Jump to content

Talk:Authonomy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Slow down

[edit]

Hmm, if you speedy within 30 seconds of an article being created and while still being researched, its no wonder we can't retain new editors. Sjc (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have asked the tagger to be a little more patient in cases like this in the future. It was clear to me from the outside that a CSD was not the way to go: plenty of sources are out there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically I am on the Task Force part of whose remit is to solve precisely this sort of over-zealous abreaction, and to generally improve community health. It's always nice to be able to back up one's arguments with case history, and this is a lovely bit of prima facie evidence. Thanks for your response btw Shawn. Sjc (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Incidentally, for my forensics, I note that this was speedied under A7:

A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organisations, web content).

The salient part of this clause reads:

An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. [..]

At the time of the speedy A7 the article clearly stated that authonomy was owned by HarperCollins, itself a subsidiary of News Corporation, the second largest media conglomerate in the world. As such, it is patently not at any point an A7 candidate since NewsCorp is subject to constant scrutiny and all its activities at some level or other are inherently notable, in the minutest detail. Sjc (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed] --Orange Mike | Talk 17:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck finding citations from organisations not to some extent owned or controlled by Newscorp. I'm done here and I'm done with Wikipedia. This is frankly an abusive community. Sjc (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what was that comment supposed to mean Orange Mike? --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was seeking some evidence for the outre assertion that "NewsCorp is subject to constant scrutiny and all its activities at some level or other are inherently notable, in the minutest detail", since notability is not inherited. Not even Microsoft can make that claim. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I am driving by gathering Task Force information for (another) essay on the fashionable extremist trope of defining content by policy for another Task Force working committee, let me waste some more time to clarify this for your edification since even simple facts apparently need substantiation and can be challenged as being outre(sic). This obsession of your's with policy is symptomatic of a wider malaise affecting WP, the extravagant wastage of time by inappropriate, unjustifiable, and wholly unnecessary pettyfogging bureaucracy at the expense of both quality and content. NOTINHERITED is non-applicable in this instance for fairly substantial and obvious reasons which I will spell out in words with as few syllables as possible. NewsCorp has a long and inglorious history of media manipulation, was involved extensively in breaking the power of the trade unions (certainly in Britain, and also elsewhere), and is either the largest or second largest (no one can really tell, their figures are very carefully massaged and their web spreads so far and wide) media conglomerate in the world. NewsCorp has the political and media clout to change governmental policy across the globe and even to change the government; The Sun (a UK NewsCorp yellow press tabloid which advertises itself as a family newspaper whilst touting pornography) was not joking when it came up with the now infamous headline It's The Sun Wot Won It. What particularly demands scrutiny however is the concentration of media power in the hands of one man Rupert Murdoch, the effective owner of NewsCorp. In terms of influence and power, his reach and grasp is significantly greater than that of any empire builder in history (and I can provide some cites for you in this respect: [1], [2],[3],[4], etc, etc, ad nauseam). If you fail to see the significance of Mr Murdoch & his merry minions introducing a new website with a specific media business objective which has considerable scope for further extension and amplification into other media sectors (e.g. news & content gathering ), I would contend that you would probably not have recognised the onset of WWII until such time as a Panzer crashed through your living room door, half a dozen stormtroopers jumped out, and machine-gunned the complacent flight of plaster ducks on your equally complacent living room wall. Even then you'd more than likely be looking for a citation. It is a salient fact of history that powers such as Mr Murdoch commands operate best under cover of darkness. Sjc (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, having examined the policy note in notability is not inherited. in detail, since I happen to be taking a degree of specific interest in policy, its application and its misapplication, I am somewhat suprised to learn that it is you in fact who is in error. Whilst this does not exactly suit the premise which I was looking at it for as evidence in another scenario for the Task Force, it does indicate to me that not all policy is as broken as it superficially appears, and that in many places clarity and intelligence has been applied to the construction of it. It is a pity that you did not choose to read and inwardly digest the document in its entirety.
There is a very well-worded qualifying rubric which covers situations similar to this explicitly within the document. Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady. I would contend that NewsCorp, and all its subsidiaries and their operations both implicitly and explicitly, come comfortably within the ambit of this qualifying proviso, and a careful re-reading of the document is recommended; your analogous comment on Microsoft is similarly flawed, albeit that Microsoft is a quantifiably less influential force in recent times than heretofore. Notability in areas such as these involves a necessary element of intelligent subjective interpretation, however the proviso is applicable in most reasonable circumstances.
Authonomy is however not non-notable on more than one count. It is in many ways a ground-breaking and innovative site which is beginning to produce revenue stream income for NewsCorp: A FairyTale of New York has entered the UK bestseller charts. It predicates a substantive change in the way in which the entire publishing industry sources material. It is also controversial in the way in which ranking and tit-for-tat ranking can be manipulated. While I will not be making any more edits to this article or any other WP article (unless within the immediate sphere of my other Wikimedia work), this,in my opinion, ought to be a fairly substantial article within one to two years. Sjc (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Ad?

[edit]

So this page is an ad for Authonomy, the inc. company? --Kebman (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The following link is no longer active: 8. Walters, Mary M. "Authonomy: One Writer's Experience". Publetariat. Retrieved 2009-11-17. Can the text of the original article be retrieved? Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Authonomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Authonomy&oldid=1199207533"