From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Information.svg To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question. To see the original version of this FAQ (January 2011), click here.

Updates to recently restructured article[edit]

Ucanlookitup - Dilute bad press? You’re kidding right? As with Adrian’s restructuring this change is to accurately reflect the subject for the reader. I believe that is the spirit of WP – neutral point of view of relevant and accurate information not a place to highlight “bad press”. You know that editors are not suppose to highlight good or bad press. One thing that does amaze me is how fast you react to anything to do with this article – wow! :) And by the way - let's not be doing anymore revisions without discussion. I have followed this request for you and I am sure you will do the same here - least you violate - again. Goalloverhere (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, do you not see the inherent problem with changing the article unilaterally, in direct opposition to all prior discussion, and then saying "don't revert without discussion"? But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and discuss this first.
You deleted sourced, clearly notable material from the article. Unless you can give a *good* reason for this within 24 hours, I'm removing it. Also, you left the appearance that you had a source for the claim that no suit against the company over Cuomo's allegations was ever pursued, but the citation actually refers to the original warning by Cuomo and does not say that the suit was not pursued. If you have a source that actually says that no suit was filed, then that unquestionably belongs in the article, but if you can't find a source, we shouldn't just assume it and we certainly shouldn't make it appear that there is a source when there isn't. Brettalan (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Adrian made a major article restructuring and explained the changes after the fact (at least from what I can tell) so I was reacting to working to improve the article for accuracy and NPOV.
We continue to disagree on every aspect of notability with this particular issue. In my opinion it does not belong in the article at all - much less the lead - but I have allowed it to remain there as the discussion continues. So first the issue is not notable and second detailing all of the alleged issues - never proven just alleged - is even less relevant. I am thinking there is no source for the suit not being pursued because this is not notable in the first place. Look at the spam incident - follow on coverage and reports of settlements etc etc. That, I agree, is notable. Perhaps the language can be changed to indicate there is no source (I have looked for something and I can't find anything).Goalloverhere (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note I have started to become more active with this article after Adrian's restructuring because it can use a lot of improvement. I removed some non relevant history mentions (example- the donation to the Haiti Earthquake is not that significant - many donated) and also cleaned up some rather promotional language about the company. I am not sure why there is a "box" around the spam settlement and I am not sure how to remove it. This was not intentional and I welcome someone to come in and fix it. thank you. Goalloverhere (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Done--it was just an indent at the start of the line. No time to respond to the rest right now, so if anyone else has thoughts, please jump in. Brettalan (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Also, in response to concerns about the wording on assuming that a a suit was not pursued by the NYAG I have re-worded the entry to provide clarification.Goalloverhere (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Adrian - I noticed you reverted my attempt at clarification on the Bulk Email section as follows in quotes:

In June 2009, "motivated by a misleading invitation to join the site", Time magazine columnist Sean Gregory called Tagged "The world's most annoying..... If I am following this correctly, you indicate that the statement is "unsourced speculation". In reading the column by Gregory, it seems very clear right from the start that his receipt of an unsolicited and misleading email is what prompted him the write the article that carries the headline. Wanted to ask that you reconsider - thank you. Goalloverhere (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe his motivation was to explain to his contacts what happened... Maybe his motivation was to get back at the company... Maybe his motivation was to prevent others from falling victim... Maybe he had no motivation beyond earning his paycheck that week. I don't know; you don't know; neither my speculation nor yours belongs in the article.
I realize the original sentence about Tseng maintaining a strong company culture sounded overly promotional, so have restored this in a simplified and hopefully more neutral version. I'm not sure why you deleted the sentence about the Haiti Earthquake donation. I agree that it's not of tremendous significance, but I don't think a single sentence unbalances the article, and have restored a simpler version.
"...there is no evidence that a suit was pursued.[62]" didn't quite work, as it still incorrectly implied that reference 62 sought evidence of a suit and didn't find any. Without a source to tell us whether a suit was filed, I don't think we can make a claim either way. I think most readers of the article in its present form would assume that no suit was filed, based on this article's lack of description of said suit. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 13:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Adrian – I completely disagree because it is very clear what Gregory’s motivation was for writing the column but in the spirit of cooperation, I will concede the point.

I appreciate the fact that there is nothing to cite on the status of the threatened lawsuit – so that is why stating something indicating that “no evidence that a suit was pursued” is accurate and acceptable. That is logical.

I have also removed the unnecessary and unproven allegation detail that offers no value to the reader once again. If the reader is interested in learning more about the allegations they can check the reference.

Finally, after much consideration of everyone's points, I have also removed the reference to the 2010 NYAG allegations from the lead. The arguments for notability are not valid. Having these in the lead is an attempt by a few to manipulate WP policy applying a very narrow and out of context interpretation of the guidelines. Overall coverage must be considered from multiple dimensions. Beyond the number of press outlets (which was small) the follow on reporting MUST also be weighed.The coverage was too fleeting and there was no follow on reporting whatsoever. This proves that this issue was not notable. There is a solid argument for it to not even appear in the article at all much less the lead but, again, in the spirit of cooperation I will concede having it mentioned in the Child Safety section. Feel free, if you wish, to add a flag disputing this change – unlike you I will not remove it but will allow it to remain while you come to understand why this does not have a place in the article. Goalloverhere (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Goalloverhere, these issues have been debated since 2009. You are adding nothing new to the argument but are simply unilaterally making changes that you know are not agreed to. Dispite your promises in the past, you are not debating the issues until a consensus for change has been achieved. Ucanlookitup (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ucanlookitup – you and Brettalan have admitted that you were embarrassed and felt wronged by Tagged so it is you “two” that have a conflict of interest and are clearly working to use WP as a place to attempt to punish the company.

YOU ARE LYING. I never said I felt embarrassed or wronged. I simply said that I first heard about the company through an email "invitation" sent out to me purporting to be from the parent of a client of mine. If anyone would have been embarrassed, it was that parent. I came to the article to learn more about the company and that's how I started editing it. YOU said that I was "embarrassed". I never did.
Moreover, for you to claim that *Ucanlookitup or I* have a conflict of interest when you have repeatedly refused to answer the question about your own conflict is ridiculous.

I have stated before that I use the site and that does not constitute any conflict of interest - that is it. Goalloverhere (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I have tried very, very hard to be reasonable, to explain my actions, and to listen to your opinion with an open mind. It's very clear that you are not interested in the opinion of any other editor nor in Wikipedia's policies. You asked just five days ago that no one make any more revisions without discussing them first, and now you're making a revision that you know other editors strongly oppose and which you know violated Wikipedia policy without any new discussion. Stop it. Just stop it. Brettalan (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This is totally untrue. There are a number of examples where I have listened, accepted and even agreed with your opinion. The most noteworthy - when I first started editing the article I did not see any reason for any of the controversy to be in the lead - including the spam. But after reading through the discussion and debate - came to agree that the 2009 spam incident was significant enough to warrant a mention in the lead. The 2010 incident does not come anywhere close and you know it.Goalloverhere (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore – you make a lot of unfounded accusations about the other editors of this page and their motivations.
I have no conflict of interest and have not "admitted" anything you claim. In my opinion, neither has Brettalan. I have made no accusations but have pointed out established facts that you are well aware of. But since your raised the question, I will ask you for a third time, do you have any business relationship with Ucanlookitup (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly it is you who is a single purpose editor and you and Brettalan are always editing on top of each other and claiming to be the judge and jury. That behavior is wrong and a lot more suspect of an agenda than any of the others participating in the article. Perhaps you are one in the same?

I have allowed the incorrect lead for a period of time as things have been considered even though I (and others) have disagreed and proven that it was not notable. This includes you two removing well justified flags resulting in me demonstrating incredible patience. Now, with the recent restructuring, the time has come to improve the article once and for all.

It is not incorrect. You have been asked repeatedly to explain exactly what was incorrect and you have not done so.

I'll explain it again and again - the allegations are NOT notable in any way shape or form. Goalloverhere (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What you have done, is wait until previous discussions are archived before starting a new onslaught of COI editing with the single purpose of removing the statements about child pornography. Those statements are, however, notable and well documented.Ucanlookitup (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There are many instances that show you are disingenuous including the fact that you have taken down multiple flags. This proves that you are trying to manipulate WP for your own agenda. Therefore your conflict of interest and actions attempting to use WP as a place to enact punishment disqualifies you from editing this article so please remove yourself. I have reverted the edit again and again offer you the opportunity to place a flag if you wish and unlike your behavior – I will allow it to stand. Thank you and goodbye.Goalloverhere (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It only proves that I disagree with you. And I am not alone in that. Ucanlookitup (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Goalloverhere, given that we biased sockpuppeting cabalists are trying to manipulate WP for our own agenda, there's no point trying to convince us of the merit of your argument. You instead need to convince independent contributors, which you can do by initiating a Request for comment. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 10:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Good idea Adrian. I will try to get help from some of the projects this article is associated with. NCSS (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Goalloverhere, On the off chance that your comments above are sincere, please be assured that Brettalan and I are not the same person. I was not wronged or embarrassed by I have no conflict of interest and I have no reason to believe Brettalan or Adrian does. Please also acknowledge that this article has been the subject of severe sustained COI editing by Tagged employees and those hired to act in their interest. If you feel you need to be reminded of that history, let me know. It has been repeated many times, but repeating it another time is not a problem. But just to be equally clear on your side: are you saying that you do not now and have never had a business relationship with tagged or with a company that does? Are you also saying that you have no expectation of any kind of gain by editing this article in a way that is favorable to tagged?Ucanlookitup (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ucanlookitup – rest assured my comments are most sincere and thank you for clarifying that you and Brettalan are individual editors. I can also assure you that I have absolutely nothing to gain (or lose for that matter) with editing this article. And I want to point out that my edits have not been favorable to Tagged but rather I am trying to help produce the best article possible. My business relationship with Tagged consist of being a user of the site and I have clicked on ads and offers on the site in the past so if that is a conflict of interest to you then we have another issue.

I do indeed acknowledge, based on the evidence provided in the FAQ by Adrian, that it appears Tagged employees have attempted to edit and even manipulate the article in the past, however, I do not see any recent evidence. Please let me know if you see otherwise.

When I first came to the article I felt that the controversy with the company was no greater than any other social network or many other web sites for that matter. Having participated in the discussion and reviewing the facts I have come to the conclusion that the 2009 spam incident is indeed notable enough to be in the lead and be covered in its own section. The 2010 allegations by the NYAG, however, have been blown out of proportion by a few editors.

In reading through the discussion history there are a number of examples where personal bias and opinions of these same editors being upset with the company are evident. I do not have time to cite them right now but will attempt to research some specific examples. Nevertheless, just as there should be a concern with someone trying to make the company look “favorable” we should be equally concerned with editors imposing their opinions to attempt to make the company look “bad”.

I think there are a number of improvements that can be made to this article including adding more detail around the significant spam issues in Tagged’s past. My primary concern, as you know; however, is that the 2010 NYAG child porn allegations are being blown out of proportion and a narrow interpretation of WP policy is being applied to something that is not notable. I suppose I can appreciate your, Brettlan’s and Adrian’s concern that this is a conflict of interest situation but it is not from me. My only goal is applying reasonable and consistent WP policy to make the best possible article.Goalloverhere (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There is recent evidence which I will recount when I have time. Until then, would you mind answering my question? Ucanlookitup (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
You did answer it - thanks. Sorry I missed it on the first read. I have a difficult time assuming good faith, though, when you make statements that you know to be false. Most recently, it was that I "admitted" to a conflict of interest. You said it on this page and in edit summaries. It is frankly hard for me to believe that was a good faith statement. You can understand why, when reading that, I start to believe that your motivations are to remove negative material with any tactic necessary. There are other examples from previous discussions where you make a statement which is shown to be false, wait until the discussion is archived, and then repeat the same false statement. Ucanlookitup (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok good – glad that was clear - I wasn’t sure when I saw your comment so thanks for clearing it up. And speaking about misreading – in going back over the discussion I see that I was mistaken on the “embarrassment” statement – rather you and/or Brettalan were annoyed and it was others that may have been embarrassed. So my apologies, and I retract the earlier statement.

Also, I was interpreting a conflict of interest based in part on those statements so my wording may have been too strong. I do feel, however, that there is a negative bias towards Tagged from you, particularly in the past regarding this article.

In regards to the archiving of discussions, I am not familiar with this or how that even works. Is it automatic? Does someone do this? You and Adrian are more well versed in the workings of Wikipedia than me so anything that was archived and then I came in after following up with more concerns was by pure coincidence and absolutely not intentional.

At the end of the day I think it comes down to this – we disagree on the level of notability of a particular issue. I guess that you could say that the "good news" is it is only one issue as you won me over on the other Spam issue. :) I will have to look into this Request for Comment process that Adrain suggested – but I have to say that I think it is wrong that the onus is all on me to do this – why not the other way around? Why not at least allow a flag why we debate it? That is why I feel your motivations have been to highlight inflammatory and unproven statements and allegations made by a politician - that happened to be picked up in some press on a MUCH more limited basis than the spam issue and manipulate Wikipedia for another agenda. Goalloverhere (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, this is on the verge of edit warring and if this continues someone will end up being blocked. As for my own opinion, while the child pornography charges are quite notable, I have to agree with Goalloverhere that they are not significant enough to be covered to such a large extent. In fact, I think the sentence "he New York State Attorney General Cuomo has also criticized Tagged for its alleged failure to respond promptly to complaints about child pornography" should be removed from the lead entirely. -download ׀ talk 21:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Download, Welcome to the discussion.Could you expand on your reasoning? Given that you agree it's notable, it would seem that the lede should in fact include it:
"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable,  
and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." - Wikipedia:Lede
Ucanlookitup (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem with this issue is that nothing has been decided in court yet. In fact, it's been almost 1.5 years and I don't believe this article has any information on what has become of the lawsuit. Anyone can file a lawsuit, and though it is notable in this case, I don't think it should be included in the lead until something has been decided. -download ׀ talk 00:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed 100%. I actually added it to the article and never intended it for the introduction. I will remove it now. NCSS (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It is equally true that has never denied the accusations. Neither one of those statements have any bearing on whether or not it should be in the lead. To quote an old adage, absence of proof is not proof of absence. In fact, the reasonable conclusion is that the two parties reached an agreement which has not been disclosed. Regardless of what you believe, it is not appropriate for us to base our decision on speculation but to simply report what is known from reliable sources. And to follow Wikipedia policy, which we have. The removal flies in the face of two years of discussion on the topic. Therefore I'm reverting the removal Ucanlookitup (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Got to agree with Download on this one. There's been no action on this lawsuit in over a year and half, if there was something notable, there would have been an article on it. If there was any news of a settlement, then that would warrant this issue being listed in the lead, otherwise it should be noted later on the page. Socialmaven1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Changes to Child Safety Section[edit]

Hello there. I have revisited the child safety section of this article several times over the past year and have always been troubled by the level of detail that seems unnecessary regarding the NYAG allegations from about 2 years ago. Although you can see it in history - for convenience - this is what I removed:

For example, a slide show with images of children engaged in sex acts with other children was reported in April 2010 and remained online nearly two months later; some of the children in this slide show appeared to be under 5 years old.[1] Cuomo stated his office would sue Tagged if these issues were not resolved within five days.[2] At a news conference, Cuomo referred to Tagged as "one of the worst social networking sites that we've encountered."[3]

Unlike the bulk email issue which was notable - this was not and the explicit details of allegations do not serve the reader. Thank you for your consideration of this change. Goalloverhere (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

After Adrian's revert - I revisited and removed the "example" which seems unneeded and excessive detail. Goalloverhere (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The current version seems like a reasonable compromise. The example doesn't really add anything. Brettalan (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Question for Tagged Editors - Inc Case Study on Tagged[edit]

Hi everyone. I came across this article in INC regarding the Tagged 2009 email invitation spam incident. I think it sheds new light and Tagged's side of the story on the matter and it is from a credible source too. I am wondering if anyone else had seen it and what you thought about referencing it for the Tagged article.

As I know this is a sensitive topic - I thought I would start here on "Talk". thanks Goalloverhere (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would say this looks like a useful source. As long as it's clear that the information is their side of the story, I would support including some of it. Brettalan (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
What an outrageous article. The problems did not begin with a new registration process that went live in June 2009. Just look at this article from Consumer Fraud Reporting warning against these very same emails back in January 2008. The article's claim that "Coping with crisis was a new experience for Tseng, who had known little but success in his brief time as an entrepreneur" is simply nonsense, given that JumpStart copped the largest ever fine for spam in 2006 while Tseng was CEO, and that he was publicly named and shamed over the CrushLink scam as early as 2002. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 16:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the input and consideration. I'll give it some additional thought. Goalloverhere (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Brettalan - thank you for the consideration and recognition that this is a reasonable and good source and provides additional perspective on the company and this particular issue. Adrian - with all due respect - and I am sincere when I say that because you are a committed and talented long time editor - your comments are troubling as it really appears that you have some kind of vendetta against Tagged and their founder. I don't think Wikipedia is supposed to be used as some kind of instrument to inflict punishment. Especially using such non notable sourcing and coverage as you cite in these particular examples some going back 10 years from a single article - not a lot of coverage whatsoever. The definition of what constitutes notability has always been a concern for me with this article as you may recall. Goalloverhere (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
And here I thought we had gotten past ad hominem attacks. Goalloverhere - pointing out inaccuracies of what appears to be a puff piece is not "some kind of vendetta". If you do bring in that article, you can reasonable expect that reliable source that contradict the article will be given equal weight. Ucanlookitup (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Goal, at the risk of you wanting to take back what you said about my consideration and such, I think it's perfectly valid for Adrian to point out that the source seems to be unreliable. And I certainly don't see why you have to bring up the issue of notability again. That said, I think the article can still be used in a limited fashion to show Tagged's side of the story, focusing on direct quotes from the company. Brettalan (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Brettalan - not going to take anything back at all - appreciate your consideration and point of view. Ucanlookitup - I have no intent in an "ad hominem attack" - just pointing out an opinion much like all of us do on this article. Calling the article "outrageous" and a "puff piece" seems like an attack of its own. I have added the citation to the lead of the article and also added a sentence to the Bulk Mail section as well and hope this will be ok with everyone. Thank you. Goalloverhere (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
This is not a borderline case. An article whose two major contentions are demonstrably false is not a reliable source and should not be given false credibility by citation in an encyclopedia article. Brettalan – I understand what you're saying about using the article to show Tagged's response, but I don't see how we could do that without either misleading readers with false information or violating WP:SYNTH. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 15:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Adrian - can you please clarify your position on this? I do not see how you should be judging on this matter in terms of what you consider false in an article from a credible publication. Thank you.Goalloverhere (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Adrian - after additional consideration I agree this is not borderline - it is clear that a credible source reported on the incident and provided additional details helpful to the reader. Therefore I have undone your edit. Goalloverhere (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I am confused. What is the problem? NCSS (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Tagged support team[edit]

When you submit contact ticket they respond every time in formal manner without actual help\interaction. This is the only sign of real state of business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tagged. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference CuomoJune10 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Samantha Gross (June 10, 2010). "Networking site ignored abuse rules". PhysOrg. Retrieved 2010-06-14. 
  3. ^ Laura Dolan (June 10, 2010). "NY attorney general warns teen social networking website". CNN. Retrieved 2010-06-14.