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)[reply]

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. --Versa geek 03:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia blacklisting

This template must be substituted. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? There isn't any reason why it should be included in the article if its blackklisted. Most people browsing Wikipedia don't really care about the behind-the-scenes stuff at Wikipedia and would find it irrelavent. AGiorgio08 ^talk 22:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To explain: the eHow website is on the Wikimedia blacklist. This was mentioned in the article (with a Wikimedia page for a ref) and it was removed by User:Damiens.rf five times. I reverted it and so did two IP editors. The text has currently been removed by User:Damiens.rf and the page locked by an admin pending a consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't see any reason why it should be included. The article should pertain solely to the company, and not Wikimedia's perspective of accuracy and reliability. Not to mention that would constitute as a biased statement. Wikipedia is about retaining neutrality, and using itself as a source, for something that is irrelavent to the company, conflicts with that very guideline. I know that's not the preferred consensus, and maybe I am missing some important facts; but thats just my own opinion. AGiorgio08 ^talk 22:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I think the most important thing here is to have a discussion and find a consensus, whatever it may be. - Ahunt (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To a certain extent, of course the Wikimedia link is a "biased statement." It's no more biased than the opinions put forth elsewhere in the criticisms section of the article. That's the whole purpose of labeling it a "criticism" section - to warn the reader that these are opinions and should be judged accordingly. 68.32.94.161 (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, wikipedia related policy decisions should not be mentioned in the article space unless for some reason the interaction between wikipedia policies and the article have gained media attention. That does not appear to be the case here. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting and useful statement - is that written down anywhere, such as in a policy or guideline? - Ahunt (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find it written down anywhere, but my impression is that is how similar discussions usually end. Consider WP:V which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Wikipedia is by definition not a reliable source. So if we can't use Wikipedia for verification, and information must be verifiable to meet the standard for inclusion, on wiki controversy cannot meet the threshold for inclusion unless there has been off wiki coverage of it. However contrary to that, you don't need to cite unless material has been challenged, and I would consider that to mean a challenge to the accuracy of the information, not just a desire to not include it. Still though I think the general approach of not mentioning on wiki activity unless it gets press coverage is a sound approach. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad it isn't a written policy or guideline as that would make this debate easier! When it says that Wikipedia can't be used as a ref in WP:CIRCULAR that refers to not using something written in a Wikipedia article as a reference, because that obviously leads to circular logic. There doesn't seem to be anything to prevent quoting Wikipedia policy, like the blacklist in an article, which is a quite different case. - Ahunt (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't that be OR, primary source and all?. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think so - it is a simple statement of fact, no need to draw conclusions or similar. "It is on the blacklist and here is a ref that shows that it is". - Ahunt (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't see it as being original research to include a link to a policy. No original research means that the material needs to be attributable to a reliable source. We'd simply be reporting the fact that an opinion has been reached, and using a pretty reliable source to do it. 68.32.94.161 (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty irrelevant fact, indeed. That's the point. --Damiens.rf 20:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the point, then this isn't an argument about application of important policy (self-citation by Wikipedia, original research, etc) but rather about what one person does or doesn't think is relevant. Right now, it looks like more people think this is relevant than irrelevant. 68.32.94.161 (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I was just interested in joining the debate. And thought I would choose the minority's side, just to make things more interesting. AGiorgio08 ^talk 09:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize - your input was both civil and helpful in understanding all sides of this issue so an appropriate consensus can be arrived at. - Ahunt (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree fully with Monty845. Unless the blacklisting has been discussed in multiple reliable sources, it shouldn't be mentioned. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection