Talk:Tomnod

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tomnod article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page was proposed for deletion by TheAirplaneGuy (talk · contribs) on 20 March 2014 with the comment:
Not notable... fails
It was contested by YSSYguy (talk · contribs) on 2014-03-20 with the comment:
here are other non- MH370-related refs as well

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

March 2014

Copied a couple of sentences from List_of_crowdsourcing_projects#Tomnod to make a new page instead of a redirect. Have been adding more onto it because this company is in the news. --Turn➦ 12:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for Deletion

TheAirplaneGuy proposed deletion of this page. I created that page as a redirect, per:

List_of_crowdsourcing_projects#Tomnod

This was subsequently contested by YSSYguy.

For the record, I am in support of the page as is, I do not view it as non-notable. We are moving from an autocratic era to a distributed era, where crowd-sourcing is becoming a very powerful tool. However, crowd-sourcing generally does not attributes its successes to individuals, since it is a collective effort. Also, since the individual who finds the solution to a puzzle posted on crowd-sourcing, in many cases, do so by chance, just because they happen to be allocated to block of data that contains a solution. In an egalitarian sense, those who are allocated blocks of data that do not contain the solution are equally valuable, because they eliminate possible (false) solutions and so narrow the search for possible solutions. Anyway, this is a long way of saying that crowd-sourcing, by its nature, does not generally elevate individuals to a status of celebrity ... an established traditional way of demonstrating notability. Rather, it is a way of harnessing a massive brain resource from a very large number of minds to solve complex or tedious problems. See, for example:

Currently, Tomnod has global exposure because it is a platform to recruit a massive base of volunteers to sift and sort through massive database of images in the hunt for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. However, this is just one of various projects hosted on that platform, so I feel that it is notable. Also, of course, the huge global exposure Tomnod has received from the search for MH370, virtually guarantees that it will be notable in the future. No doubt they have substantially increased their user-base in the process and many will no doubt switch to other Tomnod projects as the MH370 search continues.

Finally, if this page is to be deleted (which I hope it is not), then we should avoid discarding the content that is there currently - although that is more than can conveniently fit on the List_of_crowdsourcing_projects#Tomnod page. Most important, if it is to be deleted, then I would strongly support reverting it to the original redirect.
Enquire (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete! Jidanni (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete! Ok, that is a commercial enterprise, where the cheap use of Crowdsourcing without transparent results to the Crowd is questionable: The kmz-file of results lags days behind - and (see below) the crowd does not even know the coordinates of the imagery they work on. But it is a tech that is playing a vital role in the search of MH370. And it is original imagery - not available to the public elsewhere on this planet. Sadly, I find no source about the 'millions' who participate in the crowd except the claims from that enterprise. But still, this is the kind of information I expect to find on wikipedia. * [ http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/the-satellite-that-may-have-found-missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-20140321-3575p.html] This was already used in 2007: Steve_Fossett#Disappearance_and_search Yes, there is and was criticism - but it is not helpful to erase this develoment from history.

There is no need to argue against deletion here, as the article is no longer tagged for such. YSSYguy (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tomnod coordinates obfuscation

Mention if Tomnod (is) doing its best to strip any way users have to figure out the coordinates of what area they are working on (and if so) will (that) in fact hamper rescue operations. Making it totally dependent on staff to translate any location found (?). Jidanni (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jidanni:That's a serious allegation - or more accurately, an allegation designed as a request for clarity ("mention if" means "I'm not saying they do *winkwinknudgenudgeIreallyamsayingtheydoknowwhatImean*, but if they do, then mention it") and should be backed by a WP:RS before it can be added to the article. If you have no reliable sources to back this up, seriously consider putting <strike></strike> around your comment to indicate that you are retracting it, and change the topic header to include the word "retracted" for additional clarity. On the other hand, if you do have reliable sources, then provide them here so we can discuss whether the information should be in the article (my hunch would be "yes.") davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is even looking how the map numbers change as one moves in the four directions (perhaps) shows that they (may) have even randomized them too. Jidanni (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do u think the plane is? Jup!m4c3y (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]