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

Contested deletion[edit]

Hasty nomination. I'm a veteran editor and I have zero affiliation with the website. --Marcus Qwertyus 05:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because you are a veteran editor does not automatically waive rules. The article is a passing mention, and does not provide any cultural interest, other then to say "Hey! We have been featured in a magazine." Need to try a little harder then that. Phearson (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
What part of "exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" don't you understand? Marcus Qwertyus 05:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Does not have to be overly promotional. But I see that you have added a better source, and thus I retract my request. Phearson (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
This article uses the exact same text as Pinterest's own website. Overly promotional. I dunno if deletion is a good idea, but this thing desperately needs rewriting from an objective POV. I have no idea what "Visual Discovery Tool" is even intended to mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Linking to competitor sites[edit]

I added some links with competitors cause i think this hole movement of photosharing is a relevant web-cultural event. Should I create an Artikel about photo-bookmarkservices or just insert a new Artikel named "Competitors"??? Sorry ist my first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debbieundflo (talkcontribs) 12:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:LINKSTOAVOID discourages links to "sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject". It wouldn't be very helpful to the reader if every article about a photosharing site ended with a link to every single other photosharing site.
You're quite right that photo sharing is a big subject, and there's already a full article (Photo sharing) which lists notable examples of online services. There's also a List of photo sharing websites. --McGeddon (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Catcotton (talk · contribs) : per the above comments, it has already been discussed on this page whether or not to link to other photo sharing sites. Wists is 'only indirectly related to the article's subject'. It can be add to the List of photo sharing websites, but does not belong in the Pinterest article. Mcenedella (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Mcendella (talk · contribs) : per the above comments, these relate to competitors not the history of Pinterest, which as per Wikipedia guidelines should show where it came from to give context. I have added three references one from the New York Times in 2006 and two from GigaOm which directly show the history of visual bookmarking and Wists, Stylehive, and ThisNext and how they relate to the history of Pinterest specifically in terms of the development of visual bookmarking. User:Catcotton (talk)

Catcotton (talk · contribs): the references provided are an article by David Galbraith, the inventor of Wists, and a article mentioning Om Malik's opinions about Wists being too early. The history section of a Wikipedia article should not start with a selective listing of companies that previously tried something in the space. As a compromise, how about a new section listing Wists and others as previous entrants in the business? Mcenedella (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Mcendella (talk · contribs) : I agree that history should just be a list of previous companies in the space, but here the issue is the whole idea of visual bookmarking which is the core concept of Pinterest and which has a documented history. I think that the development of delicious as the first social bookmarking tool is also possibly relevant. A new section on visual bookmarking and the history of the concept of Pinterest might indeed be a good idea. User:Catcotton (talk)

Catcotton (talk · contribs): OK. I agree. Do you want to take first pass at it? It's fine to mention this history, you seem to be closer to it, but I don't know that its right place is in Pinterest the company history, versus the history of the industry in which the company participates. You'd usually see that further along in the article. Mcenedella (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Catcotton (talk · contribs): Have not seen any edits from you since our conversation yesterday, so I've created the changes we talked about above. I've moved the development of Wists into the background section, and kept your references. I toned down the claim for invention of visual bookmarking, which, if you feel very strongly about, I think you'd have to cite as "claimed" rather than a statement of fact. The references don't support an absolute claim of prime invention. If there are additional companies you'd like to cite in the development of visual bookmarking, that would also be helpful. Mcenedella (talk)(contribs) 11:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Photo sharing vs image bookmarking[edit]

I think the latter suits much better. Opinions? --Mastazi (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree its more akin to the inherent mission of the site and image bookmarking is mentioned later in the history section, but I think it's being currently used as more of a photo-sharing social network... Airelor (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


This article could use an additional section that provides information about the technology used in making the website. It would also be nice to include a more detailed background on the people that founded the website and what the motivation behind it is. The infobox could also use an update to include information about the number of people working at the company. Finally, it would be nice to see a section on how the company plans to monetize the website to actually generate revenue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanilshah (talkcontribs) 00:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Do you have any links to articles that have such information? Those links would be helpful to editors looking to improve the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Too bad Pinterest isn't organized to gather data about trends of interests. If they could somehow harvest that marketing information, then they'd make some real money. Sorry this isn't signed, I never could figure out how to do that and long ago forgot my account name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Pinterest's copyright concerns[edit]

Do we really need to split a paragraph about copyright issues out into its own section? After I merged two one-shot "controversy" sections into other parts of the article, an editor created a "Copyright violation concerns" section header for one of the paragraphs, with the rationale that "This is important and not to be buried in the body text." - I'm not sure it's any more important than other aspects of the website's "History", based on the sources we've got. We shouldn't give WP:UNDUE weight to aspects of a subject that we have strong personal feelings about, or which we think it's important that people should know - we're writing a neutral encyclopedia here, not an eyecatching, story-breaking newspaper.

What do other editors think about this? --McGeddon (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that the whole site is based around users pinning images that they have no image rights to, and being actively encouraged by Pinterest to do so, and also the fact the images themselves are copied from their original source and then stored on Pinterest servers where they then claim perpetual rights to make money from such images I say that there needs to be a section on it. Unless Pinterest change the way this website works there is going to be an ongoing issue. I am putting it back in. Tigershoot (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE says that "articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views". I agree that their attitude to copyright seems like a big problem, but we should be echoing the strengths of available sources. We just need to pull up some stronger sources to show that the copyright concern is more than just a "minority view" of Pinterest. If those sources don't exist yet, we should wait until they do. --McGeddon (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding editors trying to sanitize copyright theft then imagine this scenario. A photographer or illustrator spends time and money and their artistic skill creating an image. They sell it via a stock site. Legitimate website designers pay for the image and the content creator gets their cut (which is often pitiful). The website is then published and along comes a Pinterest user who 'pins' the image they have found. The image is then illegally copied to Pinterest's servers and then Pinterest claims rights to make money from that image forever! I used the word "Violation" in the heading and this was watered down to a 'concern'. It is not a 'concern'. It is a blatant violation involving theft of someone else's work. It is a bizarre business that encourages users to pin anything they find of interest (yet claims users must only pin images that they have rights to). Then they make money from someone else's work and think that nobody should mind. Additionally they have a hopeless process for a rights-holder to try and get an image removed - imagine doing this dozens or hundreds of times a month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigershoot (talkcontribs) 22:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying I don't personally understand or feel concern about the copyright violations, just that we should be guided by the strengths of sources when assigning weight to particular paragraphs, rather than by how strongly we feel about them. WP:NPOV. --McGeddon (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there cause to add links to critical websites such as or DrippingGoofball (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the March 2012 policy change to eliminate Pinterest's right to sell users' content, obviously to defuse the copyright liability of the company, does this affect the Copyright sectioning issue? Just thinking out aloud...Cephas Atheos (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"Copyright violation concerns" section[edit]

I've deleted the section titled "Copyright violation concerns".

Here is the section as it was before I removed it:

Copyright concerns have been raised over the fact that Pinterest’s business is "based almost entirely on using images without permission".[1][dead link] Getty Images said that it was discussing copyright problems with Pinterest. Pinterest issued a statement in February 2012 saying that it was developing an improved method for copyright holders to report infringing content.[1][dead link] It has also been noted that users are actively encouraged to post anything they find of interest and in so doing the images themselves are illegally copied without the image owners permission to Pinterest's servers.

  1. ^ a b "Pinterest -is it a Facebook or a Grokster?". [dead link]. Retrieved February 14, 2012. 

This raises several concerns:

  • There is only one source for the entire section.
  • There is no citation for the claim that Getty Images is "discussing copyright problems" with Pinterest. The part about Getty Images comes from the paidContent article, which simply says: "A spokesperson for Getty Images, which licenses a wide variety of pictures, informed me that the company is 'aware of the issue and [is] discussing it with Pinterest.'" We need a better citation from a reliable source.
  • The sentence "Pinterest issued a statement in February 2012 saying that it was developing an improved method for copyright holders to report infringing content." is sourced to the paidContent article, however their is no such information in the article.
  • The last sentence starts with "It has been noted"—this is a huge problem just by itself. Noted by whom? Weasel words plain and simple.
  • "in so doing the images themselves are illegally copied without the image owners permission to Pinterest's servers." Illegal according to what laws? Who says that no copyright owners give permission to reuse their images? Who says the images are even copied to Pinterest's servers at all? Who says that even if they are copied without permission that this is illegal? This is in desperate need of citations of reliable sources. —danhash (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Good point, this looks like quite a poor summary of the given source. I think it's reliable enough in itself, although I'm not sure whether its writer is enough of an authority that we should report his musings on "safe harbor" status. I'll edit the paragraph to match what's actually said in the article. --McGeddon (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Without touching on the sourced content, I certainly have no issue with the removal of unsourced content, per wp:CHALLENGED.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that instead of tagging the section as it has been tagged, other tags be used. It does appear to all be sourced now. If one wishes to question whether the source is a reliable source, the [unreliable source?] tag would seem more precise. If one wishes to question whether the information is in the ref, the [not in citation given] tag would seem more applicable.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Reverted. Thanks for the input. Care to input on the title of the section? —danhash (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Sure thing. As to the title, I think the change to the current title was appropriate, and an improvement. I haven't looked into the issue generally, but agree that we should make certain that any inflammatory claims are well-sourced, and carefully stated. It might be good to indicate who the journalist writes for, to provide some more context allowing the reader to weigh his statement appropriately.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Pinterest Clone[edit]

An IP address is adding a link to a clone of Pinterest on all wikis. I remove it every time, but is very annoying. Already in the Blacklist in this wiki, but in the other wikis, he keeps adding the link --Hcxangel (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, but this is a matter you should take up with those other wikis. This talk page is for discussing the Wikipedia article. --McGeddon (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Horrible Sexism[edit]

The intro section is stunningly non-objective and sexist in the way that it says that it is "speculated" that Pinterest is used more by women because the ability to share interests in fashion and food appeals more to women. It would be bad enough to see something like this on Wikipedia normally, but this ridiculous statement does not even have a citation, revealing the unaccpetable bias of the author. I have removed this line, as it adds nothing to the overall quality or informative value of the article, and because it is unneccesarily biased. I am not a woman, so this is not an emotional response arising from feeling insulted by this sexism. It is instead in the interest of maintaing a high-quality, un-biased and well cited article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you're a female or an angry dude. I can link you to at least 20 peer-reviewed consumer advertising studies which will essentially state the fact that both fashion and food interest and the ability to share opinions and other articles about said interests are quite easily correlated with female advertising targets. There are reasons why frequent visitors to OMG and Womens' Health are targeted with advertisements for diet plans, menstrual products, and chocolate, and these reasons have nothing to do with sexism. Purchasing studies prove time and time again that female (and male) demographics are *very* easily isolated, to the point that some chains will send promotional offers to women they *think* may be pregnant based on their buying habits and online interests. What you're discussing sounds more like the need for a citation needed flag and less like the criteria for a heavy-handed deletion of what could very likely be valid content. Furthermore, the content you deleted could very well be an important part of the story here, and the fact that it upsets you is not reason enough for its removal. I've reverted your changes and I hope you will take a more objective view of things like this in the future. However, kudos for charging forward with what you felt was right. It's a touchy subject, but any marketing major would take great pleasure in expounding upon the merits and finer points of grossly sexist advertisement and marketing mechanisms.

- (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

First, regardless if one find it sexism or not, the fact that remains is that any statement like "the website has proven especially popular among women" should be backup by facts! For this reason alone any unsubstantiated claim should be removed from this wikipedia article. For instance, This source pointed to back up a claim in section "3.Usage" has no hard data that confirms that this is a fact. Second, the logic presented above by user: is flawed. Even if "fashion and food interest" are "correlated with female advertising targets", it still does not follow as a verifiable fact that most Pinterest users are females. In sum, claims and sources with not reliable hard data should be removed from this wikipedia entry. Wikipedia is not the place to speculate. As of this writing, it seems that the only hard data we have confirming that women are the majority of Pinterest's users is this The Telegraph source -- which is cited in the wikipedia entry. Desmore13 (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I know I am late to this discussion, but these sites might help your debate [1] and this CNN article [2]Stewaj7 (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Stewaj7 for the links. This June 2012 survey by [3] found that "in the US, Pinterest users are overwhelmingly female, while in the UK, the majority of users are actually male." Their USA data: 83% female, 17% male. Their UK data: 44% female, 56% male. Desmore13 (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


Came across this article on Pinterest's history — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

And I find the History section to be in the way of the description of the service. WP form is to have History early, but can we find a way to bulk up the explanation of function before listing funding rounds and awards? Onanoff (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


This article reads very much like an advertisement for Pinterest. For example, there are many statements with no substance, such as the item about the iPhone app "bringing in more than the expected number of downloads". What's factual about that? It seems to imply that Pinterest was more popular than...something else, but doesn't add information that makes it relevant. If there were 20 downloads, instead of the expected 4, then that's a fact that is of interest to readers of the article, as it would be if there were 20 million downloads instead of 4!

I'm also surprised that most of the "Usage" section seems to be a description of how to use the site, rather than an overview of what the site allows, which is kinda already explained in the first section. In fact, the whole article reads like a fan page or marketing release. There doesn't seem to be any neutral point of view here, at least from my point of view as a 'casual reader' (no pun intended) and as someone who's viewed a couple of Pinterest boards.

Basically, I'm not sure if this qualifies for the neutral POV tag, or it's just me. I'd appreciate any comments from more experienced editors.

Thanks. Cephas Atheos (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Cephas Atheos, new editor here and I am acquainting myself with the neutral point of view. I am not seeing discrepant text. I found this Wikipedia entry comprehensively informative and not advertorial, or at least not too different from the Twitter or Facebook-type Wikipedia entries. Now what may be missing to aid NPOV are more academic or research driven references. May I recommended adding the following "Copyright and Social Media: A Preliminary Case Study of Pinterest. 31 Miss. C. L. Rev. 249. Elizabeth Townsend Gard & Bri Whetstone Mississippi College Law Review. 2012" or "Online Social Networks as Markov Chains: measuring Influence in the Pinterest community. Desai, N." to the sections that you have issues with to better legitimize the data within?Gray106 (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

50th wedding celebrations[edit]

I need ideas on 50th wedding celebrations. I am not interested in parties, open houses, dinners, etc. I want some new way to celebrate being married to my husband for 50 years. I would love it to be a celebration with family and friends, just outside the "box"! Any ideas? (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Barbara Bolden

Have you considered surprising him with a rusty trombone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

What is Pinerest?[edit]

I looked at this Wikipedia article to find the answer to this simple and fundamental question. It does not appear to be there. I give the article an F. ---Dagme (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

FULL ACK - Just read the first sentence, it is obvious that it is likely forgery. FIY, pinterest is very much a clone of photobucket, just marketed and styled differently. Current first sentence: "Pinterest is a visual discovery tool that people use to collect ideas for their different projects and interests." That is just nonsensical and non-descriptive marketing BS. (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
1:1 translated from the German article: "Pinterest is a social network, which allows users to collect images together with descriptions onto virtual pin boards." (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

of course I am not logged in... what I want to say is that pinterest is collecting passwords and your informations... so you can be sure that I will never log in Pinterest... think about all the informations they ask you to log in... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


How can both 70% and 83% of users be women as of 2012?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

They can't, which is why they are estimates, not facts. But since they're both reliably sourced from different organizations, there's nothing particularly contradictory about having both in the article. NE Ent 00:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Use section[edit]

This Use section reads very much like marketing material and even breaks down into a step-by-step tutorial at one point; very un-encrylopedic. --Joshenders (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Promotional Article[edit]

How could Wikipedia give this article a "B"? This is a promotional article written in company jargon. The first sentence, for example, is taken directly from the Pinterest website. Here is that sentence: "Pinterest is a web and mobile application company that offers a visual discovery, collection, sharing, and storage tool." What on Earth does THAT mean? It is also grammatically incorrect. Dangnad (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Sharing What?[edit]

Another comment, above, makes the valid point that pinterest is a glorified photo-sharing social-networking site. That impression is also reinforced by this Wikipedia page. Before I played with it, I expected it to be a way of bookmarking items of "interest", found on the Internet, using a visual key. Their own help centre says " creative ideas" rather than pictures -- whatever that means. There are posts around the Web indicating how to share videos, slide shows, and even podcasts, but the site's identity is still ambiguous in my opinion. In other words, the description presented here is more limiting than the site's own description (which is a bit loose and flimsy), and may even be doing the site an injustice. TonyP (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Promotional Page?[edit]

It cannot be edited, and is clearly out of date ("most popularly, weddings," for instance may once have been true, but that is opinion, and inaccurate now.) Was this written by Pinterest and uploaded to Wikipedia? If so, is that kosher, so to speak? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

If so, then it is definitely not kosher; it is haram, treff, unclean! - (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2016[edit] (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2016[edit]

Remove the word "Bokmål" in the language list in the box to the top right - Bokmål is redundant to Norwegian, the language stated in the next word. ("Bokmål" is the main form of Norwegian, as opposed to "Nynorsk", the secondary, not so common, form.)

IdaLau (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. VarunFEB2003 13:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Partly done:. I have changed it to read "Norwegian Bokmål", as described in the Norwegian language article to be the recommendation of the Language Council of Norway. --Stfg (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Demographics - Unsupported Stats[edit]

The sentence under the Demographics section, "...56% of the users were homosexuals and their age profile was different too, being about 10 years younger..." is unsupported.

The article referenced, (#23 - Barnett, Emma (28 March 2012). "[1] [Barack Obama signs up to Pinterest]". Daily Telegraph. London) does not mention anything regarding homosexuals.

A further issue is that the term "homosexual" is severely out-of-date and perhaps should only be used on Wikipedia in an article discussing LGBTQ history and changes in appropriate terminology. To use it here suggests a derogatory tone, whether that was the intention or not. 2602:306:CCE7:13A0:1494:103D:C3B1:E4FF (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


edit use section[edit]

looking to edit the article's section on "use." New features have been made on the site, which I wish to contribute to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albinoa (talkcontribs) 17:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

growth section[edit]

content under the 1.2 section contains identical content under the 2.2.2 section. The information is missing citations in 1.2, I will replace the content with the citations and combine the two growth sections. 1.2 will now be 2012-2017 growthAlbinoa (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

features and functions section[edit]

I am looking to add a features and functions section to the Pinterest Wikipedia article. The contributions I wish create will be similar to the Google+ article. The additions will help the article by defining terminology the site uses. Content will contain various cited sources. Albinoa (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The lead[edit]

Leads need to sum up the article; also minor stuff should be omitted. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)