Talk:Flickr/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

New introduction to 2013 changes piece, and deletion of Pogue reference

Ahead of drawing any conclusions on the RfC: Website redesign reactions contributions, I have added a new intro to the piece to put the 2013 change into historical context.

I have also deleted the Pogue reference for the reasons I gave above.

I have done this directly on the article (with some trepidation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boot minor (talk • contribs) 11:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC) (overlooked signing this and edit summary boxes - sorry - cannot see how to add after posting) Boot minor (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem with a little WP:BRD, it's all good. I don't see that a journalist getting into trouble for self-promotional work a few years ago is a reason to throw out an unrelated piece of his writing as unreliable, though; he still writes for the New York Times every week, and it looks like they made him include a disclosure on his profile page. They read and approved his Flickr piece before running it; if a piece is good enough for the New York Times, it's good enough for us. Your own personal suspicion that the article "has the hallmarks" of being covertly sponsored by Yahoo and that it was probably written with the "direct purpose" of trashing disgruntled Flickr users upon "no research whatsoever" seems unfounded - as one of the very few mainstream sources that's reported on the "2013 redesign controversy", I think it's giving the article some detail and perspective that otherwise isn't there.

I personally don't think the article needs anywhere near this much detail about the redesign (the ten year test again - will a reader in 2023 really care about how a Flickr press event was a bit of a mystery and rumoured to be about Tumblr?), but I've restored the deleted content while the RFC runs. --McGeddon (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that McGeddon. I won't argue further about Pogue here because it's likely to go sooner or later anyway. But I would say that it's the second sentence of Pogue reference that bothers me, because it's factually untrue and therefore misleading. In a disingenuous blog post he defends his Flickr review saying that it is not the function of a critic to report facts. - The ten year test might be a bit of a high hurdle in relation to the internet and a nine year old website that might be entirely forgotten in a decade. The fact that a company pays a $billion to buy another company, but holds a press conference to announce an apparently unrelated internal change, seems to me worthy of recording, and might pass a one or two year test.Boot minor (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Which line in the Wikipedia article do you think is factually untrue? The second "He described Flickr's redesign as..." sentence seems adequately framed as Pogue's personal opinion; it's not like the article is stating "Flickr's redesign was..." as a statement of unattributed fact. --McGeddon (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I like the intro para about the launch...well-written!I still think Pogue should be quoted directly 'They’re big enough to see clearly (unlike the old thumbnails), yet small enough to take in hundreds without having to click to another page'. He doesn't use 'quickly' that was Jakerome's paraphrase. The technical description of the new photo-presentation software is imprecise , Flickr themselves call it 'justified' (in the printing trade sense,which needs disambiguation in wikispeak).The use of thin white gaps between photos and rows is called 'masonry' style and even 'infinitely-scrolling' (which was my original research I fear) comes in two forms....paginated in photostreams and unpaginated in photo-search results As of today Flickr have launched a revised photo 'Groups' feature (this time as an option) but still (AFAIK....more original research?) offering the full choice of alternative views, although the forum respondents seem to think the alternatives have goneLongshot1944 (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Jakerome hasn't edited the article in almost a month; I think the current paraphrase is mine. As I said in the "Pogue quote / links" section earlier, Pogue uses the word "quick" in the very next sentence, still talking about the thumbnails: "For a visitor who wants to see your shots of some place, person or event, these scrolling views offer a quick, satisfying way to get the (ahem) big picture." Feel free to improve the section if you think it misrepresents the quote. --McGeddon (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am aware that there was considerable debate about the Pogue piece previously. And McGeddon did edit the quote to represent Pogue's aticle accurately. Framed as Poque's opinion the second sentence is accurate. However Pogue's opinion on a matter of fact is misleading if his opinion is factually incorrect. He says that it is a quick and a satisfying way to get somewhere, but it is a fact that it takes more time to download a lot of data than to download a little data. And if it takes a long time relatively, it is misleading to describe it as quick. He might honestly be satisfied, but the users he mocks are frustrated. In his blog apologia, he says "I read thousands upon thousands of complaints ....trying to pin down what, exactly, their beef was. Unfortunately, a huge majority just said, “I hate the changes,” without indicating specifically why." There may have been many posts of blunt dislike, but I recall that many focused on particular annoyances often in detail. One, for instance, carried out research into download data to illustrate why it isn't quick. If the NYT had quoted someone expressing the opinion that the earth is flat, WP might accurately cite the opinion, but it would be of out of place in WP/Geography. I know I've brought this up again, but let's not get stuck on it now. If, as is possible, the piece moves out of "Controversy" and into "History" it's not going to survive anyway.Boot minor (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Pogue quote / links

I just re-read the Pogue article online (and he HAS written a follow-up) and it differs from the version quoted on WP.... online version 30Jun2013...."They’re big enough to see clearly (unlike the old thumbnails), yet small enough to take in hundreds without having to click to another page". WP version (added by Jakerome 10 June2013?) ....'allowing Flickr visitors to see photos large enough to appreciate the image, yet still small enough to load hundreds of pictures quickly.[87]'...note that link#87 matches the current online text quoted so is it an inaccurate quote of Pogues work or has the Pogue piece been edited online at the NY Times?? — Longshot1944 (21:47, 30 June 2013) — (continues after insertion below)

It's not a quote, that's why the text doesn't match. If anything, this section suffers from too many direct quotes, which makes the whole thing very disjointed. I think readers are better served when reading accurate paraphrasings that allow the text as a whole to flow; if anything, I'd nix the other Pogue quote & replace it with new text that drives home the same point. Jakerome (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Jakerome....You should stick to a direct quote from Pogue....much of the discontent on Flickr is because the 'hundreds of pictures' AREN'T loading quicklyLongshot1944 (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Paraphrasing is fine, but we should be careful not to misrepresent any sources. The very next sentence of the Pogue article mentions the thumbnails being "a quick, satisfying way to get the (ahem) big picture", so "quickly" hasn't come out of nowhere - I've edited it to "allowing Flickr visitors to see large, clear photos while being able to quickly scroll through a particular collection". How's that? --McGeddon (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I've come round to respecting Pogue more on re-reading him...he does mention many of the early bugs/problems after enthusing, still think exact quote wiser...btw 'collection' has a specific meaning on flickr its a collection of 'sets' of your own photosLongshot1944 (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Rereading p2 of original Pogue piece...his 'Exhibit B' does note the 'infinite-scroll' loading speed problem on older computers with poorer connections.....(my O.R.)this is still an unresolved cause of complaint on the Help forums particularly in attempting large or 'deep' searches for images His 'Exhibit C' praises the newer slide show....(my O.R.)this still exhibits major bugs, whilst the old Adobe Flash? still show works very well He quotes the CEO gaffe speech noting it 'didn't endear the new Flickr to serious photographers'Longshot1944 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Huffington Post

I don't know why the link to difference between revisions is pointing to some page from 9 years ago - this is the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flickr&diff=next&oldid=561845497 I am referring to. There is also this one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flickr&diff=next&oldid=561822728! They are from three weeks ago. But like I said, I am leaving the kindergarten - let the children play by themselves. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what this means and the editor has suggested they won't respond to questions about it, but since the current article has no Huffington Post references and the diffs aren't introducing any 2004-dated references, I assume there's no longer a problem. --McGeddon (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Website redesign reactions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

---

How much should be written about reactions to the May 2013 redesign of the Flickr website? --McGeddon (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

How much should be written about reactions to the May 2013 redesign of the Flickr website? Jakerome (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I've now reviewed WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Criticism, and have determined the current length does not give WP:UNDUE weight. Specifically, in Wikipedia:Criticism, it is clear that this is a case where a "Criticism" section clearly denotes that there are "opinions" that may not be in line with Yahoo or Flickr currently.

I would say any new information/writing/articles either replace or be integrated into the new information, unless for example there is another specific change to the website relating to this redesign. As the Alexa ratings have been steadily decreasing since the redesign, this is a possibility. Cheers! CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest an outside editor that hasn't edited the page in a while take a look at the section, and I would very much like to see this Huffington Post article integrated into that section: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-stutz/flickr-redesign_b_3405086.html CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing against the Huffington Post in general, but that article happens to be the author's only contribution to the Huffington Post. He's clearly writing as a disgruntled user, not a journalist. IMHO, it's really not appropriate to cite it at all, let alone let it serve as the foundation of the section. Jakerome (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You see, this is where you're blind on the whole issue. The controversy has nothing to do with the mainstream media. The mainstream media merely states: "Change happened. Yahoo says it's good", and takes an assumed "Change is good" attitude. The real issue is with Users - and in the case of Flickr - Users are Customers. Paying customers - more than 40,000 at this point have unanimously complained. The Huffington Post is the first to get at that in the mainstream media, where the previous tech articles had to do with user complaints as well. Stop using the term "Disgruntled User(s)". See: New Coke or Windows_Vista#Criticism for example. The criticism comes from the USERS and is related to us by the MEDIA. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"Paying customers - more than 40,000 at this point have unanimously complained." This is the tell. You're relaying as fact something which is simply not true. First, the Help Forum may have 40,000 posts on the subject, but at this point most of the comments are from repeat posters. Therefore there aren't close to 40,000 complaining. I suspect it's in the range of 10,000-20,000. Second, the comments are nowhere near "unanimously" negative & that's provably false by even a single instance; I think 80-90% of the comments in the Help Forum are negative. Third, you certainly have no way of knowing if all the criticism is coming from paying customers. That's three provably false assertions in a single paragraph. Without even getting into the fact that well over 99% of Flickr members have not complained in those threads. Really would be nice if some other editors chimed in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakerome (talk • contribs) 06:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and one last point. In the past, other Flickr protests have gotten mainstream media coverage from places like Wired and CNet. One protest group actually got close to 30,000 members at one point-- not posts, but people that actually signed up to join a protest group. And that was because Flickr added video to the site, a controversy so minor it doesn't even merit a mention on Wikipedia. Besides all that, the section is already IMHO way too long, and slanted almost completely to the negative. But it gets the point across that there is controversy while making the point that it's not uniform, so seems about right as is. Hunting out the most negative articles published by any first-time Huffpo blogger & adding a paragraph at a time summarizing the latest broadside doesn't make the article stronger. Jakerome (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Use evidence to back up your claims, don't just call me a liar. CaffeinAddict (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable advocating whether or not this section is too long as currently stands, but I think WP:RECENTISM may be worthy of consideration, and I would recommend reviewing how similar software updates have been handled for both Flickr and other similar services in the past in terms of WP coverage. Doniago (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

To this point: - This is the first major redesign in Flickr's history - Evidence suggests Yahoo used this to intentionally change their business model and what type of users they had - The outrage is from tens of thousands of paying customers. So these issues play into "Will this matter a year from now" - and yes it very much will, this is a major milestone on Flickr's part, which is not without controversy, like New Coke. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I would not want to incorporate anything from the Michael Stutz column in Huffington Post. It fails WP:NEWSBLOG. Since it's a blog opinion piece, anything pulled from this piece would have to be attributed to Stutz, who doesn't seem to be well-known enough to warrant inclusion here of his opinion. But if you can point to some particular point he makes that hasn't already been mentioned in this article, I could maybe be persuaded. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael Stutz is a technology book author, he wrote a book titled "Circuits of the wind" - http://www.amazon.com/Circuits-Wind-Legend-Net-Age/dp/0983855803 CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

And now 4 editors have put forth solid reasons why the Stutz article should not be incorporated, yet a a 5th editor ignores all that by adding multiple sentences adopted from the article and insists that his changes not be removed without discussion. Well, it has been discussed, and the clear majority think it is not appropriate. Writing in ALL CAPS in the change log doesn't give an editor special powers. I'm reverting it. Suggest we freeze changes until we've resolved this. Jakerome (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you cool it Jakerome, go look at some photos on Flickr or something. You're getting pretty nasty. CaffeinAddict (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Stutz's claim that "tens of thousands of mournful complaints [piled] up in the Help forum" seems simplistic; the thread certainly has tens of thousands of comments, but he doesn't give any suggestion that they have been carefully counted and sorted so as not to include positive feedback, chat and spam. Per WP:NEWSBLOG we should deliver this number with tongs of attribution, if at all. --McGeddon (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Flickr users have previously protested at the site being bought by Yahoo in 2005 and adding video support in 2008. The article briefly mentions the fact that both of these changes happened, as part of the site's history, but does not mention the user reaction. As with New Coke and Windows Vista, customer reactions only seem worth recording when something significant happens as a result. --McGeddon (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Folks, I know nothing about the basic pros and cons here and hope I never get embroiled in them. Looking at the exchanges as an outsider I am inclined to agree with Doniago about recentism. Will all of this matter tomorrow? Perhaps it will, but will it matter in the same way as it seems to matter today? Chasing current details of off-the-cuff oral flounderings of a VIP may be fascinating to tabloids and TV,but such material does not belong in an encyclopedia until the situation and its major implications have gelled into some sort of stable perspective. JonRichfield (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jon, thanks for commenting. I would argue that it very much matters tomorrow and a year from now. The changes have been incredible and the evidence suggests the site has changed their CUSTOMER BASE from Paying customers to an AD BASED revenue source. This takes and gives a completely different product to long paying customers. That is the outrage from the tens of thousands of users currently. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Have reliable sources noted this, or are we talking about OR here? Doniago (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that information is in most of the articles that are currently sourcing the section, although a few may have been deleted over time by User:Jakerome... CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources are a couple of tech journalists speculating about how Flickr's customer base will change as a result of the redesign and changes to pricing structure, and how intentional this might be. There used to be a line from an (anonymous?) insider saying how Flickr were probably retiring the Pro accounts because they weren't bringing in much money compared to regular ad revenue, but that seems to have fallen out since. (Flickr has, as I understand it, been running ads to non-Pro and logged out users since its Yahoo acquisition in 2005, if not earlier.) --McGeddon (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, you are very welcome, but I think I'll leave the rest to you folks; I doubt that I have anything more constructive to offer. JonRichfield (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Hello guys. First, citation number 75 is broken. Now, I reviewed the section and I agree with having the coverage though I don't agree with use of Huffington Post as the source, as it is a potentially unreliable sources. I think I've seen enough of such websites; I'd avoid them. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd say if huffington post goes, David Pogue goes, same ilk. CaffeinAddict (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• There's too much emphasis on outraged bloggers. The whole thing could be summed up by a single sentence or two, sourced from one or two reliable sources (such as the LA Times). Like many controversy sections on Wikipedia, the redesign controversy looks like it is being used as a soapbox by disgruntled users who are trying to convince us of a certain POV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk)23:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)]

Bingo. In fact, they've done a nice job of ignoring all the 3rd party feedback posted here and just continued to add original research based on the Help Forum and random critiques posted by little-read bloggers while systematically removing almost anything (from Wired, CNet, Verge, etc) that even hints at the changes being received positively. I've given up since it's being used by "soapbox by disgruntled users" who have more patience for continuing to distort the record than other editors have for trying to correct it. Jakerome (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Without the voices of journalists criticising the redesign, actual users of Flickr would have been completely ignored by the media. The "New is better" argument was assumed by some of the media covering this story. Similar to what happened in the Turkish protests recently, the Turkish media ignored that anything was happening. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Surely this doesn't really matter. Yes it may be an interesting fact to say that it was the first time in X amount of years that Flickr did Y but the average reader reading this article would actually be on flickr or are planning to. Because of this, wouldn't it already be known that the sites design was changed? Which now leads me to question its notability. Yes, it may be good to put as much information as possible into articles, but unnotable things such as this which would be common knowledge to the average reader, isn't needed. I also agree with what has been said before about this article being an adequate length already and so not much new information is really needed. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I personally think that's a bad way to write articles. Surely writing them in such a way that someone 10 years from now who's never experienced or used the subject in question can understand it to a reasonable degree from the article is a better mindset? Samwalton9 (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The main point of my paragraph was the question the notability of this sort of thing. It would work better as a DYK rather than a whole new section on this page. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It's too big of a change in the website's design and purpose (not to mention the controversy) not to mention it, and right now as it stands, the amount of information shown accurately displays this controversy to readers. It will matter years from now. This is a "sea change" in purpose for Flickr. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems I was mistaken, I just had to join the discussion to say that redesigning a site isn't that bit a deal but what you have just stated does make it notable in the site's history, something which I do not know due to me not being on the site. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody can know how much this will matter years from now! And we don't know that this is a "sea change", only that some journalists reviewing the new site a day or two after launch thought it was. We really need mainstream press coverage retrospectively looking at clear, measurable changes in Flickr's usage and profits, which doesn't seem to have happened yet. --McGeddon (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

We mentioned that Facebook had an update recently on its page yet that doesn't seem to have caused half as much controversy and publicity as Flickr's new design which we are for some reason not mentioning. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The difference between this and facebook is Flickr has paying customers. Therefore, it's more akin to New Coke than to any Facebook redesign. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, meaning that this Flickr update should be mentioned because it has more of an impact and reaction. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No one has written about it yet, but the Alexa rating has dropped pretty significantly in correlation to the May 20th redesign. I think that speaks volumes. It should only be a matter of time before a news source picks that up. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/flickr.com# CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That a Wikipedia editor thinks last month's change feels more like New Coke than Facebook, or that an Alexa rating dropping from 88 to 91 is "pretty significant" and "speaks volumes", isn't relevant by itself. Do reliable sources agree with you? What would an uninvolved third party who has never heard of Flickr conclude if they went through the available, reliable sources that have written about the recent redesign? --McGeddon (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually I can speak for a third party who does not go on Flickr because I have previously stated this. I will read this proposed sources which may be added and see if they are reliable or helpful. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Rainbow Shifter....If you're not signed up to flickr you'd be an good witness to what the 'outside viewer' gets on the Home Page because one of the current flickr bugs is that you can't easily sign out at present..... the best I can do is check it in the Public Library tomorrow as an 'anonymous' user— Preceding unsigned comment added by Longshot1944 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 23 June 2013‎

But this would be my own personal opinion which goes against WP and this sort of thing would be better to come from a professional. What I stated above was to review the proposed text to see how clear it is to a person who has no idea about Flickr. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Firstly I would love to see more experienced editors here discussing this rationally, the discussions above fall into far too many ramblings, side notes, and unnecessary original research. As for the topic of the RFC, I think it's fairly simple; the article should cover as much as third party reliable sources cover. It doesn't matter, as some have attempted to argue, that supposedly thousands of users are complaining, if the sources don't deem it worthy of note then we simply can't either. As for the references currently present in the paragraph I think:

• The Huffington Post article needs to go since - as Codename Lisa rightly pointed out - it is not a reliable source, especially in the case of a contributor who's only article is that one.
• The LA Times article seems fine, and does indeed mention disgruntled users in one paragraph.
• The Osiatynska reference is a blog and should therefore be removed immediately.
• The Tech Hive article seems fine, and also mentions the author's general wariness of the change.
• TechNewsDaily I'm not sure of but seems ok, again mentions user criticism.
• NYTimes article was very positive of the new changes.

Overall, I think that once the unnecessary references have been removed, this will start looking far less like a controversy, and far more like a portion of the users disgruntled with the change. On that basis I would be inclined to say that the information should be moved elsewhere in the article, though definitely retained somewhere. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Further to this, I've gone ahead and removed the Osiatynska blog reference and accompanying sentence. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this comment whole-heartedly. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. In fact, there is a long list of things that Wikipedia is not. We must dispassionately report what the mainstream press is saying, using a neutral POV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd still argue the case for The Huff Post article as a counter-balance to the NYTimes article. Only because currently, the quote used from Pogue insults Flickr users for complaining. I'd say if Huffinington Post goes, Pogue goes. Lastly, this is a section for Wikipedia:Criticism, which is in an appropriate section, like the other controversies mentioned. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

We can't use unreliable sources, even for 'counter-balancing', and the Huff Post article is plain unreliable. The NYTimes article is reliable, as it is written for a reliable news organisation and by an author who is both award winning and a regular contributor ([1]). If you have a full read of the Criticism page, you'll notice in WP:CRITS that " sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged". My point in my last comment was that with some of the unreliable sources taken out, it may turn out that this looks far less like a topic of controversy or criticism, and can thus be incorporated easily to the other sections of the article. Samwalton9 (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The Huffington Post is technically a grey area on reliability according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Objective_Sources#Electronic_media . It is discouraged unless there is journalistic properties. CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

An opinion piece by a blogger is hardly journalistic. The NYT and LAT articles are really all we need to cover this controversy, which can be reduced to a single sentence (or two) and moved into the main article body. It doesn't need its own outraged, highly POV section under Controversy. The fact that the CEO said something stupid about professional photographers has nothing to do with the redesign; it's merely there to add more emotional appeals to outrage. I'm tired of seeing this sort of rhetoric/propaganda on Wikipedia, and I'd rather that we kept this article encyclopedic, rather than a soapbox. I often agree with the rhetoric/propaganda (in spirit, at the very least), but that doesn't mean that it belongs here. I thought the redesign was pretty ugly and stupid, but I can't see how it deserves such a long, outraged discussion on Wikipedia. Summarize it and move on – that's my advice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No one is saying this is a soapbox for screaming about some great injustice, but it's valid criticism that was put in the same format as the 3 or 4 other controversies that have happened over the years. CaffeinAddict (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The user reaction & controversy after the introduction of video drew more mainstream coverage than this site redesign. It's been my position from the start that this could be boiled down to about 2 sentences, and I think it's absurd that the section on the "controversy" is five times as long as the section which actually describes the changes. That's completely backwards. A month later and it's clear that it's not a "New Coke" moment, there is no news coverage of the "controversy." Flickr is not going to reverse the design. Yahoo! announced this week that uploads have DOUBLED since the change. The long decline "reach" per Alexa.com that goes back more than 2 years may have finally stopped. There has been no critical mass of users moving to iPernity or elsewhere. In the end, there's a few threads where a large number of users displeased with the change expressed that for several weeks. I definitely vote in favor of either ditching the section or boiling it down to 2-3 sentences sourced from mainstream media, not 1-time bloggers. Jakerome (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Conclusions

I think it's high time that some kind of conclusion is drawn from the above discussion and would like to propose the following:

• That the section about the redesign is taken out of the controversy section. This scarcely reported user criticism does not constitute a controversy in the same way that censorship and lawsuits do, and on the basis that articles should generally avoid criticism or controversy sections, I would argue for its removal from the section. Having said that,
• The sources regarding user reactions should be incorporated into the paragraph in the History section of the article which mentions the changes, with the descriptions of them severely trimmed from their current length.
• The section regarding Marissa Mayer's comments can probably be removed also, I hardly think that it's worth mentioning - happy for this point to be debated though, I haven't read up on it fully. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Concur on all counts Jakerome (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You see, now you're trying to redefine the controversy as not a controversy at all. It is very much a very real controversy. It's probably the most important of the controversies in the controversy section, because it affected paying customers, changing the entire business model for the website. The length is fine, it's absurd that the Pogue reference is there at all, and it is especially insulting to users and NON-NPOV. It is also highly worth mentioning the Mayer gaffe, because the comment reflects her feeling on customers as a whole, in the day and age of 2013, where she thinks pro photographers don't exist anymore. And that somehow that's a correct statement. And in that same light, apologized on twitter idly. CaffeinAddict (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Out of interest CaffeinAddict, are you a regular/paying Flickr user? Samwalton9 (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If it's such a huge controversy, why has there been minimal mainstream coverage of this alleged "New Coke" in the week after the introduction and essentially none since then? I agree it has been a massive CHANGE in how Flickr looks/ operates, but that doesn't mean it's a massive CONTROVERSY. Heck, someone ran an analysis of the famous 30,000 post thread and found there were only about 1000 unique users posting. [No, I don't have a reference.] Jakerome (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

If the only mainstream attention Mayer's retracted statement has received in five weeks is a mention in a single tech blog, this suggests that Wikipedia shouldn't give it too much weight in the article. That the quote "reflects her feeling" and the retraction was made "idly" are just your opinions; that she thinks it was a "correct statement" is clearly not the case if she apologised for saying it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree, but I think it might be a little early. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Standard RfCs run to 30 days - this has been 21, and it looks like we only have one editor here who believes that the section is neither WP:RECENTIST nor WP:UNDUE. Merging this into the History section with the same weight as other events in Flickr's history, and dropping the retracted-statement "gaffe", seems fine to me. --McGeddon (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This section does seem to me to be important and not [[WP:UNDUE]. This WP article is about the web site, Flickr. The recent changes have fundamentally changed the business model of the Flickr web site from a subscription model to an advertising driven model. That is a fact that cannot be omitted. Equally the change to the design is so radical it has prompted a strong user reaction. But for the purposes of an encyclopaedia entry it is too early to assess what long term effect of that will be. The fact of the negative user response, however, might reasonably be simply mentioned.

To say the "Flickr help forums were divided over the change, with a majority criticising the changes" is mealy-mouthed. The response from bona fide members was universally negative. It is quite possible that there were other users who were very happy, if so they didn't feel the need to complain that they were happy. On the other hand, there were a few very vociferous contributors to the help forum shouting down the complainers and reporting great satisfaction with the new web site, but they were exposed as a group with direct personal connections to Flickr staff who had received financial inducements to attempt to control the user reaction. http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157633771838324/72157634195155876/ At least one of this group has been extremely active here in editing this article section.

This line seems dubious: "Many users expressed concern that the redesign ignored the needs of professional photographers." Flickr has little or no user base amongst professional photographers. Professional photographers don't pay to share their pictures. Their clients pay them to use their work. That's what defines a professional.

I have big difficulties with the Pogue article which strikes me as partisan opinion lacking any balance or research. I think that for instance this line is absurd in an encyclopedia entry: "He described Flickr's redesign as "a gigantic improvement," allowing Flickr visitors to see large, clear photos while being able to quickly scroll through a particular collection.". Does it matter what this man thinks? He might describe it in this way, but that does not appear to be an opinion shared by a consensus of users. And objectively most of the criticism from users seems to derive from the length of time it takes to download vastly more data in the redesigned pages, which runs quite counter to the suggestion that Flickr visitors can quickly scroll through anything.

As to Marissa Mayer's gaffe about professional photographers, it may come to haunt her, but in reality it was prompted merely by her failure to engage her brain while trying to side step the question. "Was she shuttering the 'Pro' accounts?". Yes, would have been a direct answer, but she felt the need to offer more by way of justification. If it is to be mentioned it should be thinned down to emphasise the question and to mention briefly the gaffe. Boot minor (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I have done a little subbing job on the controversy section. I have posted it on my sandbox page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boot_minor/sandbox - I don't want to get into editing the article itself if that is going to prompt another edit war. If interested parties care to look, and if there is a broad consensus, I will clean up the present entry on those lines. I have tried to be even-handed.

On the subject of whether this is a controversy or not. It is a very big controversy amongst the members, particularly the paying subscribers who have been offered their money back as long as they apply within 3 months. It is huge on the site itself. Do a Google search and there are pages and pages of controversy. Do a Yahoo search and there's almost none. So far Yahoo have managed the mainstream publishing sources (such as they are today) well. The story will come out in time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boot minor (talk • contribs) 23:56, 4 July 2013‎

Nobody's doubting that the user reaction exists, we're just looking at the amount of press coverage so that we can square it against the German censorship controversy or the Virgin Mobile lawsuit, or Yahoo's acquisition of the site in the first place (which caused a lot of ill-will among Flickr users at the time, but only gets a couple of sentences in context here). Are you arguing that a full section on the user reaction and Meyer's gaffe isn't WP:UNDUE because although mainstream sources didn't cover them in any great depth, they would have if Yahoo hadn't "managed" them into silence? --McGeddon (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It might be that mainstream coverage of the membership response could have been greater if Yahoo hadn't managed the press. It's obviously impossible to say what might have been. But certainly the press coverage was managed. What I would say, is that there is objectively a controversy of at least a similar magnitude to the others you cite, notwithstanding that it hasn't received much mainstream coverage. Perhaps, because it is linked to larger stories about mega-money it will get more mainstream comment in time. In the version of the section that I put on my sandbox page I cut the paragraph on user reaction to a single sentence, based on two mainstream sources that seem to be acceptable to the consensus. That much is surely warranted. Possibly it could be expanded with a further sentence if it isn't clear that the reaction is to the design change and the introduction of advertising. I don't see that it is necessary to have a balance of sources giving favourable reviews or critical ones in order to cite the controversy. It is only necessary to have reliable sources to report that the controversy exists. Whether a journalist likes the new design or not is beside the point. The point is that the subscribers to the service feel disenfranchised and badly served, and are angry, and have conducted a protest on the site for weeks. And that is the controversy, not what any particular journalist thinks.Boot minor (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It really isn't for Wikipedia editors to judge for themselves whether Controversy A is of "a similar magnitude" to Controversy B, and to write an article reflecting that. Our own view of events can spur us to look for supporting sources, but if it turns out that the press gave much less coverage to A than B, Wikipedia ultimately has to concur with that. — McGeddon (14:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)

Yes, I would agree that WP is striving to be a publication of record. (Albeit through the novel means of being edited by anyone continuously.) But it isn't a cuttings library weighing up column inches. On this page Flickr is the big story - its the only story - but in the real world it's only as big as maybe. The discipline that I would think was important is to sift fact from opinion and conjecture. And to give due weight to matters of enduring importance and not to swamp the article with matters of passing interest, or trivia. (I am entirely new to WP editing so that is only my view off the top of my head, but I stand to be corrected if that doesn't accord with the rules and guides.)Boot minor (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"Enduring importance" versus "passing interest" is exactly it - WP:RECENT has some thoughts on this. --McGeddon (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the journalists' reactions seem unnecessary here; although we could quote reviews every time a website was redesigned, it would quickly make articles unreadable and obsolete. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with a controversy. Your proposed rewording cuts the user reaction down to "The public Flickr help forum was inundated with overwhelmingly negative user reaction.", which seems fine, and could sit by itself in the "History" section, in the same vein as saying that the switch to Yahoo logins "was criticized by some users". — McGeddon (14:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)

The sentence I reduced it to used "inundate" and "overwhelmingly negative" culled from the sources. They reflect the facts, like 'em or hate 'em. It doesn't cite numbers for which there are sources quoting tens of thousands. It doesn't, on its own, either make clear what the reaction was to. In the copy as it stands the 2nd sentence of para 2 derives from an LA Times article. "concern ....ignored ...needs of professional photographers" This sentence, in the LA Times, through writer's error or subbing error has conflated "Pro users" with "professional photographers". "Pro users" are the customers (paid subscribers) not persons who earn a living by using a camera. (It would make the basis for a good second sentence but for this error in the source.) A second sentence describing what the protest was about would help.Boot minor (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it's intentional that your "cleaning up" of the gaffe coverage removes the fact that Mayer publicly apologised for her answer, though - the Marketwatch source you use mentions both the gaffe and her apology for it. That she retracted the statement and only one reliable source covered it makes me feel that this doesn't pass the ten year test; if Butterfield and Fake had said something careless at Flickr's 2004 launch, apologising to the people it angered and resulting in precisely one mainstream blog report, it's unlikely that anyone reading the article in 2013 would care. --McGeddon (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

First I just left all the footnotes as is, they can be cleaned up later. My own view, is that Mayer's gaffe was just that, a thoughtless unintended remark. The gaffe controversy is of passing interest. Her twitting apologies (which I read) seemed only to illustrate an apparent continuing inability to select appropriate words. It is unlikely to be a matter of enduring interest. The true significance of the reported exchange, it seemed to me, was to decode the question. - Was she "shuttering" Pro? - i.e. Was she closing the subscription web site. Her answer, "There is no such thing as Flickr Pro today etc." I decode as her saying that Flickr was moving away from being a site that catered for subscribers creating individual pictorial archives, to a site that catered for lots more people sharing personal imagery in "a professional quality space" on the screen. (On reflection my edit of the existing text could be improved.I would like to retain some reference to this exchange because it came from the horses mouth. It was the only almost meaningful exchange of information from the entire media management event.)

So, IMO, the real importance of this section about the 2013 redesign is that it is a watershed in Flickr's history. Therefore important whether controversial or not. I have my own perspective but I prefer the FACTS. They are: The functionality of the site was radically changed. The paid subscription model was abolished. Existing customers were offered a refund of subscriptions, or the option to retain some limited features of the previous model and some relief from advertising. Many of these customers were unhappy and protested. The new design has whatevr features it has.Boot minor (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

As an afterthought on rereading McGeddon's post, it occurs to me that it is possible that the 2013 redesign piece should be its own section outside of the "Controversy" section, in which the user reaction is mentioned in context there. Without meaning to diminish the significance of the protest.Boot minor (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with that, the 2013 redesign is the single most important/radical change to Flickr since it was created or arguably since it was purchased by Yahoo. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If Event Y is no more important than the earlier Event X, this suggests that Y should be given no greater weight than X, in the article. Yahoo buying Flickr has one short paragraph in the "History" section, and no documented press or user reaction. --McGeddon (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree it was a hge change, and deserves a better write up in the history section. I also think that the balance should be reflective of the coverage. And 90-99% of the mainstream was focused on the substance of the changes, and only a small part of the coverage focused on the user criticism thereof. I would vote to move it out of the controversy section entirely, expand the description of the changes, and have a sentence (referencing the LA Times, for example) addressing the negative reaction of some users. I'd ditch the Mayer thing entirely, as a gaffe on a phone call which she soon apologized for hardly seems worthy of inclusion in the world's leading encyclopedia. Jakerome (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Remember we're not necessarily "Voting" Jakerome, as Wikipedia is not a WP:DEMOCRACY. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have had a look at WP/Recentism and I think that I might not be alone in suggesting that we might have reached the stage where a rewrite is acceptable, and necessary. I noted the argument that recentism can have positive benefits in the short term.

As to the relative importance of event x versus event y: to make any judgment, whether it is that they are similar, or of differing importance either way, is necessarily a judgment. There is no escaping it. My opinion is that the 2013 change is of much greater importance than the Yahoo purchase. At the time of the Yahoo purchase they said they would not integrate Flickr into Yahoo. For the most part they more or less held to that. The current changes see Flickr completely integrated into Yahoo complete now with Yahoo menu bar. So that issue has been revived again in this change. Further these changes have effectively shut down the original web site and substituted another. In terms of the history of Flickr that amounts to a year zero policy on which Yahoo are betting the house. In time to come, no matter how things pan out, commentators will return to this point to say it was good or bad depending on the long term consequences. I would therefore argue that it requires a section of its own.

On controversy, I feel that the current protest within Flickr, and spilling out to other places, is largely confined to expressions of discontent from the point of view of the users. Therefore I feel that, at the moment, for whatever reason, it is a controversy confined to users and ex users. It might be that much bigger controversies have been exposed by this debacle, concerning people’s rights to the places they ‘inhabit’ on the internet, or the power and accountability of three or four corporations in California, that will yet be aired and become more public controversies. Unless something of that sort happened, I feel that we are approaching the time when the section could be moved out of controversy and moved to a place of its own.

Purely on my own initiative, and for my own interest to experiment I wrote a new redraft of the piece (dated 7 July) as a possible basis for a rewrite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boot_minor/sandbox Boot minor (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-closure comments

SlimVirgin said that "The current version seems to be a compromise between the other two. If that's not the case, and if there are still issues with it, someone should clarify what the remaining issues are so that I can see whether there's consensus one way or the other in this RfC." when closing the RfC. I don't think the current version was ever accepted as a compromise - after some bold back-and-forth at the end of May, most edits in June were User:CaffeinAddict adding negative coverage and other editors cleaning up any unreliable/misrepresented sources, User:Jakerome adding positive reactions to balance the negative, and User:Longshot1944 adding original research and well-meaning workarounds which were mostly reverted. (Personally I was ignoring WP:UNDUE while an RFC on the matter was ongoing, and was just focusing on basic policy issues.)

Two editors preferred a longer version, but three preferred an unwritten and much shorter one (User:NinjaRobotPirate said "The whole thing could be summed up by a single sentence or two.", User:Jakerome suggested "ditching the section or boiling it down to 2-3 sentences", I felt we should be "merging this into the History section with the same weight as other events in Flickr's history") and User:Doniago recommended "reviewing how similar software updates have been handled for both Flickr and other similar services" (the Flickr article simply says "This move was criticized by some users." in the history section for a comparable 2007 controversy).

An issue unaddressed in closing the RFC is how much space, if any, the article should give to the Flickr CEO's gaffe during a launch Q&A. --McGeddon (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the situation as I see it. I know it would be irregular to have a second RfC directly following this one, but maybe we could propose three versions (short, long, current) and let people vote on which one they prefer. It's been a month, so it should be easier to find reliable, neutral sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't think Dave Paresh LA Times piece [89] actually uses term 'professional photographers'....think its a WP paraphrase of Paresh's conclusions from the early Help forum response (so 3rd hand?)....I think 'serious photographers' more accurate.

I think Flickr CEO was paid too much to get away with a garbled PR gaffe....forgive/forget it if/when she sorts out (Also see Pogue Quotes/Links) Flickr Longshot1944 (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The Pogue article in general is a huge problem. Right now it reads as if "People complained" but "they had nothing to complain about because in MY opinion they're just whiners". CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You could hold a second, shorter RfC (say, for 14 days) offering different versions and asking people to choose. I closed an RfC recently that did that (here), in case you'd want to borrow that structure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the past RfC covered this well enough, I don't think a 14-day straw poll is going to deliver any surprises. We had four editors who thought the section should be cut to a couple of sentences and/or merged into the wider "History", two who suggested it should echo the coverage given to similar updates, and two who said explicitly that it should remain in a full section. The two editors arguing for a full section appear to be saying that although the user reaction received much less press coverage than the relaunch itself, both issues are very important to Flickr users and the article should cover them both in some detail. --McGeddon (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This content has already been in the article for nearly two months.

Thank you for your work SlimVirgin. The remaining issues with this controversy section derive from the fact that the controversy is being acted out here on WP in terms of edits and talk. The current text has arisen out of stalemate rather than any consensus at all.

1. It seems to me that the two positions in the controversy are defined by the Stutz/Huffington Post article in one corner and the Pogue/NYT article in the other. For the life of me, I cannot see any rational basis for excluding Stutz and not excluding Pogue. They are both opinion pieces. One is written from the perspective of an unhappy disenfranchised subscriber who complains that the new site is dysfunctional, the other is dismissive of the disgruntled customers, and is enthusiastic about the features of the new website. In a nutshell that is the heart of the controversy.

2. There is also the extra mini controversy of the "Mayer gaffe".

3. The other important element is the facts of the website and funding model changes. In my opinion this is the most important element for WP. I think it ought to be moved out of "Controversy" to a new subsection of "History" following "Yahoo Photos" and "Corporate Changes".

Unless anyone objects, I'll attempt to edit the current version to one I think would be both fair and reflect accurately the issues. I cannot do this today or tomorrow because I'm busy, and it needs to be done with care. The changes I propose are to open a "History" subsection. Subsume the bit already in "History" with the bit in "Controversy", stating the facts baldly. Then summarising the controversy referencing both Pogue and Stutz but probably quoting neither. And pruning the Mayer gaffe to the essentials. Separated out like that, any future edits, short of a total undo, will be more focused, and relate to either historical facts, controversy over the changes, or controversy over the Mayer gaffe.Boot minor (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

22 July. In line with my post above I have gone ahead and rewritten the controversy section to make better sense, and to make the nature of the controversy clear. I have also introduced a new subsection in History. I realise this is a radical change. Doing it as an edit gives everyone a good chance to suck it and see.Boot minor (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"If nobody objects" is fine in a vacuum, but given that we've just had a big RFC that accepted the then-current version as a "compromise", we should be seeking agreement on any significant deviations from that verdict. You've unilaterally expanded and split the section to five paragraphs, added what seems to be a slanted perspective on the journalistic coverage (skeptical Powazek and Stutz are given a straight "said", while positive Pogue "opines" with scattered, emotive phrases) and removed the fact that Mayer openly apologised for her Q&A gaffe, despite the fact that the quoted sources mention this. I've reverted the changes for now. --McGeddon (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you McGeddon. The question for the RFC was "How much should be written". The position, as I see it, on ending the Rfc, was contained in Slimvirgin's last para:

There is consensus that the longer version violated RECENTISM and/or UNDUE. There is also consensus not to rely on the Huffington Post article. The current version seems to be a compromise between the other two. If that's not the case, and if there are still issues with it, someone should clarify what the remaining issues are so that I can see whether there's consensus one way or the other in this RfC....

What I would say, is that there isn't a compromise; there is a stalemate. If there is a consensus it is over length/weight. It wasn't my intention to take a liberty. I announced what I thought would help the coverage in advance for that reason, and looked at a helpful WP advice that suggested that if in doubt I should edit to carry forward the debate. I did a word count. My edits expanded the amount by only twenty words, though I may have made some changes as I transposed the copy into WP that might have added half a dozen more.

I had originally thought to make the controversy clear without direct quotes from Stutz or Pogue. But found I couldn't summarise Pogue without a mixture of reported and direct speech. Then I went back to Powazak and Stutz adding direct speech to even it up. And then reworked Pogue. It was not my intention to slant the argument but rather to use the journalistic coverage to throw it into relief. If I have traduced Pogue, or anyone thinks they can better represent him, then let's have suggestions for rewording it. The use of "opinion" and "opined" was just me struggling to get around "said", "said", "said", at 2 am. It was inelegant and could be changed, but as things are, the whole piece is a dog's breakfast. I was attempting to make sense of the controversy which has got lost in the competing edits.

Lastly, I cut the Mayer apology because the gaffe IMO is a storm in a teacup. Mention of the twitter apology just makes a bigger deal of the matter. For what it's worth my passport has always described my profession as "photographer". And actually I would endorse Mayer's gaffe and go further to say, there is no such thing as photography anymore. In cutting the reference to apology I was not aiming to introduce bias against her, just to simplify the matter.94.197.219.164 (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Boot minor (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Porn on Flickr

I added a few lines about Flickr knowingly hosting porn. Editor Samwalton9 comes along and reverts it claiming that it is "Unencyclopedic content". So now, in a 10.000 word article singing the praises of Flickr we cannot have a section on a new negative evolution? Would Samwalton9 kindly inform the rest of us what about it is "Unencyclopedic content"? Perhaps you might want to be reminded that Flickr is a family site for people to share photos - children of all ages use the site. Perhaps you might want to show these to your kids, if you are a parent, or any young family member or the chindren of your friends:

• http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6194/6157742404_27e7e6bcf2_z.jpg
• http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8061/8231197654_7c4475a99e_z.jpg
• http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7420/9091528612_f94b1d5dfc_z.jpg
• http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2350/3535659135_d4f4aa85ea_z.jpg
• http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8254/8678324362_531e00cca4_z.jpg
• http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1391/1245084286_4822bb7fa5_z.jpg?zz=1
• Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to explain why I deemed the pornography section unencyclopedic, and shall aim to do so here.

• The section is entirely without reliable sources, only referencing flickr's own website, which may not necessarily be a problem if not for the fact that,
• There is no indication of why flickr hosting pornographic material is worthy of writing about. Why is it any more worth a section than the information they host pictures of elephants?
• The section is written in a way not suitable for Wikipedia, giving instructions to the reader on how to access such material. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree per Samwalton9. I do not believe the information is notable. Yes, Wikipedia is not censored. But does the fact that it hosts pornographic content mean much to the site? Every image hosting site has the possibility of it being hosted, I've seen it on tumblr/imgur/etc. What makes Flickr different? If you can find third-party sources that will prove the information is relevant, perhaps it can be added back in. --kikichugirl (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What makes Flickr different? They do! When you take children to a family restaurant, you do that certain of the fact that you will not be surprised by the sudden appearance of strip dancers. If the management then decides to change the establishment and allow strip dancers, that it most certianly notable. In fact there is a section on changes in the company that Samwalton9 has tried his damnest to keep it pro-Flickr, labelling the Huffington Post an unreliable source [[2]], having the gall to say that "Huffington Post is unreliable, and Pogue's response is reliable" - needless to say, Pogue said something positive about Flickr, Huffington Post did not. It is not the first time that said editor has removed content portraying Flickr in a negative light.

Then again, we all know that companies/ government agencies have undercover staff paid to ensure copy stays positive to their image - perhaps this is one of those companies and that is why everything negative gets deleted. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to find some references that discuss "porn" on Flickr if you want to include a new section about. You may think there's some bright line between what's considered just regular "nude" and what is "porn," but that's probably a whole different discussion. Writing up your observations and linking to a particular example does not fit in with how Wikipedia works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakerome (talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem pretty stubborn about this, so I'll allow someone else to revert your edit. Maybe after 6 or 7 different editors have reverted your changes you'll realize that it's better to discuss the proposed section here before unilaterally adding it to the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakerome (talk • contribs) 01:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we please keep it civil, here? It is not that we're trying to be anti-Flickr because I haven't been on that site in ages. If it's bad we want to know, which is why there is a controversy section. But you are not putting your work in the controversy section if at all, just implying that Flickr is designed to host pornographic content. I agree with Jakerome. This makes three of us and one of you. If you can find someone who will support your view instead of accusing us of things without any basis for them. In response to your argument about the parents' right to know, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a site to warn parents about things. If they wanted to look out for the dangers of various sites, perhaps they should go to a site designed for that purpose and not Wikipedia. And let's also be careful of WP:3RR. --kikichugirl (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: The diff cited above, regarding HuffPost, appears not to be an edit made by Samwalton9. In addition, if it were, it is a diff from 2004. --kikichugirl (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Good lord! Now I am being lectured at by a school girl! And one that can't even read yet! What have you been smoking? Where do you get stuff about warning parents on WP?

I am done here. Have better things to do than sit here having to justify myself to a school girl and a first year student! Revert at will! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I take strong offense your name-alling and derogatory comments regarding my education state and making untrue assumptions. I am making an effort to resolve a dispute with you, as have two other editors, but what did we do to deserve these words, if you may kindly enlighten me? As you have agreed to allow reversion, I have reverted. If another editor agrees with you and has further arguments, I am willing to listen. Please, be civil. I don't understand why you are suddenly accusing and attacking the other editors here; it may as well be a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY. Thanks, kikichugirl (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Rui, I am happy to have an actual discussion with you about this, but not if you're going to make unfounded straw man assumptions about myself and other editors. To clarify my position - I am neither a first year student nor an employee of Flickr; please do not create unimaginative conspiracy theories about me. I don't think I've ever even been on the website, and was only watching this page after an RfC I was part of above. I would like to echo Kikichugirl in saying that your comments are both offensive and unnecessary and ask you to have a read of WP:CIVILITY, then come back here and maybe we can have a reasoned debate over this. Samwalton9 (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the edits, not on the editors. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)