifies as original research and thus should not be allowed. Before anymore reverting goes on, I'd suggest getting an unbiased third opinion on the matter so this doesn't turn into an edit war. Bashen (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You can have any kind of section without violating NPOV, as I already said above that really isn't the issue in this case.

"It means opinions need to be stated as such, cited from a notable, reliable source and not given "

-- Yes, I already mentioned this. The keyword is "notable." If the President of China criticized ChinesePod, that should probably be included in this article due to its notability, for example.

"there is some discussion of criticism sections.."

-- As you point out, that is not Wikipedia policy and is not dispositive. A glance at the talk page for that article reveals that the contents of that article are very much disputed.

"In my view, linking the two qualifies as original research and thus should not be allowed."

-- We agree there.

"I'd suggest getting an unbiased third opinion.."

-- We agree there. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"The current criticism section references general opinions on a learning methodology and not ChinesePod itself."

New references added accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Easton (talk • contribs) 02:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You again ignored all of the points raised about this issue. Also, I agreed with Bashen that we should seek third opinions on this before further edits. You ignored that and reverted it again. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it because I have added extra references according the requirements stipulated by Bashen. Again, you haven't even bothered to look at the content of the section. Bashen has destroyed your arguemnt re criticisms so it is only left for you to argue the points in the section. Be my guest - or perhaps you haven't got the foggiest when it comes to talking about language learning, which I suspect is why this debate has gone the way it has.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Easton (talk • contribs) 07:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ashe here. There is no justification for a criticism section in this case. Criticism sections are rarely warranted and only really make sense when the criticism itself is notable. In this case, it seems like it was merely added just for the sake of saying something negative about the topic. Also, any time you start writing things like "some argue" or "some say," a huge red flag goes up. What is to stop editors (and trolls) from adding things like "Some argue that Obama is the anti-Christ" to that article? Or "Some say Bush planned 9/11." Well, some people do argue that. Should that be included then? And that is exactly how most people use these criticism sections, to slip in POV material as if it is factual.

I'm not saying that a criticism section is *never* justified, but in the case of ChinesePod, the motivation seems to be "we have to say something negative about it." Pallas sun (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

@Peter,

"Again, you haven't even bothered to look at the content of the section."

-- I have addressed virtually every point you have raised, line by line. You, on the contrary, have completed ignored the points I and others have raised here. You aren't going to convince anyone that way.

"Bashen has destroyed your arguemnt re criticisms"

-- You'll have to point that out. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

@ Pallas Sun - you're emphasising the wrong part. It doesn't matter if I write 'some say' or if I make a plain asserrtion. The fact is that I have backed up the assertion with valid references. Your 'Obama is the anti-christ' analogy is a complete fallacy because it has to be backed up with proper references.

@ Ashe

"I have addressed virtually every point you have raised, line by line. "

This is simply a straight out lie. You have not discussed one point I have made in the section.--Peter Easton (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

@Peter,

As your "'Obama is the anti-christ' analogy is a complete fallacy because it has to be backed up with proper references." comment reveals, you don't seem to get that you could find a random news article/blog post/opinion online in 4 seconds stating that "Obama is the antichrist." You could then add that link to a statement like "Some people say Obama is the antiChrist" and...voila..it's "sourced" now! That is exactly what you did. This is why I said 3 days ago that you are confusing "linking to an opinion" with sourcing a fact. They aren't the same thing. [by the way, http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+may+be+antichrist only gets you 760,000+ results to choose from for "sourcing" that.]

All you are doing is linking to an opinion that you happen to want to push. That is not "sourcing." We have now had multiple people here object to your criticism section. Give it up. -- Ashe the Cyborg (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If further opinions are still wanted, I agree with Ashe on this debate. Aside from that, part of what convinces me that it is not neutral point of view, is that it seems to lodge some very unfair criticism. Looking at the most recent version, first sentence - I am quite certain Peter is correct that ChinesePod is not as good as having a live teacher with you, but what language learning product is? People use them for the affordabilty and convenience. Second sentence - Almost all language learning products, not to mention university Chinese programs, do have translation of dialogues as a component, so should we add this same criticism to every page that discusses such a program? Third sentence - Again, undeniably true, ChinesePod doesn't incorperate "some principles of language learning", and then you are right, it doesn't incorporate those activities that involve talking to someone - it is a podcast after all. Though especially unfair since ChinesePod, in many lessons, expressly has the hosts say "you can't learn just by listening, go out and practice the dialogues" and has done much to encourage the formation of groups of listeners on its website, focussed around practicing - some over skype, some formed around regional locations. So they seem to recognize the limitations of their product, and advise listeners to supplement their learning. In conclusion, I think having this criticism section would be about as neutral as adding to the wikedia article about Spain - "Some argue that the Spanish military would have no chance against the United States were war to ensue. Spain's army is less well trained and the United States Air Force could probably bomb Spanish cities into rubble." Opinions, certainly, and who cares whether they are true or not? Even if the person sourced some random internet tirade, or maybe even a compilation of statistics regarding relative troops strengths, who would want this put into a wikipedia article?

JaxElls (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology for inappropriate PROD

The page FrenchPod has been discussed for deletion as a less-notable pod cast. I also placed dated {{prod}} tags on SpanishPod and EnglishPod, pages treating similar podcasts. In my zeal, I also placed a prod on this page. I did not notice that the page actually does cite sources and make a good claim for notability. After I noticed my mistake, I removed the tag. My apologies for not being more careful before clicking Save page. Cnilep (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)