Talk:DreamHost/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Neutrality

Disgruntled Customer Effect

DreamHost is a huge hosting company. Whenever there is a problem that affects customer, a few are quite outraged. In some of these cases, they announce their intent to 'spread the word', basically wanting to punish DreamHost for their inconvenience by canceling, posting bad reviews, and otherwise warning folks about going with DreamHost. I believe looking at the billing issue section and some past edits that an unhappy past customer or two are using Wikipedia to draw a distinctively negative view of DreamHost. DreamHost has issues, as many (if not all) large primarily shared hosting companies do. There are good sides to DreamHost as well, but Wikipedia is not the forum to argue the case either way. Please leave agendas for slamming or promoting DreamHost at the door and try to make/keep this article objective, neutral, and on-topic. Thank you. 66.241.81.46 (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Gruntled Customer Effect

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. From that, "WIKIPEDIA is NOT for unverifiable material", "WIKIPEDIA is NOT a soapbox", "WIKIPEDIA is NOT a free advertising space", "WIKIPEDIA is NOT a place to publish your opinions", WIKIPEDIA is NOT a democracy", and "WIKIPEDIA is NOT a place to publish your new ideas". Current customers, owners and employees, and others who stand to benefit from the company's success, are vulnerable to "buyer's remorse" when verifiable, well-sourced, bad news reports make this information notable. If "the good sides to DreamHost" appear in verifiable, well-sourced, good news reports, then it would be notable as well. If this company is more or less like many (if not all) other similar companies, and nothing notable, then the article could be deleted. This article, over its history, suffers from a Gruntled Customer Effect, which motivates editors to include unreliable-sourced positive information, while deleting reliably-sourced negative information.

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." (Content Guide) --Judas278 (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Biased Article

I think the promotions section isn't very good. First off, every hosting company that has a referral program has spammers and dissatisfied customers. Specifically mentioning it on the DreamHost page and not on other pages for web hosts is unfair. If you look at the Godaddy page, you'll find nothing about spammers or dissatisfied customers. Also, there are things under Promotions that have nothing to do with promotions.

In addition, why bother mentioning the control panel? Every webhost has a control panel! The points made are someone's opinion and don't relate to Dreamhost as a subject.

I think the first two paragraphs before Promotions along with a few things from the sections below it are more than enough for a good, fair article about Dreamhost. -- Sleepy Sentry

I totally agree with Sleepy Sentry's assessment about promotions. I think there is evidence that disgruntled and former customers are shaping the article more than they should be. In the matter of the Control Panel, I do feel its uniqueness is worth mentioning. I think it stands head and shoulders above cPanel, and its uniqueness makes it less of a security vulnerability too. Note to Sleepy Sentry: Please sign your comments with four tilde characters (~~~~) -- Scjessey 15:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Supporting information re: control panel: Ours is a one of a kind, developed in-house and improved over the course of the 7 years we've been in business. Some people love it, a few don't, but the fact that we don't use the everyday cPanel or similar is noteworthy to anyone who wants to know more about DreamHost. -- 66.92.39.177 19:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding external links

Added [http://dhstatus.com unofficial dreamhost status] site to Dreamhost page, but it was removed... who decides what goes on the dreamhost page? is that site just not cool/useful enough or what? thx, 70.56.68.135 19:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

External links must follow Wikipedia guidelines, and such decisions are made by the Wikipedia community, or (if necessary) by Wikipedia administrators. The site in question did not add significant value to the article, and appeared to be designed mostly for the owner's personal enrichment (AdSense everywhere). -- Scjessey 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

BBB

There is no reason at all to put a link to a BBB study on an article for a business. The BBB ratings misrepresent companies because they are based solely on complaints. Attempts to add BBB links (when spotted) are usually removed, as per WP:EXT. -- Scjessey 12:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to question your ability to write a neutral article on this subject. Do you have any potential conflicts of interest? While I can understand removing a sole external link under WP:EXT, the removal of the referenced text which I've added is clearly not governed by that guideline. DreamHost has been the subject of many complaints, and their rating with the BBB has been the subject of much talk. I don't see any reason not to include this information, and I think to not include it would be extremely biased. If you have a problem with the BBB this article is not the place to discuss that. They are a highly respected organization and qualify as a reliable source on the number of unanswered complaints received about an organization. anthony 12:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is completely neutral, and simply presents basic company information and explains what the company does. There is evidence of POV in the article. Each piece of information given is properly cited. DreamHost has not been the subject of many complaints from a relative standpoint, and you cannot cite any statistic that will prove otherwise. The only person who feels the article is biased is you, and WP:NPOV guidelines explain that your opinion in the matter is not sufficient to warrant the neutrality tag. If you look back in Wikipedia's history, you will see numerous examples of BBB links being removed from company-related articles - almost all of which are to do with editors having an axe to grind with the company in question -- Scjessey 13:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the comments from others above. I am not the only person who feels this article is biased. You are an affiliate of Dreamhost and you have inserted your biased opinion into this article from the start, ignoring multiple people who have suggested a lack of balance and edit warring over anything which suggests a critical point of view. Please read over WP:COI and think very long and hard about whether or not you should be contributing to this article at all. anthony 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears you have failed to grasp the essence of WP:COI. No conflict of interest occurs in this instance because my contributions/additions/removals from the article have all been in the interest of a neutral point of view. The negative comments on this page of all come from individuals who definitely do have a conflict of interest, because they feel they have been slighted by the company in some way. Your own motivation remains unclear. I won't be reverting your last edit because I'd rather not violate WP:3RR. Also, please don't confuse Wikipedia guidelines with Wikipedia policy. -- Scjessey 14:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A google search for "dreamhost jessey" yields the quote "I don’t know anyone who preaches Dreamhost more than Simon Jessey." And that from a fellow DreamHost supporter. WP:COI applies regardless of whether or not you think you're contributing neutral information. My motivation is to present an informative, well-balanced article. I don't make money off DreamHost, and I don't make money off any competitor either. I've never been slighted by the company, and in fact I've never used their hosting service at all. I have absolutely no conflict of interest, and my comments are merely factual, not negative nor positive. I hope we can work together to create a balanced article, but reverting anything which you feel is negative is not the way to do so. anthony 14:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, you don't understand the essence of WP:COI, and you appear to be struggling with the concept of neutrality as well. I'm not opposed to any article with a balanced point of view, but adding a misleading BBB link will skew the currently balanced article into a negative position. Remember that the BBB link would not be appropriate for any article about a company. I'm not sure what your agenda is, but by briefly looking at the history of your contributions I see that you are no stranger to controversial editing. -- Scjessey 15:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey in that it is the *article* that is subject to WP:NPOV considerations. You surely are not suggesting that anyone with an opinion should not be allowed to edit a Wikipedia page! We all have opinions, but good editors are able to contribute without allowing those opinions to encroach upon the neutrality of the article. Given the clear statement in WP:COI that edits should be constrained "where your close connection to the subject may cause a conflict between your agenda and Wikipedia's goal of producing a neutral encyclopedia", one should evaluate the applicability of WP:COI based on the contents of the article in question. I have reviewed the article repeatedly, and see no non-neutral statements in it and no reflection of any "pro-DreamHost" bias. In fact, the only "neutrality" issue I see at all is the attempt to link the BBB into the article. As the BBB is a purely commercial interest in its own right, whith its own financial interests and motivations to encourage companies' membership and participation, reference to the BBB's relationship with, or rating of, *any* company should be suspect from a neutrality and POV standpoint. The argument that Scjessey's support of DreamHost or his "affiliate" status, absent any demonstrable bias in the article, is a strawman. I agree with him that the BBB verbiage is inappropriate in the article, and as *that* seems to be the basis for your neutrality tag, I disagree that the tag is proper and have removed it. -- Rlparker 16:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And what is your bias, Rlparker? Your only contribution at all to the encyclopedia was the edit you just made on DreamHost. anthony 17:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That looks rather like a personal attack to me. -- Scjessey 17:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

C'mon, it didn't take much searching to reveal that both you and rlparker are both admins of wiki.dreamhost.com. Pointing out that fact and questioning the bias of an editor doesn't seem to me to be a personal attack. anthony 17:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I have a bias, though I'd be happy to entertain and/or consider any discussion of bias you would like to allege. You can allege "bias of an editor" all you want, but you have yet to indicate where you think bias is evident in the article. I And, yes, that edit *was* my first Wikipedia participation; every person who participates here has to have a "first edit". Unfortunately, it looks as though I chose mine to be one where some kind of emotional knee-jerk is in play. Your comment is without foundation, non-responsive to the discussion in which it was posted, and frankly, just childish. Given that, and the lack of logic you have evidenced in this whole POV/COI/neutralilty issue with this article, I can only assume you have some deeper agenda than the quality of the article and you are certainly entitled to that agenda; you are not, however, entitled to detract from the quallity of the article in furtherance of it. To simply tag the article COI in response to my removal of NPOV tag is less than productive and demonstrate an unwillingness opn your part to engage in serious dialog with those that disagree with you. I've already stated, as has Scjessey that it is the *article* that should be free of COI and should maintain NPOV. I cannot find any evidence of COI in the article and, therefore, would have reverted your adding of that tag had another editor not already done so. As a courtesy to a Wkipedia newbie who is trying to take seriously the social contract in play here, would you please respond in this talk page with some discussion or indication of where in the article you feel that COI or lack of NPOV is in evidence before re-adding either tag? BTW, thanks for the intelligent and productive welcome to WIkipedia! -- Rlparker 17:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, everyone has a first edit on Wikipedia, but that first edit is usually not to revert an edit for an associate who just ran up against the three revert rule. It's usually not to revert a neutrality dispute tag from an article on a subject of which you have a strong bias. It's usually not too say that you agree with someone who you already know and work together with on another site, a site which in fact is used to promote the very product which the article you're discussing is about. anthony 18:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess there is something to be said for being "unusual", though I continue to reject the premise that I have a "strong bias", or any bias at all, merely by virtue of the fact that I have an online acquaintance with someone I agree with; I also have online acquaintances with whom I disagree. You seem to have a misunderstanding about the nature of the DreamHost Wiki and Jessey and my association with it. The site does not exist to promote DreamHost, rather it serves as a community resource for DreamHost, and DreamHost users, to document the use of the service. I am not an employee of DreamHost, nor is Jessey. We are merely customers who are active on that community resource wiki and who serve that community with limited Sysop privileges on that wiki. -- Rlparker 19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the reason I added the COI tag is because Jessey, who has substantially contributed to the article, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter. anthony 18:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that clearly enough, yet still fail to understand why you feel that is a valid position to take, absent any demonstrable effect of such alleged COI on the article other than the BBB issue (which I have already addressed and reject as being driven by any COI). -- Rlparker 19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again I feel I must point out that you do not understand what the Wikipedia's guideline on Conflict of Interest actually is. As a customer of DreamHost, I am in a position to provide information about the company that a non-customer cannot. None of my contributions have been biased in favor of the company, which is properly represented in a neutral manner as the article stands. If I was to use my status to add a biased POV, I would be in breach of the guideline. I did not do this. That is why your COI tag is unwarranted.

Incidentally, I must ask why this is so important to you? As I understand it you are in Florida, correct? Why should you care what the Los Angeles Better Business Bureau thinks about any Los Angeles-based company? Do you have some history with DreamHost, or did you mysteriously stumble upon the article and then specifically seek a BBB report on it? Your actions indicate a clear personal agenda. -- Scjessey 18:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Being a customer of DreamHost is one thing. Running a website which "is basically the DreamHost Web Hosting manual" is another. Running an affiliate site which profits off getting people to subscribe to DreamHost is yet another. It was Jessey's overprotective behavior which first led me to suspect a conflict of interest. It was his affiliate site which sealed the deal in my mind.

I ran across this article when I was looking for information on DreamHost. I ran across the BBB report while doing a google search on the company. anthony 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is a guideline that suggests all corporation articles need a BBB link, I don't understand why this article would need one? (Disclosure: I am a customer, but I'm often unimpressed with the reliability (particularly of the mail servers). Though ya gets what ya pay for, and I'm on the cheapest plan.) --Quiddity 18:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DreamHost in particular had a problem with the BBB, received an F rating, which was later raised to a B, and has been lowered to CCC in the last few days. I'm not sure if the link is relevant for all companies, but it is relevant for this one. anthony 18:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Any company that does not participate with the BBB in addressing BBB generated complaints will experience the same history. DreamHost has, at various times, both been a BBB member, and has not been a BBB member. Your attitude about the relevance of a company's BBB experience evidences a lack of appreciation of the nature of the BBB (as a profit-making organization with it's own business interests to protect and enhance)and a limited understanding of how BBB ratings are assigned (there is a lot of information on that at the BBB site). It is erroneous to assume that the BBB is an "authority" that is in any way objective in nature. Some consider the BBB, and it's marketing and publicity tactics, to be little more than thinly veiled attempts to extort membership and participation from businesses. For these considerations alone, BBB ratings are highly suspect by many. This only enhances the argument that BBB ratings should not be included in *any* "corporation article" unless, as a matter of policy, they are included in *all* corporation article. To do otherwise could be construed as unfairly maligning corporations that do not do business with the BBB, or have had sporadic business relationships with the BBB, and therefore have less favorable ratings from the BBB for problem resolution. -- Rlparker

No it isn't. The BBB rating was the result of an actual campaign by a handful of disgruntled customers, and has no bearing on the real credibility of the company itself.

Running a website which "is basically the DreamHost Web Hosting manual" is another. Running an affiliate site which profits off getting people to subscribe to DreamHost is yet another.

I'm not sure what you are referring to there. I am a customer who contributes to the DreamHost Wiki (I don't "run" it, although I was made a "sysop" of it to help weed out vandalism). I don't have any "affiliate site" of any kind. In any case, neither would affect my ability to edit Wikipedia impartially, as I have done on hundreds of articles. -- Scjessey 19:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't reporting on the credibility of the company itself, merely on the BBB rating. Do you deny that http://jessey.net/dreamhost/ is yours? You have made numerous positive comments regarding the hosting site all over the place. I'm sure you can edit Wikipedia impartially on hundreds of other articles, just not this particular article. anthony 19:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Er... that is a web page, not a website. Are you aware of the difference? It has nothing to do with my ability to be impartial on this article. As I said, some of the information on the article can only be provided by a customer. If you are going to report on the BBB rating, you might wish to consider how totally biased that organization is before you refer to one of their reports. Consider Better Business Bureau#Criticisms -- Scjessey 19:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither Jessey nor I "run" the DreamHost Wiki. It is operated by DreamHost, and we participate in its operation in the same way any wiki editor with sysop privileges participates in any other wiki. While I do not do so myself, I don't believe that the posting of an affiliate link on a site equates to "running an affiliate site". Personally, I do not utilize DH affiliate linking for reasons I have discussed at length on the DreamHost forums, but use of such links by an editor does not automatically make his edits tainted by COI or non-NPOV. The article should stand on its own merits, and I, and apparently others, believe this one does stand on it's own merits and is absent evidence of COI and respectful of NPOV. It is disingenuous, particularly in light of others comments on the subject, to assume and/or insist that the only reason anyone would feel the BBB reference should not be in the article is because of COI or to somehow extrapolate that into an argument concerning NPOV. You may ahve "sealed the deal" in your own mind, but you haven't articulated here how you felt the article was impacted improperly. -- Rlparker 19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't been clear enough on this. Let's look at some other questionable edits by Jessey. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. You say the link to the BBB is inappropriate because we don't link to the BBB for all companies. What about webhosting.info? Do we link to that for all webhosting sites? A link to a BBB site is perfectly appropriate and neutral. Dreamhost's current rating is actually a good rating, and it's up to the reader to weigh the importance of that rating. It certainly is significant, the BBB is one of the oldest and most respected sources for this sort of information in the United States. The criticisms section linked to doesn't even mention any concerns over the rating system. The entire Control Panel section of this article is original research and should be sourced from reliable sources or removed. The links Jessey added to websites where he is an administrator were added inappropriately. This article needs major attention and it should be tagged in a way to attract it. anthony 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, let's see here. Direct links to the company's own(ed) websites versus a completely irrelevant BBB link? Why is it irrelevant you ask? Well first, this wiki article in itself tells a reader about the basics of Dreamhost's services and provides links to the company's website(s) that would allow them to investigate the contents of the article in more detail if they were interested. The BBB link on the other hand is not referenced at ALL in the main article, making it irrelevant in that aspect, and further it doesn't add consistency to the rest of the article *if* there were even actual information regarding the link to DreamHost's BBB rating. While I will agree with you that the Webhosting.info links are quite similar to the BBB link in that they really add nothing useful to the article itself, I'd say the BBB link provides even less usable information in that, as Scjessey has already pointed out, the BBB ratings are entirely biased in consideration of the fact that the BBB doesn't provide for positive feedback, only negative and thus a company's rating is subjective. I really don't see point in further discussion on this topic unless someone not affiliated with both DreamHost and yourself can comment. And yes, I am likewise a DreamHost customer, though not nearly as long as Scjessey or Rlparker so perhaps I can provide slightly less "bias" in this discussion, but I'd really prefer to see someone outside of both comment to hopefully completely resolve this debate. Madmousee 20:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The BBB link on the other hand is not referenced at ALL in the main article Only because Jessey took out the references. I agree with you that there is not much more to say until someone unaffiliated with DreamHost and myself come in. That was actually my purpose in adding the neutral template. Frankly, I don't care that much about the link - my main problem is that various editors have managed to take everything out of this article which is remotely critical, and have left in things which are not sourced by reliable sources. anthony 00:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

All of those edits involved correcting inaccurate information and removing POV material from the article. These edits were performed in complete harmony with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm sorry that my efforts to make the article neutral and informative don't fit in with your clear personal agenda. And what kind of "attention" do you mean? It appears that you want to add criticism of DreamHost in an attempt to balance out some sort of perceived bias that doesn't really exist. Jimbo Wales himself wrote, "And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, [criticism sections] are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." The Control Panel section is not "original research". It is just brief description of fact that I only had a small part in writing. -- Scjessey 20:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and don't edit or move around other people's comments. That's a severe breach of Wikipedia guidelines. -- Scjessey 20:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

COI

Conflict of Interest tag removed, there is little, if any way for there to be a conflict of interest in this article, it contains only easily-verifiable facts and references. Arkiedragon 17:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that summary, except for the section on the "Control Panel", which needs sourcing (of notability) or removal. --Quiddity 18:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The panel is notable for being proprietary, and not cPanel like everyone else uses. It is not possible to cite the information because only customers can access the panel. -- Scjessey 21:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not possible to cite the information because only customers can access the panel. If someone wrote about the panel in a reliable source, then you can cite that. If not, then I don't think it should be included, precisely because only customers can access the panel. anthony

There is a page in their site describing the panel. *Dan T.* 01:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why COI?

It seems this article has had a fair bit of discussion but as it stands there remains the coi tag but does not appear to be any npov etc. violations. WP:WHYCOI? -- samj _in ^out 16:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I have replaced the tag with one that calls for better referencing (there is still a slight over reliance on primary sources), but there are no COI or NPOV issues that I can discern. These issues were originally raised by disgruntled former customers with axes to grind, it would seem. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this promptly. Tagging the talk page to alert editors but not readers is an option in minor/inactive instances. -- samj _in ^out 05:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Little is changed since September Talk on DreamHost Neutral_third_party_view, tags added by JavierMC, and reminder of WP:OWN. Judas278 (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC) — Judas278 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I just read the entire article start to finish and it seems fine as at right now. -- samj _in ^out 03:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There is still an over reliance on primary sources, but that's better than using unreliable blogs, etc. I believe the disgruntled drive-by tagger is probably a sock, since the account has a single purpose with a limited history, yet seems able to wikilawyer adeptly. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The following was placed on my talk page, and is copied here verbatim. It relates to issues tags, etc.:

DreamHost

Please stop your disruptive edit warring at DreamHost. Let me be perfectly clear about this: there is no conflict of interest at this article, and there is no self-publishing going on. You have been unable to demonstrate either of these, and so your continued tagging and retagging of this article is disruptive. I am not an employee of DreamHost. I'm just one of several hundred thousand customers. I am a longtime Wikipedian of good standing, whereas you are just a single-purpose agenda account user with some sort of axe to grind. If you continue to abuse your editing privileges in this way, I will file a report on your conduct at WP:ANI and have administrators investigate your conduct. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think near-WP:OWN exists here. The article was tagged in September '08 by JavierMC. Minor edits since then. Tags were removed without consensus. They should remain. Attempting to restore them is called "apparent bad faith edit," "drive-by tagging by SPA," "drive-by tagging by agenda-driven SPA," and "nonsense tags." (See the edit history) Now, the message above. --Judas278 (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because nobody else is editing this article, and thus nobody is reverting your disruption, it does not mean that there is WP:OWN issues. Since you seem to be doing an amazing amount of wikilawyering for an SPA with only an handful of edits, I am now beginning to think you may be a sockpuppet. Any, we will see what administrators think. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestion for actually improving the article? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator will be here shortly to assist you. The case page for this mediation is located here.

Judas278 (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problems at DreamHost with an SPA. There seems to be a sentiment in some quarters that the article's text is one-sided. Can anyone who still holds that view explain what changes they would make? To focus on the logic of tagging the article, without addressing how the text ought to change, seems like a waste of effort.

Personally, I think the article is a bit too complimentary towards the quality of DreamHost's customer service, but I know little about the history. This sentence DreamHost is notable for being unusually transparent about its business practices, with staff contributing to a popular blog seems a bit too effusive, given the billing disaster outlined in the following section.

In the cited article, David Berlind needled them explicitly about their lack of a phone number to call. Even when he was trying to interview them for an article they would not talk to him on the phone! To refer to them as transparent sounds like chutzpah. Don't call us, we'll never call you... EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The transparency of the company (a tell-all, insider's view-style blog is a demonstration of this) has nothing to do with the way the company handles technical support. Very few hosting companies offer phone support, especially at their pricing level. Even the Berlind article refers to the company's transparency specifically - the language is supported by the source. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This article reads like an advertisement. 5 of 13 references were published by the company, and what they said was repeated in a couple other reference publications, which quote company officers and company blog. If that's not self-publishing, what is? David Berlind also said he was considering them for his sites (COI), and quotes the company blog. It's an opinion piece in a blog. It's not reliable 3rd party publication.

It's not "notable for being unusually transparent about its business practices". It has a blog like many companies, and it publishes PR with it. Delete the statements without good references, and this article says: This is a web hosting company with x thousand customers. They've had some fubars to explain. That's about it. I was a customer. They were not transparent. I left. --Judas278 (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to this at WP:ANI, but I have to say that it is patently absurd that you are criticizing the sourcing of the article and then advocating for the removal of one of these reliable sources. This goes against all kinds of common sense and seems contrary to the goals of the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

5 references are self-published by the company. Other references, including the mentioned blog, are poor, because they mostly repeat company PR. Therefore, they are not reliable 3rd party references. If good references are not available, the statements should be deleted. --Judas278 (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

the source for the flowery and questionable "notable for being unusually transparent" line is a blog, which is not typically considered a reliable source. in this case, i'd say if they are so notable for their transparency, then there should be other sources besides the blog. since there aren't, the line should be removed. it just reads like advertising fluff anyway. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The ZDNet blog isn't some idle gossip column. It is a highly-respectable tech blog. It is still considered to be a reliable source, just as blogs at CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek and The Washington Post are. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

the blog is written so poorly (there are tons of grammatical and spelling errors) that i was skeptical of it. but if you say it's a highly respected blog and should be taken as a reliable source then so be it. however, saying that dreamhost is "notable for being unusually transparent" is still flowery advertising, since it's not true to what the actual source states. if we are going to talk about how "notable" they are for their "unusual transparency," we should have solid sourcing that say exactly that. the same blog also mentions how dreamhost only has a fax number on their website to contact them, and how dreamhost's PR officer refused a phone call from the zdnet reporter. maybe we should mention that too? if ZDNet is so highly respected, why would they refuse a call from them? well, speculating about that doesn't matter. we just need to rewrite it so it's more neutral and worded accurately to the source. Theserialcomma (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

WorldBlu "Award"

This recent addition to the introduction should be removed. The primary requirements for "making the list" are simply paying an about $1,000 fee: http://www.worldblu.com/scorecard/question10.php and self-evaluation surveys: http://www.worldblu.com/scorecard/question7.php. Also, the award is not very notable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/WorldBlu --Judas278 (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable enough for the company to be covered by the New York Times, among others: [8] I'm willing to discuss it, but the discussion should be with other editors besides you. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Judas. If them winning such an award is notable enough for inclusion, it should be sourced from a secondary reference, not a primary source. it also does appear to be one of those "pay for inclusion" type deals based on the URL posted. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

i removed the claim that dreamhost's blog is popular, with a source linking to netcraft [[9]], cause that's original research. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Balance

Thanks to Theserialcomma's hackery, fully half the article is now about a billing issue. This now seems to be an undue weight problem that will need addressing. To redress the balance, we may have to introduce more information about the company and its products - and that means more primary sourcing (which is not preferable). -- Scjessey (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

unfortunately, the only reliable sources in the article are about the billing issue. i suggest shortening the billing information and removing the billing section altogether, after the shortened version is moved into the main article. i'll attempt some more hackery to address this issue. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, primary sources are perfectly acceptable as reliable sources for straight company facts (such as how their system operates, etc.). They are also fine for quoting DreamHost employees. Secondary sources are preferable for opinion, of course, but these must be proper reliable sources and not the blogs of former customers with a beef (which is what used to be the case here). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.webhosting.info/webhosts/tophosts/global/?pi=1&ob=RANK&oo=ASC as a reliable source

why should we believe that webhosting.info is a reliable resource for counting how many domains dreamhost hosts? if a news site said "dreamhost hosts over 800,000 domains," that'd be one thing, but webhosting.info? i am not so sure about that one. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I just added a Netcraft list as a reference, I think you have a good point. Secondary source definition does not include lists like that. Secondary source includes "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information", like, as you say, (reputable) news articles. --Judas278 (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

the question is, if a secondary source evaluates original information, then where is the original information that webhosting.info has evaluated? as far as i can tell, webhosting.info is the primary source because they are publishing their own original info. besides that, it also doesn't appear to be a very reliable source, being along the lines of an alexa ranking or a traffic estimation website, both of which should also be avoided. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This speaks to the reliability of the source. It is similar in many way to the statistics gathering done by Netcraft. That being said, Judas's use of Netcraft for information about DreamHost's systems doesn't work, because it isn't specific enough. DreamHost uses Debian for shared hosting. There is little point in switching to a third party source if that information is inaccurate, so I have reverted the change. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Theserialcomma - webhosting.info is a primary source, publishing raw data. Netcraft data is also a primary source, publishing raw data, although they also publish articles interpreting the data to become secondary source. A reputable 3rd party primary source is better than self-published data. BTW, Debian is a subset of GNU/Linux, so calling it Linux is accurate. If you look around, you'll find confirmation the company is using F5 Big IP. So, I'm unreverting the change. --Judas278 (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But that's not on shared hosting, and why replace "Debian" with a more ambiguous term? That's like saying "car" instead of "Ford". -- Scjessey (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no reference given for shared versus dedicated hosting descriptions anyway. No, it's like saying "Ford Fusion" instead of "Ford Fusion SE." --Judas278 (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Scarily enough, I agree with Judas here. The particular distribution of Linux isn't relevant, unless it's one that's been specially tuned for large-scale server use.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This does not establish the reliability of the source per wikipedia's standards. Please see WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication". an "about" page on a website stating 'we are pretty accurate, we swear! patent pending!' does not establish reliability, nor does it change the fact that this is a primary resource Theserialcomma (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We are not stating an opinion, we are just reported an uncharacterized fact. There is no reason at all why the Webhosting.info source cannot be used for the 800,000 domains number. Many editors have reviewed this source before and found it perfectly acceptable. You are going against a previously established consensus. I am curious - are you a former DreamHost customer as well? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

nope, never used or heard of dreamhost until i read the WP:ANI thread you posted about the SPA the other day. i agree that he appears to be an SPA, but many editors begin editing on articles that particularly interest them, and therefore start out as SPAs. more important questions would be, are you still an admin of the dreamhost wiki and still receiving financial compensation from the company? and also, what still makes you think that webhosting.info is a reliable source? what makes you think it's not a primary source? have you read WP:RS? and don't you know that consensus can change? and don't you know that 'many editors have reviewed the source' does not automatically make it a good source? i await your response. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin of the DreamHost Wiki, I am a "sysop". This status was conferred upon me so that I could help clean up vandalism there, and that is pretty much it (DH Wiki logs). I do not receive financial compensation from DreamHost. I do get a few dollars a year in "referral revenue" if people sign up for the service from my recommendation - the same arrangement that all customers of DreamHost get. There is no conflict of interest, if that is what you are getting at, because I am not (and have never been) an employee or paid advocate. I think webhosting.info is reliable for the information we seek from it, namely non-contentious raw numbers of domains. We are not seeking some sort of opinion, or looking to support data that is disputed. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Copied here: I suppose it's not true you're known as one of their biggest fans?; rlparker, another customer "sysop" got hired by the company; and you wouldn't be against arranging a nice job there for yourself? --Judas278 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And what the hell is wrong with that? And what has it got to do with this? You are trying to make it seem like a conflict of interest exists where there is none. Have you no interest in editing anything else on Wikipedia, other than this crusade of hate? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and I wouldn't say no to a nice test position on the Microsoft SQL Server team. Are you going to tell me I can't edit the Microsoft article any more?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If one is an active, known promoter, receiving cash, pursuing a job, etc., then one may have COI and should consider taking a less active or controlling role on that article. Just one opinion. --Judas278 (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If one is a known ex-customer holding a grudge, etc, one may have COI and should consider taking a less active or controlling role on that article. Just one opinion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to include reliable references, and tried to restore the COI and npov tags, for accuracy. If removing unreferenced info' appears to be biased, we could discuss why that is. Oh, ditto for current customers. :-) --Judas278 (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yelling "this user has a conflict of interest" over and over does not make it so.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I believed the purpose of the COI and npov tags was to draw attention from experienced, neutral editors, to help correct the situation. Likewise, repeating "he has a grudge" does not make it so. --Judas278 (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Control Panel Deletion Proposal

Re: Customers have access to a control panel that includes integrated billing and support ticket systems. and screenshot image. I propose deleting this statement and screenshot. See earlier discussions. It has a reference to only a company web page - advertising. It's "custom," but company sites are already linked extensively in External Links, to provide that advertising. All web hosts have "integrated" control panels. So this statement doesn't add anything. Finally, the web panel was involved, or thought to be, in a security breach, but this news-referenced information is no longer here. So, I say delete the superfluous statement and screenshot, or restore mention of the security breach for balance. --Judas278 (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Umm, Judas, if you can't even say if it was involved with a security breach, then exactly why are you trying to put it in? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

maybe this kills two birds with one stone: http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/06/07/dreamhost_hack/ . it both states information about the security breach, and it states that dreamhost hosts "more than" 500,000 domains. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

here is another: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/06/06/mass_customer_site_hack_at_dreamhost.html Theserialcomma (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And here's another - http://www.dreamhoststatus.com/2007/06/06/security-breach/, cited in the above.

We are in the middle a more thorough investigation and some new information has turned up. While we did detect some unauthorized access to our user web control panel, in at least some cases it looks like that may not be to blame for the compromised ftp accounts. In some isolated cases it appears that there may be security problems on end-user computers as well. If you have been affected by this, please do whatever checks on your own computer you can as a precaution. Our investigation is covering all possible attack points and this is one of the possibilities.

Also note that we now have confirmed information that these ftp account hijackings are happening on other web hosts as well and it looks very likely like there’s more to this situation than just the security problem we detected within our own system.

And Judas obviously knew this, or he wouldn't have added the "or thought to be" above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

←It is worth noting that DreamHost uses a totally unique control panel designed in-house. This is unusual for all but the very big hosts, as most cheap shared hosts use cPanel. It is for this reason that the information about the control panel was added in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, it seems extraordinary to claim that detailing the "security breach", which affected less than 1% of customers (myself included, BTW), is somehow a "balance" for general information about the DreamHost control panel system. And how is it "advertising" exactly? I don't understand that at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

1% of (hundreds) of thousands (millions?) of customers, seems like it could be a big deal to me, depending on whether the media reported on it. it appears that a few reliable sources did mention it, so maybe the incident deserves a brief mention in the article? nothing more than a sentence, i would propose. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

and in a situation like this: a self-published source, potentially doing damage control, with a statement like 'in isolated cases, it might be the user's computer which was compromised' vs a third party, reliable source, which states 'dreamhost was hacked via a vulnerability in dreamhost's system.' i'd have to go with the third party source. 'a few isolated cases' of people's PCs being hacked has nothing to do with what happened, and that sounds like they are trying to change the subject somewhat. "sure, we were hacked. but in other news, some of you guys might have been hacked also." ...what? this is a prime situation where a self published source is too controversial to use Theserialcomma (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, those third-party sources are sourced to THE SAME ARTICLE, but an earlier version. Now, if you have a source that is not sourced to Dreamhost's self-reporting, we'd have a basis for discussion. As it stands, we're looking at another case of DreamHost's transparency. They said what they thought was wrong immediately in order to warn people to be careful, and the third-party sources ran with it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

well, wait a second. why should it matter if a third party, reliable source comments on dreamhost's self reporting? that is the whole point of using a third party, reliable source. we trust their editorial process and oversight more than a self published source. reliable sources take questionable information and make their own articles about it, hopefully with some additional information and fact checking. so i don't understand the objection, and i have no idea where you got transparency from this situation. for all we know, it was such a big and obvious hack that they were forced to comment. thousands of sites getting hacked? of course they are going to be 'transparent' on their blog. thousands of people knew about it anyway. they did what any company would do; nothing above and beyond the realm of corporate transparency, as far as i can see Theserialcomma (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you don't see. I was one of the people "hacked". It was a trivial matter that was more a result of the problems with using the inherently insecure FTP than anything else. It resulted in a few sites have server-side includes injected into websites that contained linkspam. Worse events happen on Wikipedia every day. Only DreamHost's exceptional transparency allowed people to find out about it quickly, and most were able to repair their sites from DreamHost's automatic snapshot backups. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

i am making a mountain out of a molehill? i have nothing to do with this, neither do you. multiple reliable sources commented on the hack, and we can cull information from those sources to add a quick sentence about the situation. this has nothing to do with molehills, transparency, worse events happening elsewhere, or anything else. are there reliable sources? yes. were thousands of people affected? yes. can we agree that it's worth mentioning in the article? maybe not. i'd like to hear some outside opinions, especially from non loyal customers, and not from SPAs either. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Few domains were actually compromised, although there was potential for several hundred (as reported here), and it turned out to be a problem for more than just DreamHost. A trivial incident, not worth mentioning per WP:WEIGHT. I agree with you, however, when you say that we would benefit from the opinion of other editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

according to netcraft, 700 domains and 3,500 ftp accounts were hacked. [[10]]. maybe to balance out the hack info, we could mention part of dreamhost's response: "In the last 24 hours we have made numerous significant behind-the-scenes changes to improve internal security, including the discovery and patching to prevent a handful of possible exploits," Theserialcomma (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

something like "on june 7th (or whenever it happened), approximately 700 domains and 3,500 ftp accounts were hacked. in response, dreamhost made "numerous, significant changes (to) improve internal security" Theserialcomma (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) wasn't just DreamHost, though.

http://www.itpro.co.uk/143193/fasthosts-ftp-spaces-compromised (November 2007)
http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201800545 (August 2007)
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Finjan-Finds-Database-of-8700-Stolen-FTP-Credentials/ (February 2008)
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/141544/hack_attack_hits_10000_web_sites.html (January 2008)

I suspect these are all related -- the modus operandi sounds awfully similar.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

true, servers on the internet are compromised all the time; and often times, hackers use same method to break into different servers. i'm not sure what this directly has to do with dreamhost, other than if we were to conduct original research to try to make a link from other hacks to dreamhost. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Theserialcomma: "can we agree that it's worth mentioning in the article? maybe not. i'd like to hear some outside opinions, especially from non loyal customers, and not from SPAs either." In itself, the panel is not notable. So it's another panel, imo. If this article links advertising description from the company's site, then should it also link the many times the panel has been reported as unavailable on the company's status site? No, this article should use good references. If the article is going to cover the panel, then use good references. This article http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/06/07/dreamhost_hack/ is an excellent reference, imo, because it is up front about where it got info, and used multiple sources - from the company or elsewhere. It touches several bases - control panel, blamed by company; security upgrades made, after the attack; attack publicized by company, after being tracked a few days by an independent security company, Scansafe, who notified the company. This article http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/06/06/mass_customer_site_hack_at_dreamhost.html is also good. As a side note, following that article's link to http://www.caydel.com/dreamhost-leaks-3500-ftp-passwords/ and scrolling down to comments, we find a few comments by our dedicated defender/editor of the company, who also states he moved his customer's site to this host, which could be more reason for more COI. In general, the company has been notable for some fubars, so use the good references and include the material. If they've been notable for some notable "great stuff", then include that too. Personally, I think supporting Ceph may be a good one, but I don't know of any good references. --Judas278 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

Again with your COI nonsense! Thank you for the completely useless, unusable blog link (where the author notes he is making referral money from a different company). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

and where someone using your name defends the company to the death. --Judas278 (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)