Jump to content

Talk:Internet Brands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why this commercial page?

[edit]

This is a commercial page for an unimportant company. Internet Brands Inc. recently bought Wikitravel, which is now a pure commercial project, being not under the GNU license. I think the community has not yet realized this move of Wikitravel into the commercial sector. Thus, the Wikipedia entry of Internet Brands Inc. helps to make things clear. Otherwise, it should have been omitted instantly.--Klauspeter 09:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore a fork of wikitravel, called wikivoyage was founded to avoid commercialisation of a travel wiki. Meanwhile the fork ist working pretty well although in german only (at the moment). See article in german wikipedia--134.60.50.163 15:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia documents many commercial companies as any encylopedia does. So for example, Category:Companies based in San Mateo County contains a listing of a dozen articles about companies in just one California county. Also Wikitravel is hosted by a commerical company, but the content is Free content which means that you can reuse the text -- or start your own wiki based on the text -- under certain conditions. While you might argue that IB is an unimportant company, it does host Wikitravel which has already been determined to be important enough to warrant an article (see that discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitravel) so one might argue that by hosting a site worthy of an article it is prudent to have an article about the hosting company too. -- Cjensen 09:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Internet Brands' total traffic (across its holdings) probably make it one of the larger internet operations in the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.111.44.88 (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
From WP:INHERIT: "Parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable." -- FuturePrefect (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Notice

[edit]

This article is being continuously reedited by two users to only reflected positive elements on the company in question. A verifiable news article criticizing the company has been repeatedly removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.53.180 (talk) 15:05 UTC, 29 April 2010

That's inaccurate. This page is written in an NPOV. The anonymous user above is continuously editing the page citing questionable or self-published sources in inaccurate ways that are biased. Wikipedia is not a complaint board; if the anonymous user above would like to discuss his/her individual complaint with the company, he/she should contact the company. CellarDoor2001 (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. This page has no NPOV as all it does is glorify the company. Any negative item against it is removed by people - like you. I wonder why. The addition is not a complaint but a legitimate issue which was published by a legitimate journalistic source. As the The Register notes, it "is the one of the world's biggest online tech publications, with more than five million unique users worldwide. The US and the UK account for more than 1.5 million readers each a month." Not exactly the "questionable or self-published source" you claim. Thus the Register's article fulfills all wiki requirements. Further, the controversy surrounding Internet Brand's handling of the issue was wide spread across blogs and forums, but as they can't be included in article, they are not. Bottom line, I question the article's lack of NPOV and put up the tag for others to weigh in. You, on the other hand, fearing an objective review quickly removed it. If you truly find the article has a NPOV, then leave the tag up and let others decide. Further, according to Wikipedia rules as clearly stated in the tag itself, an NPOV tag cannot be removed until the discussion is resolved - which it obviously isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.53.180 (talk) 00:13 UTC, 30 Avril 2010
The NPOV tag was removed by user: 207.212.173.2 That IP traces back to CARSDIRECT.COM - the precursor of Internet Brands. The removal of the tag and probably all the removal of bad press for Internet Brands is white washing of the article by Internet Brands itself. This is a severe violation of COI and NPOV. Further violations by Internet Brands will be referred to Wiki editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.53.180 (talk) 07:08 UTC, 30 Avril 2010
Removed the NPOV tag because, again, this page is written in an NPOV, with verifiable citations from reliable sources. This page has been live on Wikipedia for years, viewed likely thousands of times and edited by many different users. There have been no disputes over the neutrality of this article. The issue was raised only after this anonymous user's edits citing inaccurate sources were removed.
These edits were not removed as part of any "white washing" agenda. They were not removed because they are negative. They were removed because originally, they cited self-published and unreliable sources. Later, they were removed because the subsequent edit made could not be verified by the citation provided. The article cited references a pricing dispute on one of the company's dozens of properties. However, the edit to the page generalizes this issue and attempts to make it reflect a wide issue on multiple company properties. This is inaccurate. It was one dispute on one property. Further research indicates that the company publicly denied the allegation described in the cited article. See this follow-up article from the same publication cited:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/30/vbulletin_defends_forum_bans/
With this said, since the edit cannot be verified by the citation, I have removed it. CellarDoor2001 (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, the article you reference states that Internet Brands DEFENDED it's position, not that it denied it. Second, the fact that many people view it over the years does not prove a NPOV, especially as your vigilance in keeping the article's one sided perspective is quite clear. Third, checking your contributions, it is apparent that your presence on Wikipeida is to add to articles on Internet Brands and its sub-companies, including loading up it's corporate logo. So your view on the issue has COI problems. Fourth, you do not get to decide to BREAK WIKIPEDIA RULES and unilaterally remove NPOV tags. Fifth, both the original article and the one YOU posted stated the connection to Internet Brands, so for you to belittle it doesn't make sense. Sixth, if the item is to be removed because its specific to a website Intenet Brands owns and not Internet Brands itself, them by the same logic all the award listings should be removed. Do you want to do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.53.180 (talk) 08:05 UTC, 2 May 2010
Anonymous, single user continues to make assertions about NPOV and criticisms, with inadequate support. LuvWikis (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting how LuvWikis (who repeatedly adds to and corrects Internet Brands related articles, nearly exclusively to any other activity on wikipedia ) and CellarDoor2001 (who does the same) harp about my not have a wiki alias. Do either of you gentleman (I assume) list your real identity? No you don't. You hide behind aliases. Yet you invalidate my points because I don't assume some random, unverifiable moniker like you. Like some others on wikipedia, I could create a plethora of sock-puppet ids and generate a "groundswell of adequate support". Let me remind you YET AGAIN - IT IS AGAINST WIKIPEDIA RULES TO REMOVE A NPOV TAG UNTIL THE DISCUSSION IS CONCLUDED - WHICH IT IS NOT. Those rules say nothing about anonymous postings being invalid. The NPOV tag is there because any addition to the article that is critical of Internet Brands, is immediately removed. Quite blatant evidence of an undermined NPOV. Who removes the critical additions - why you two, LuvWikis and CellarDoor2001. Not exactly as subtle pattern. So let me ask you - why do you believe an issue that involves Internet Brands, that was written about in a verifiable, journalistic source and specifically mentions Internet Brands, should not be included in an article about Internet Brands? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.53.180 (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing some editing to this and the related articles to remove promotional aspects, including overlinking. After my editing, I don't regard them any longer as NPOV violations, or as COI, and I have therefore been removing the tags. I point out that the addition of critical comments is fine, but it must be well sourced according to WP:RS, and an open website or forum or blog is not usually acceptable for them. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Drive-by edit: I've updated the criticism section to reflect the relevent product, and to include both El Reg references. Seemed a bit awkward before. a_man_alone (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the NPOV issues, the two sources for the visitor numbers/organic-nesss of the visits seem to have taken their numbers straight from the 10-k filing. I've added a link to the filing; I'm not sure the links to http://www.secinvestor.com/2010/03/31/Point+Your+Portfolio+To+Internet+Brands.aspx and http://seekingalpha.com/article/195249-the-number-one-internet-stock-you-ve-never-heard-of deserve to stay in the references section since they don't look to be very reliable, but rather intentionally opinionated (and one at least had a disclosed conflict of interest). Eamon Nerbonne (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits

[edit]

This is a dreadful page, isn't it? It appears to have largely been written by IB's marketting department. And reading the above notes, I suspect it has. I have added a note on the current lawsuit that IB is conducting against Xenforo; I have written it carefully to avoid negative bias, though it was tempting, to counter the dire postive bias of most of the rest of the article. But I suspect such sycophantic text will be interpreted appropriately by wiki readers. Let's see if my additions (and this note) last 24 hours! Heenan73 (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Model Mayhem

[edit]

Why is there nothing on this page about Model Mayhem? There are at least two separate notable controversies surrounding this site. Jamie Kitson (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Internet Brands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Internet_Brands&oldid=1200767001"