Talk:Ning (website)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ning now has ads[edit]

There are a number of different text ads on the network pages now. Maybe the business model paragraph should be altered? Unfortunately I don't have time for this right now, but I wanted to note the change here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meinhard Benn (talkcontribs) 14 June 2007

Policy Problems[edit]

The following sentence is a clear violation of neutral point-of-view: "There is a great value in the model of Ning's framework since it creates an environment where applications can be cloned, customized, and arranged."

Otherwise the article is generally factual in tone, although it does lack citations for its most specific statements of information, for example the difference between a paying account and a free account.

I do get the impression that it is somebody associated with the Ning organization who is primarily writing and editing this article. I suppose that's fine as long as it adheres to wikipedia policy, though I'm no expert on the finer points of that policy.

Jupitermenace 15:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Another Resource....[edit]

I Was Reading On PCworld about Ning & Nexo. Here's The Link:,130604/article.html if anyone wants to add content relating to the article. 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

PaidContent reported on additional funding here: . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowanda (talkcontribs) 00:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Scripps Interactive is also using Ning for its FineLiving community, and there are probably other corporate clients as well. The only source I could find on it (other than the links from the websites themselves) were press releases that I couldn't source back to Scripps (or anyone). I can help dig up a news/PR source if that info should be addded to the article. Flowanda | Talk 21:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


If we're actually going to keep this page (amazing considering the lack of content and attempts to explain its notability after all these months), let's try and make it decent. I've started by removing a bunch of cruft, hopefully someone else can go from there. Newtman (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added detail to the FEATURES section regarding the use of content by Network Creators. This FEATURES section really needs much more detail from the terms of service - instead of just marketing/PR from Ning. Let's get these important details into the article. ¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotsocial (talkcontribs) 16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Just as a data point, I've encountered references to Ning and found this article helpful in understanding what it is. Very surprised, however, to find it "locked down" due to controversy! Alan.A.Mick (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


"are built in standard PHP"

Is there a non-standard kind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19 April 2008

Well, this is completely irrelevant now that they shut down all development except stupid plug-in toys : ( —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced POV edits by[edit]

The IP has made three unsourced POV edits, reverted each time, trying to get links to some blog called "Charting Stocks." Recommend banning this IP after these clear repeated Wikipedia terms violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Controversy section[edit]

There is a bit of an edit war over the Controversy section's content and neutrality, which is why I've started this discussion and asked for third party comments from the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. The dispute is over this two versions, the version on the left was primarily written by Muggzzi, and the version on the right is the one by me. The full history of the dispute can be seen starting with this edit.

I will now explain how I attempted to make the section more neutral:

  • First paragraph of Controversy section in Muggzzi's version
    • "significant controversies" - "significant" is POV
    • "shut down of communications between network creators", "the removal of adult networks" - unsourced
  • Second paragraph
    • "shut down Widget Laboratory" - inaccurate - Widget Laboratory was not shut down, the company is still up and running. Changed to "removed and banned the use of all widgets from Widget Laboratory"
    • "This dispute was hotly debated in response to an article in TechCrunch." - Peacockian sentence. Show, don't tell.
    • Expanded with citations. Explained impact, gave both company's side of the story.
  • Third paragraph
    • Added by Ningipedia
    • Nothing controversial - moved to Features section
  • Four paragraph
    • "makes the most dramatic change to date" - unsourced opinion
    • "Charting Stocks wrote an article detailing the controversies at Ning and asserting that Ning's new model is a scam." - Peacockian sentence. Show, don't tell. Also Undue weight - If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

That is not to say my version is perfect or complete but what I attempted to do was bring the section's neutrality down and lay the groundwork for further addition neutral information. - kollision (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your revision, though would also add that the "scam" section should probably be removed due to the source not being reliable. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Controversy section in Muggzzi's version; "significant controversies" - "significant" is accurate description as evidenced by sources referenced
  • "shut down Widget Laboratory" changed to banned. Same expression as used by respected TechCrunch article. Added clarity of "from Ning."
  • "combining all member data" - removes "makes the most dramatic change to date"
  • Charting Stocks reference: Charting Stocks is referenced or quoted by the Wall Street Journal, Schaeffers Research, Dow Jones News Wire, and I.N.N. World Report. Refernces to "viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority" is not supported by the references provided, and is in itself a POV.
  • Neutrality does not mean suppression of information. --Muggzzi —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC).
I saw the NPOV dropped on this page and wondered what was going on. So, I reviewed the history and the comments above.
Muggzzi - you need to stick to your guns, looks like these folks have an agenda. Many of their edits were really aimed at removing your work on this entry. I have looked at the articles and discussions you reference - and the controversies you describe are genuine, historically documented, and part of the history of this company Ning.
As the world moves more and more into exposed social networks, it is important for everyone to know the history and actions of those who own these technology platforms. Individual's information and trust are exposed. This is the great part about a living and breathing Wikipedia.
Thank you for fighting off those who would be pushing a POV while claiming to protect against POV postings. -- coolbreeze423 —Preceding undated comment added 14:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC).
I sense some sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry going on with the account above. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

How come somebody keeps trying to tie scripts4ning in with widgetlaboratory? The two are mutually exclusive. They have nothing to do with each other. If we're trying to get the record straight - how come this supporter of widgetlaboratory is insistent upon creating an unrelated tie between a legitimate Ning acquisition and a banned plugin maker? I don't want to see this changed to suit whims any longer. Widgetlaboratory was removed back in August and much has occurred since then. Scripts4Ning is not a competitor of Widgetlaboratory. Do not add "(see "banning of third-party provider above)" to the scripts4ning entry any longer. Ningipedia (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

How come someone with a "Ning"-related user name is seeking to change documented facts about the history of Ning here? All historical details provided in the "Controversies" are referenced for authentication. These controversies and the documentation of same are not "whims." It is very important to document in the history of social networking, the relationship between platforms, network creators, users, and third-party providers. Changing business models, TOS agreements, third-party providers, mergers/acquisitions are part of the vital history of this movement - not to be torn up by someone from Ning seeking to change history by erasing words from Wikipedia. Muggzzi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC).
Muggzzi, I've watched your exploits since august when you left Ning with the ousted Widget Laboratory. You defend them all over the place and you are skewing facts to suit YOUR personal infatuation with Widget Laboratory. We all saw you on Ning before the banning - and we saw you leave for Social Go afterwards. And we saw you fighting for them on TechCrunch. So who is biased here? You have been repeatedly changing these posts not to fight for truth and justice and the American way. You've been changing them to draw attention to your favorite 3rd party provider and everybody knows it. Scripts4Ning is part of Nings history and has nothing to do with Widget Laboratory. Please do not try to intermingle shame with legitimacy to buy credibility. If you change the facts again - I'm going to report you to wikipedia. They're already considering banning your IP. Ningipedia (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Ningipedia, you seem very upset and sort of bullying. I have no infatuation with any business or service provider. However, I am very engaged in the history of social communities and the effects of community platform decisions and positions relative to community members, network creators, and world-wide social community development. The postings here at Wikipedia relative to the controversies associated with Ning's changes in policies and the effects of these changes on network members and creators are all documented and referenced in the article -- actually leveraging the sources you confirm and refer to above. Namely Ning's own blogs and Tech Crunch. Stripts4Ning is part of Ning's history - which also includes the history of Widget Laboratory - again as documented externally and referenced within the Wikipedia article. I am so sorry you feel the need to make threats online to me for merely pointing out that your great hostility towards me seems to grounded in some particular relationship with the business entity whose history is described within this article. I can understand why you would prefer to express a POV herein and block historical facts that are well documented. But, I am not clear on why you would think I would fear a ban from Wikipedia. If they choose to ban the publishing of well referenced, historically factual events - and support bully's who would make threats to promote the subversion of an accurate Wikipedia in favor of using it as a corporate marketing platform --- then, let them ban me. Muggzzi (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You are unbelievable. The subject here is NOT WIDGETLABORATORY. This is not a wikipedia entry about WidgetLaboratory. By the logic you reference above - hey... Why not mention the relationship between Ning and all 25,000 NC's? Lets tell their lifestory and while we're at it - lets talk about who each person found the magnificent WIDGETLABORATORY! Tell you what - why don't you explain to the world your reasons for continually tying Scripts4Ning to WidgetLaboratorys downfall. Go ahead. Where, What and When specifically do you have anything relevant to the two COMPLETELY SEPARATE ENTITIES? Lets hear it... You tell me how Ning partnering with a company has anything to do with 'Controversies' and the banning of a 3rd party provider...Ningipedia (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
As I look back through prior historical changes in the content of this Wikipedia entry, I see you and others have been trying to bully others who have been seeking to provide accurate, referenced historical information on Ning relative to its relationship with network creators and developers. This company, Widget Laboratory, is part of this history which also includes other partnerships, shutting of access to PHP code and REST APIs and banning adult network providers. The loss of time and money by network creators on the Ning platform, the shifting business and development models, and the numerous articles and discussions on these controversies throughout the social network and web technology world are very appropriate for Wikipedia. Again - Wikipedia is not a corporate marketing PR platform for Ning. It is a place people go to actually learn in living/breathing format about important topics. I wonder if you realize that your bullying and abusive dialogue is also part of the whole reason these controversies are part of the Ning history? Muggzzi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC).
Nice try. When are you going to provide any proof of anything you say? I didn't feel the need to post in here until 2 days ago when I got fed up with your slanted changes. Muggzzi, put your money where your mouth is and provide some evidence. Blank statements don't mean anything.
Hey - know why all of your attempts at actual hyperlinkage to widgetlaboratory's website were removed? Wanna know why Muggzzi? Because wikipedia is not a forum to push personal agenda. Do you understand this? I don't think you really get it. Do you see that by your own logic, I should add "See partnership with scripts4ning below." to the Widgetlaboratory piece. So you tell me - if I did that, what would the point be? How does Widgetlaboratory have anything to do with scripts4ning acquisition? You're not going to understand. Call me a bully. I'll call you an illogical, 1-sided factschanger with an agenda. You do not like ning. And you have a relationship with Widgetlaboratory. I don't think you really understand the point of Wikipedia.Ningipedia (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the Charting Stocks article a reliable source?[edit]

Is this article from the blog Charting Stocks[1] a reliable source for the article Ning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demoxenos (talkcontribs) 30 April 2009

Also see the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here [2] 21:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangaru99 (talkcontribs)
Charting Stocks provides stock market news and insight. Recently, the following major media organizations have quoted or referenced the news site: Wall Street Journal, Schaeffers Research, Dow Jones News Wire, and I.N.N. World Report.Muggzzi —Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC).
How can a low traffic and otherwise unremarkable blog about the stock market be a reliable source in this case since this discussion isn't related to stocks in any way? Even if it has been "quoted or referenced" by "major media organizations?" (Citations would always be helpful here). My impression is that the blog is actually owned by the user Muggzzi, and that this link is being included in the article in order to improve the pagerank of the blog.Speckssommer (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
As discussed previously, reports on a wide range of corporate, stock market and media news and insights. The online social network tools are very much part of this focus area. I'm sorry Speckssommer jumps to unsubstantiated conclusions about my personal ownership of domains, blogs, etc. - as this assertions are not true. Please keep focused to real, tangible discussions instead of wild eyed accusations.Muggzzi —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC).
I can assure you that my eyes are not wild. I also note that you haven't provided citations for the claims you have made above. I have read much of the back-catalog of the chartingstocks blog and can assure you that the Ning related articles are quite out of character with the rest of the site. In addition, the referenced article itself is very much an opinion piece rather than factual reporting; it makes numerous unsubstantiated claims. I fail to see how it can be considered to be authoritative or even relevant in this matter. If you disagree, please provide some evidence of this "controversy" outside of this blog post. If there was such a controversy, it should be quite evident across numerous reputable sources. Speckssommer (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Muggzzi:I have again reverted your changes to the controversies section. Linking to a GetSatisfaction thread is not evidence of a controversy, and the review you linked to had no relation to the section it was added to. The scripts4ning relationship is mentioned in features and is not a controversy in any sense. You are trying to use wikipedia to push forward your own isolated point of view on Ning, and this is not the purpose or intent of wikipedia. Speckssommer (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Speckssommer: I ave again reverted your POV changes which seek to remove factual references to the many Ning controversies. Removing well referenced details and linking to one of Ning's own GetSatisfaction thread is simply expressing a POV that wishes to not have references to the many controversies Ning has experienced. The review from a reliable source also mentions these controversies - hence providing further documentation of the wide spread discussions, reports on the many Ning controversies. These controversies are very important as they are at the heart of the ever evolving social network landscape. Adult networks, third-party providers, member ownership, etc. -- very vital topics and controversies in the social network realm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muggzzi (talkcontribs) 01:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Muggzzi: unfortunately for you, characterizing my own changes as POV doesn't make it true, and any impartial observer will see that my edits are much more POV neutral than yours. Your references are not factual; if they were then they wouldn't be the subject of debate on this page. The controversies which you continue to highlight are not in any way "at the heart of the ever evolving social network landscape." Speckssommer (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
There is now obvious meatpuppet/sockpuppet behavior evident with user Muggzzi. See contribs for Gotsocial and which both make edits to the same articles as Muggzzi. Speckssommer (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Muggzzi: Thank you for restoring my update - especially my addition in the FEATURES area of the Ning licensing features. This is a real important feature - as it gives Ning big, big rights to use Network Creator content. There is now obvious meatpuppet/sockpuppet behavior evident with user Speckssommer - and probably Ningipedia and Gogo Dodo. Looks like the company treats this page as part of their marketing department. There are some other very important features that need to be added to this article. I'll get to it shortly.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotsocial (talkcontribs) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Gotsocial / Muggzzi: the purpose of wikipedia is not to air your grievances or further your personal agenda; it is to provide factual information that is from a neutral point of view. Your point of view is not neutral. It is clear from your editing history and the comment above that you favor a competitor to Ning, and your editing efforts on this article are organized around attempts to highlight unfounded criticisms of the company. Please refrain from trying to use Wikipedia in this manner. You may find the article on NPOV helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speckssommer (talkcontribs) 01:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Speckssommer: the purpose of wikipedia is not to troll for a company and remove postings about historical information, and information you don't like for some person POV. Factual -- I noticed you did not like the factual "features" as detailed in Ning's own terms and conditions entered by either mayself of the user Gotsocial. Is there something non-factual about these features of Ning? Or "non-neutral?" It is clear from your editing history that you are not interested in providing detail, history, or information about Ning - simply acting as some sort of guard against the posting of well referenced, documented information -- remarkably not even personally approving of features represented by Ning. And then you write to me about reading the article on NPOV. I guess humor is the best I can hope for from your POV-ridden comments. Please refrain from deciding what is history -- because you don't own history. And, please refrain from deciding which features you believe to be acceptable for placement in Wikipedia. Features are features. Facts are facts. None of which are POV. The only POV here is your desire to have a Ning marketing page instead of a Ning Wikipedia page.Muggzzi (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Speckssommer/Ningipedia/GogoDodo: I had to post here again - as I chuckle to myself. I've just looked through some of these postings from you. You certainly have humor in your lives - and an interesting view of things. Let me follow -- posting of exact features from this Ning groups terms and conditions is POV? Adding things in history (and widely discussed with socialnetwork experts) is POV. And I am somehow a meatpuppet/sockpuppet of this Muggzzi? Sounds like you watch conspiracy movies very much. The "reality" is that these features provided are extraordinarily important in detailing this Nings platform. And, these controversial activities are very much part of Ning. Something that is fact - real, is neither POV or NPOV -- simply fact. I'm sorry these realities are so hard for you. To change them, you will need a very large eraser -- because false tauntings about POV just make you seem like you must get some paycheck from Ning? More concerned with that than simply having an informative article for Wikipedia.Gotsocial (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Including slabs of text copied verbatim from a company's terms of use is not factual or informative, and that's why I removed them. If there is some important context for discussing them, then by all means link to it. The edits that I have made to the controversies section have consistently removed one entry that is duplicated from the Features section above and one entry that quotes an unreliable source. Speckssommer (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleting material, rather than simply editing to meet your need to control the Ning listing at Wikipedia is the way with you. You don't like it - you delete it -- regardless of the relevance. Let's see - is it not a very important feature of the Ning Networks that, "Ning retains the right to display Network Creator content after a Network Creator terminates their Network Member account." Or, "Network Creators grant Ning a worldwide, perpetual license to reproduce and display Network Member Data through the Ning Platform in all current and future media in which the Ning platform may be distributed." These are incredibly important features of Ning - and very a distinguishable difference between Ning and many social network providers. Of course, they aren't the marketing materials that you want to place on this Ning advertising page. Specksommer -- personal controller of the Ning listing -- will you also try to block this content? Does it not meet your personal POV for this page?Muggzzi (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite sure that I could find similar terms in the legalize of other online service providers, so no, these are not features in the sense that most people would understand them and they don't belong in the features section on their own. They may well fit under the controversies section if they are the subject of genuine controversy. Also, you are referring to the contributions made by the user GotSocial rather than your own, so it would seem clearer now that you are controlling both accounts in order to make it seem like you have some external support for your edits. Speckssommer (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Unique feature"?[edit]

Under the heading "Features", it reads "The unique feature of Ning is that anyone can create their own social network for a particular topic or need, catering to specific membership bases." In fact, this feature is in no way unique to Ning. There are dozens of customizable DiY social network sites that share this market with Ning, and some of them (such as WebScribble) *predate* Ning. Any suggestions as to how best to rewrite this sentence? Bricology (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "The central feature"? -Royanee (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. I've changed it thus. Bricology (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ning going premium only[edit]

Here's a forum post from John McDonald, the VP of Advocary: Here's the associated TechCrunch article: People are scrambling to figure out what their options are - to get their content off Ning (and where to go with it) or figure out how much "premium" will cost. -Royanee (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ning (website)NingWP:Primary topic. About 60x more views than Ning (surname). Marcus Qwertyus 00:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

  • You should have set this up as a multi-move so that Talk:Ning would be notified as well. Powers T 01:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • By extension I would also have to set up a RfD for all those redirects that needed to be retargeted. I would only set up a multimove if I was proposing replacing Ning the surname as primary topic. Marcus Qwertyus 02:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's necessary; but Talk:Ning needs notifying either way. Powers T 12:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


I thought The Ning was a social network for Nerdfighters.

Benjamin (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)