Talk:Foursquare Day

Reads like advertisement

The article reads like the FAQ on the FourSquare Day website itself and requires significant work to bring it to the style of an Wikipedia article. As one of the people involved in organizing the Tampa Foursquare Day event, I do not feel as though I have a NPOV to bring this article to the state it needs to be in to remain on Wikipedia. As a Wikipedia editor, I have an obligation to report that I do not think it's current form is appropriate for Wikipedia. GreggHilferding (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

I'm not clear whether or not I can edit this page, even to edit obvious inaccuracies, so I'll put things here.

As thrilled as I am that Foursquare Day has it's own page, I'm not convinced that, at least for now, it wouldn't be better as a section on Foursquare. The current citations re great, but overall the article is longer than necessary and does read like the Foursquare Day About Page. It hardly seems necessary to go into this level detail when you consider that Dennis Crowley only has a recent stub and Naveen Selvadurai doesn't have a page at all.

FWIW, Jessica and I met at this Lunch-n-Learn and it was the 23rd, not the 25th and we didn't talk about the badge at the time. I can look for the blog I wrote about this meeting, if desired. Natebw (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's generally assumed that the subjects of articles cannot write from a neutral point of view, so edits from the specific individuals involved are assessed with greater scrutiny. My involvement in the planning of the event alone presents a conflict of interest for my to be posting regarding this article at all. :/

I agree that the holiday would make much more sense as a section on the main Foursquare article, after most of the historical narrative and non-verifiable sources are removed. It would receive greater attention there from disinterested editors who can edit the material from a NPOV. I'll ask the admin who was previously involved with the page to stop by here and chime in on this proposal. GreggHilferding (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• I would disagree that Foursquare Day should be a section in the Foursquare article. They are two entirely separate things. Since Foursquare does not have anything to do with the creation of Foursquare Day it should not be on the same page as their service.
  
  

I understand that you (Natebw) coined that idea Foursquare Day and that you (GreggHilferding) helped Nate with the project, but I think we need other people to weigh in and voice their opinion. More than a week ago I wrote on the Foursquare service page that I wrote a Foursquare Day article and it would be posted shortly, but no one replied which made it seemed like there was no problem. If anything, I would assume that Gregg would have replied since he appears to be a Wikipedia monitor of some sort, yet he did not. The problem that I have is that both of you guys are friends and because of your involvement with both Foursquare Day and Wikipedia you guys really should not be deciding. Reason being, Gregg has the admin's ear and Nate has Gregg’s ear so that doesn’t seem right to me.

I spent a lot of time working with the admin on this article so I would rather keep it as a single Wiki page anyway

As for an some inaccurate content, Nate, It’s possible I made a couple errors so feel free to correct my mistakes. If you would like, you could post the errors here and we can edit the content for you as well. I do want to point out that some of the info on the ”About” 4sqday page could have been written a little more clear. However, I pulled what I could from that page. Btw, if I remember correctly, Jessica’s last name was even spelled incorrectly. I’d have to take a look at the screenshot, but her last name is missing a “T.”

--Q-cue (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been active on Wikipedia in literally 5 years, but generally everything is consensus and in flux. It is obviously impossible for me to be neutral. If I had my way, this page would link to a page about me! :) Please, please do not take any criticism of the page personally. We all want to make Wikipedia, and web in general, a better place. regardless of the final form and location of the Foursquare Day content, your efforts will not be in vain, as long as the whole page is not deleted. So working with the community is essential to ensure the final result is a good one.

I think the issue of whether or not Foursday Day has it's own own page will be decided in the future depending on what becomes of Foursquare Day itself. Ideally, I see it it as larger than foursquare; it is a day to celebrate social media regardless of preferred application, as I wrote in several blog posts. If that becomes the case, then its own page make sense. I certainly think this is minority, and biased, view.

You have to remember that nearly everything written about Foursquare Day was written at 2 am in a two week time frame, so there absolutely are factual errors in what we put out. That is why we require references beyond out own blogs. I'll post more corrections and links as I have time. But remember, even if something is true, if it can't be referenced, it isn't fit for Wikipedia.Natebw (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Q-cue, I appreciate the work you've done on this article. Since in this situation both affiliated people agree that the subject doesn't yet warrant it's own article on Wikipedia, I think any concerns about conflict of interest are unwarranted. If we were affiliated and were arguing it did warrant it's own article, our opinions should be discounted. This seems to be the rare exception where the folks involved agree it's not quite Wikipedia-worthy. Yet. ;) I'm going to go ahead and remove the blog links from the article, as those don't meet verifiability criteria anyway -- whether they are in this article or in a section on the main Foursquare (service) article. GreggHilferding (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Gregg, in my opinion, the the stats that came from Foursquare itself is legit, Lots of companies makes announcements via twitter and foursquare makes a habit of it. Would it be different if they put these data on their website? Natebw (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The source used in the article for those stats was someone's personal blog and they didn't link to where they got the information. I couldn't find a verifiable source. If there was a good source, it should definitely go back in. GreggHilferding (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

At this point I’ll let you guys handle it since I can already see where this is headed. Wikipedia has too many admins and moderators who are just not on the same page. Add Wikipedia editors into the mix and we have a lot of problems. Obviously this is old news, but this is one reason why a lot of people, including myself, never bothered contributing to Wikipedia. This article was fine according to the admin I worked with for the last 5 days, but now it’s simply being torn apart based on one individuals belief, Gregg’s. I mean, it’s being stripped of just about everything. There are now external links that were removed, credible statistic removed, and an advertising tag slapped on the article. Normally this is understandable if it doesn’t fall in line with Wikipedia’s policy and guidelines. However, Wikipedia’s admin should have removed all this content, not an individual who has their own biased opinion. I can give you a list of hundreds of articles that have ridiculous external links in them, yet for some reason there is a problem here. Unfortunately it’s difficult for any individual to want to contribute to an article when there a few who control all the content. With that said, hopefully you guys will do what’s right with the article and perhaps improve it. I started the article, but just don't have the time to debate the most trivial things. Maybe down the road I'll see what happens with it and make some small contributions. GL --Q-cue (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

@Gregg: Btw, I meant to ask you this yesterday. Since I'm new to Wikipedia I was wondering... if another Wiki editor (new or veteran) disagreed with you and changes you made to an article, what happens at that point? I mean, you said you're not an admin so I was wondering about the title you hold at Wikipedia. For example, if I decided to undo all your changes since I started the article what happens at that point since we have a difference of opinion? Please advise. Have a good weekends, fellas. --Q-cue (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you know of hundred of articles that have ridiculous external links on them, I encourage you to be bold and improve those pages. Any Wikipedia editor can make changes to pages, however once an issue is raised it is best to discuss it on the Talk page rather then get into an "edit war." For example, when I first added the Advert tag and you immediately removed it without addressing the concerns on the talk page, that could have been the beginning of an "edit war". Thankfully, you took the time to begin a discussion here, rather than trigger the Three Revert Rule.

Regarding the external links that were removed, they were to two different sites -- both self-published blogs. The link to Nate's business blog is unverifiable by Wikipedia's standards. Given Nate's participation in this discussion, keeping that link in the article would also represent a clear conflict of interest.

The two links to the other site "chriscredendino.com" were not only unverifiable, they also contained original research and were self-promotional. Since you publicly announced your involvement with creating this article, any links to your own site clearly have no place in the article. Since you've shared your understanding of related policies publicly as well, I don't really understand the confusion you are expressing here. It's very difficult for me to assume good faith when what you say on other sites about Wikipedia does not match with what you say here.

As already discussed on this page, the best course of action with this article is to merge it into the Foursquare (service) article. Only there can this content receive the attention it needs from sufficiently disinterested editors. I'll go ahead and add a merge tag to the main article. If you still have concerns about my actions with this article, I encourage you to take a look at the dispute resolution policies.

I have gone ahead and requested an editor review of my participation here as well. If I am totally off-base, I will gladly take a break. GreggHilferding (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Gregg, you’re a funny guy. You said “once an issue is raised it is best to discuss it on the Talk page rather then get into an “edit war.” Gregg, if you have not already noticed, YOU are the only person who has torn this page to shreds. YOU have not once discussed anything before making edits. Instead, YOU put an “advert” tag on the page, YOU removed external links, YOU, added the “MERGE” suggestion tag, and YOU seem to waste too much time changing things without taking the time to discuss them on the talk page. That is how a edit war begins, by YOU just taking action because YOU feel like it instead of communicating with others. DO understand where I’m coming from? I would never make significant changes to a page without discussion it with the creator and other contributors.

Btw, the site yousaid was “not only unverifiable, they also contained original research” was not all research. It was FACTS obtain by Foursquare directly. Some of the facts even linked to the conversation.

As far as the “hundreds of articles” I was mentioning, these were articles I have come across over the years reading at Wikipedia. I was not a member at that time because of issues that were running into now. So, this is why I never improved them. Is has NOTHING to do with being “bold,” Gregg. Now that I am a contributor I will make the necessary edits to help improve these type of pages.

Nonetheless, like I mentioned above, I’m done with this page. This back and forth with nonsense is trial to me so I’m going to have leave it here now. Feel free to merge, edit, or delete at this point. I trust that you will do a fine job.

Thanks! --Q-cue (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

While I'm disappointed your experience with this particular article has been unfavorable, I am quite glad to hear that you plan on making regular contributions to improve other pages. I wish you the best. GreggHilferding (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As a neutral observer, here is my take. It would seem that the article cannot be much expanded beyond the current length. In which case, a merge is a very good idea. I do not see that Gregg has hurt the article, only tried to improve it to the WP standards. If a consensus for merge can be reached, I would be glad to assist in that. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 22:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

While I still think the merge is a a good idea, I'd like to point out that there is much work that can be done. I'd recommended trimming out the minutiae of the origin of the idea and including more information about the way it was actually celebrated around the world. This could include the various cities whose governments formally declared 4/16 Foursquare Day and some of the larger, international swarms. Natebw (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

References

If any editors are looking for published, independent references, you can find many on this page. Be ware that is page is somewhat out of date and there are newer sources to be found. Natebw (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Funny, Foursquare Day is listed as one of seven "lamest holidays" http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/08/02/the-worlds-seven-lamest-holidays/picture-172/ 74.204.38.162 (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

South by Southwest

It would be great if someone could include the fact that Foursquare 2011 is proposed to be discussed at this panel [1] Thanks! Natebw (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)