Talk:Digiday

Draft

@BD2412: is there any reason why this is not yet in mainspace? feminist (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• This has been a difficult topic for which to find sources, because news articles about the company tend to be overwhelmed in number by news articles by the company. My thinking was that the company would receive additional third-party coverage next spring, when it reached its tenth anniversary. I have thousands of drafts in the pipeline, so no one draft is particularly a priority for me at any given time. bd2412 T 13:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I see. In the meantime, I think readers would be better served with this article in mainspace. The topic easily passes GNG in its current state. feminist (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

"Advert" tag.

An editor tagged this as looking like an advertisement, which I removed because every statement in this article has been neutrally vetted by multiple editors. If there is some content that does not belong here, or some content that is missing that should be added, please let us know. bd2412 T 04:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Forbes, Fast Media, and Harvard Business Review

Reverting the removal of these sources for discussion:

• What evidence is there that the Forbes article is not independently written?
• Appearance on the Fast Media top-ten list is not a "listicle" at all, or we wouldn't be covering all those runners-up for Time's Man of the Year and the like. Listicle's are defined by their randomness and ephemeral nature; this seems to be an annually generated rating.
• Finally, nothing in the Harvard Business Review piece suggests that they are joking. Please provide a source for this opinion.

As Digiday is used as a reference at least hundreds of times in Wikipedia, we should have more substantial coverage of it, not less. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have re-reviewed the sources, and concede that the Harvard Business Review comment is tongue-in-cheek. Nevertheless, it is still a commentary on the subject in the Harvard Business Review. However, there is nothing incorrect about the description of the other sources. The Forbes article does quote PR content in its discussion of the company, but none of that is cited in this article. There is no assertion that the Fast Company article constitutes use of an unreliable source. BD2412 T 03:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Sorry, something came up as I was typing this.

Forbes "contributor" content is not reliable, per WP:RSP. Such content is prolific, and very poorly fact-checked. The specific article is a signle sentence followed by a copy/paste of the site's own PR. It lacks depth or any indication of significance.

The Fast Company list similarly shallow. This list is not comparable to "Time Person of the Year", which is independently significant. If this list(icle) is significant, it would be documented by a reliable source outside of itself. Since this is a single paragraph in a single short ("7 minute read") article, there is no indication this raises above listicle status. Having been included in a list is not automatically significant. If this list provides some information about Digiday itself, it might be usable, but stripping away context and using it as an "award" is inappropriate.

The HBR source was cherry-picked for a passing comment. In context, the comment was about the strangeness of content marketing as a whole, and this off-hand sentence was the only mention of both Digiday and the Stevies. Nothing about the Stevie Awards is particularly prestigious, as "approximately 30-40% of entrants receive an award" per the award's body itself. Using this without any context is confusing, but not informative. This comparison to the Stevies is therefore meaningless at best, and misleading at worst. Wikipedia should not include misleading information merely because it can be sourced, especially when the intent of that source is ambiguous.

If you disagree, go ahead and take this to WP:RSN, but I personally do not think you will find much support. Grayfell (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you're reading, but the Forbes article referenced here is several paragraphs, not a single sentence. As for the Fast Company article, show me the policy prohibiting content from a list. If the source is reliable—and you have made no showing that it isn't—then it can be used to illustrate a noteworthy point. The article is not relying on any of these sources to show notability, merely for the points stated within them. Lastly, for the Harvard Business Review, I added "humorously" per your comment. Stevie Awards is linked in the article, and any reader unfamiliar with them can immediately make themselves aware of their characteristics. I wouldn't particularly object to some qualifier being added about how readily the Stevie's are handed out, but I doubt that it is necessary. In any event, this is longstanding content in the article, having been here since User:Feminist moved it from draft to mainspace in 2017. The article, with this content, was also vetted and approved for WP:DYK by User:The Bushranger shortly afterwards. If you think such content should be removed when such removal has been disputed, the burden is on you to generate a consensus to that effect. BD2412 T 04:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The part of the Forbes article where the author discusses Digiday is only a single paragraph, followed by promotional content taken from the company itself. The article is specifically disclaimed as "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." Again, per multiple discussions at WP:RSN, these articles are not significant, which is why it is listed at WP:RSP. Why is this article an exception to hat standard?

For the other two, let's look at the slightly bigger picture. Why does any of this belong? How does it benefit readers to tell them that the company was mentioned in a couple of list articles several years ago? I do not think it does. Merely being sourced isn't enough to warrant inclusion. Asking me for a policy that excludes something suggests that you do not understand what I am saying. As I said, if the Fast Company article says something substantial about Digiday, it could be used for that. The only thing being said is that a list exists with this company on it, which isn't automatically noteworthy.

Is your assertion that readers will benefit from knowing this? Please explain why. It doesn't appear to have any lasting significance, and as you acknowledge, it's not being used for notability.

Your comment about the HBR and the Stevies as humorous is editorializing. I agree that was the likely intent, but it's still editorializing. It would also be confusing. We shouldn't assume that readers will know why this is humorous, and we shouldn't assume that they care to click on another article just to get a passing joke. This would be asking readers to spend more time on a joke than the source itself did! This seems like a clear sign this is undue weight. The source is a passing mention, and we shouldn't include passing mentions without a specific reason. I do not see what that reason is. Grayfell (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

After further reflection, I have removed the Forbes and Harvard Business Review references. I can agree that the references themselves are lightweight and ultimately add little, since the Forbes article says little about the subject, and the HBR piece is not addressing it in a serious way. As for the Fast Company reference, the article itself provides a substantial enough description of the role of Digiday in the industry that I think it is definitely worth keeping. Again, I find nothing to dispute the reliability of Fast Company as a source for this content, and Wikipedia does not automatically downgrade content based on its appearance in a list. BD2412 T 04:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. While I would still prefer to rephrase this to remove the name of the list itself, as this seems like a distraction, I accept this as a compromise. Grayfell (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I feel good about things as they stand, thanks. BD2412 T 05:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)