Jump to content

Talk:MEETin

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

Notes on editing

[edit]
  • This MEETin entry has been deleted before for "blatent advertising". So bear in mind, that this is an encyclopedia entry, and any diction used on this article should be considered accordingly. --Bart weisser 12:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions on changes

[edit]
  • Changed "Virtual social community" into "Web-based social community" to highlight the not purely virtual nature of the group: members are encouraged to meet in person whenever possible. --paolor 02:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed additions

[edit]

What "technical restrictions"?

[edit]
  • If the article should be titled MEETin why not just move it to MEETin. The only general technical restriction on titles is that the first letter can't be lowercase. But you're free to have multiple uppercase letters. Fan-1967 02:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC) -- Done! Thanks very much. --paolor 02:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Figures 'claimed': Numbers of cities, members and events

[edit]

According to its own web site, MEETin declares different figures to those claimed in the article, so I have updated them. I have added a Reference section to help cite the figures through external means. Bear in mind that future significant changes in the numbers quoted should be updated manually. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 21:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further update to figures above. Also found a direct, not related, external link in "Related links" section, which I removed. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 01:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On recent "edits" by user LastChancetoBe

[edit]

After contemplating on some of his recent edits, here are some of the rebuttals on reverting his partial change. In the following argument I will assume good faith on this user.

1) Mission statement are not copyrighted and therefore not rights have been violationed.

2) What consistitutes "blatant" advertisement? I don't think the history of MEETin constitutes as such.

3) Links to meetin chapters are not a mere collection of links.

4) Some of the "revised" dictions sound very weird (e.g., MEETin does not attempt provide a service; it either provides it or not.)

He did do one thing good ... he has "found" a better infobox for the MEETin.

--Bart weisser 12:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing. I assumed, with the fact that the creation of MEETin Wikipedia page was not intervened by any Wikipedia staff member for blatent advertising or "link collection", this page is written within acceptable guidelines set forth by Wikipedia (since our last attempt received a speedy deletion for those reasons, we learnt our lesson on the efficiency of the Wikipedia watchdogs).

LastChanceToBe, you have made a lot of major edits, and removed sections of the article, without discussion, justification or notification. I reviewed the Wikipedia guidelines, and I believe these claims, though well intended, are superfluous. I have decided to revert some of your changes. --Bart weisser 13:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a very long comment which got eaten by some kind of burp with the wiki software. The upshot of it was:
  • The article got intervention from a Wikipedia editor, me. Fortunately we don't have to rely on the admins for everything here on WP or nothing would ever get done.  :)
  • I feel that as it's written, the article will get deleted again as advertising. I'm trying to help by making this less of an ad and more like an encyclopedia article.
  • The section containing the links to the MeetIn regions appears to be against the WP:NOT#LINK guidelines, and the Wikipedia:External_links guidelines.
  • Pretty much anything that is written down is copyrighted, unless there's a specific process in place to give up or modify the copyright, like happens with contributions to Wikipedia. Unless MeetIn has specifically released the copyright on their mission statement, and we can find a reference to that effect, the mission statement is copyrighted. WP policy is to remove copyright violation wherever we find it, so I've removed the mission statement.
  • You're right about the odd phrasing in the first sentence; I have no idea where my head was that made me write that tortured phrasing.  :)
--LastChanceToBe 19:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LastChanceToBe:

Hello again. After reading your explaination, we are willing to work towards a more stable version of the article. In the mean time, we would also want to keep this page informative.

We model our wikipage after similar pages (meetup.com, in particular), and we ensure that it does not, in any shape or form, resemble a recruitment campaign. In my humble opinion, I do believe that infrastructure (i.e., Event Planning and local administration) and atmosphere (i.e., "vibe") are integral parts of MEETin and we emphasize them accordingly, just as meetup.com stressed its political contributions. Therefore, we believe that the topics in question should not be regarded as advertisement.

In terms of the "copyrightedness" of materials such as logos and statements, we have been given authorization to publish them. I guess the issue is conveying this to the rest of the community through official channels. We will look into it.

The links, I agree, can get in the way of the article. Removing the URL to each city should do no harm.

Thanks again, --Bart weisser 15:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:MEETinLogo.jpg

[edit]

Image:MEETinLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added a criticism section with some found online

[edit]

References to criticism found online was added to the article.

put criticisms section back in

[edit]

Other users undid the added criticism section with no justification or discussion. I put it back in today. user z2401

The two references do not appear to be reliable sources. See also Self-published sources. This is an entire section devoted to 2 complaints. See WP:Undue weight.--George100 (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

discussion: do regular people count on wikipedia?

[edit]

The references cited below are from regular people who appear to have had problems with meetin.org. The following section has been repeatedly removed from the meetin article for various reasons. Perhaps a separate "criticisms & praise" article needs to be created, although the somewhat arcane and zealous way wikipedia is operated may make that impossible.

There may be an argument for allowing criticisms that are of an increased "social value" even if they aren't from a brick and mortal newspaper. Wikipedia is an electronic web based encyclopedia and yet it seems to give preference (via the actions of some) to brick & mortar institutions. Blogs (the new media or Internet media) are blackballed apparently, as are net message board posts. But within the scope of human experience where does the individual who makes note of important problems get to say anything? In a footnote to an article on this site? Not even there perhaps.

There's more than one way to judge the value of an addition. Does the addition make note of key points not mentioned elsewhere in an article? Does the article even allow for the addition of criticisms? Are criticisms being zealously removed using arcane rules by people with a vested interested in quelling a more full & comprehensive article? Are the rules on wikipedia designed by corporate taskmasters with a high interest in quelling more comprehensive article content? By people who are paid to sit at their desks and come up with pages and pages of full proof excuses to delete content?

Here's the repeatedly deleted section. I look forward to a real discussion. If we need to add a "praise" section or a separate "praise & criticism" article so be it...

This isn't about a band or a Twinkie. It's about people's lives. Is pushing a button like a robot more important to you than at least allowing for a reference or two about criticisms found?

++Criticisms found++

Charges akin to accusing the site of an unhealthy form of double-think and double-speak can be found online. Showing up to events where you know you're muzzled from the full spectrum of human interaction doesn't leave one with a friendly feeling - so charge and imply the authors of the following criticisms:

"...why create an organization where people are discouraged from something so common? It's just unnatural. A group that strove to be a truly healthy and welcoming social environment wouldn't try to tell its members not to date one another if they wanted. They're adults! Get over it!..." [1]

"...There's an orientation later this week that I've thought about going to. But I'm now wary of going for fear that it will be something akin to a Sunday School class where we're told about the dangers of necking and petting. Or where everyone has to sign a chastity pledge. I hope I'm wrong.... I don't normally go to parties with friends where's there's an implicit muzzle present. I normally wouldn't call such people real friends. They'd be rather something like cardboard automatons who are afraid to talk about the full spectrum of human relations, or to let people be who they naturally feel inclined to be - a person with sexual organs which are never left at home.... And a friend wouldn't come up to me and tell me I was forbidden from asking anyone out at a given social event. So as far as I can tell the gatherings are are about 'playing as if you are a friend' without actually being real ones..." [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z2401 (talk • contribs) 25 September 2008

Sorry, but there are good reasons for not including random blog entries here. Apart from general notability and reliability considerations for blogs, both of them have 0 (zero) comments. The second seems to be based entirely on the first. And the first does not say where the information that meetin.org is "militantly 'anti-dating'" even comes from. Perhaps I didn't use the right search terms, but I couldn't find it anywhere else. So there are two questions here:
1. Is meetin.org "anti-dating"? I had never heard of them before you came to WT:V with some very sweeping statements, so I don't know. If it is, find a reliable source saying so, and include it in the article. This will help some people to make up their mind whether it's the right kind of site for them.
2. Should Wikipedia mention criticism of meetin.org for being "anti-dating"? Certainly not, even if it should turn out to be "anti-dating". Its extremely unlikely that any such criticism (which, after all, is akin to criticising water for its low alcohol content, or gin for its high alcohol content) will ever be notable. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems with your submission is that it's not even a valid criticism. Meetin's policy states that it is "not a dating site". This is not the same as begin "anti-dating, and contrary to your sources, I doubt anyone would care if someone asked another person out on a date.
Even if there were some credibility to the criticisms, it would still need a reliable source. --George100 (talk) 11:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ toomuchcoffeelady (April 18 2006). "Unhealthy social interaction? Check MeetIn..." Retrieved 2008-09-17. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "meetin.org - good bad unhealthy?". September 17 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-17. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

a cultural phenomenom unaddressed in the article

[edit]

Later on today I expect the changes I added this morning to be removed. Something editors and thinkers can think about here and elsewhere & perhaps add references to is how meetin.org is radically different from other social networking sites. You should be able to detect the differences implied by the authors of the references found.

Individual experiences with meetin.org are worth noting in a wiki article. And a new or perhaps Puritan-meta-culture phenomenon is at work here apparently. Here's what I tried to add with others than think about:

The feel of MEETin events and a new definition for the word friend

The MEETin "Vibe" or feel represents the general ambiance, atmosphere, and attitude of MEETin events. Each chapter is run by local volunteers with the main purpose of bringing people together to find "friends" in their city. The MEETin group also help connect cities around the globe, and allows members to quickly re-establish their social network across various MEETin cities. As an integral part of the MEETin Vibe, members are encouraged to organize and participate in social events in any given MEETin city, without the pressures of business networking or "pick-up" scenes. Further, members are also forbidden to organize events from which they can profit, either financially or by gain of goods or services.

On the meetin.org website each member is encouraged to make very positive and glowing comments about events and about other members. Popular events tend to have many glowing comments attached and many user profiles also have positive comments. There is an implicit feel to the site that is akin to a "cheering section" both for the meetings and for user profiles.

Negative or critical comments responding to the relatively new to American culture phenomenon of using the word "friend" to mean something completely new and different do exist on the web.

http://toomuchcoffeelady.blogspot.com/2006/04/unhealthy-social-interaction-check.html

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1842399#post1842399

The authors of the criticisms found imply and describe a situation where if you as a new person to the MEETin "vibe" you will be rudely and abruptly introduced to the fact that speaking openly to other group members about the full spectrum of human social interaction and experience is not something that is welcome at meetin.org events. The authors of the criticisms imply that if you walk out of your door as a person with your sexual organs intact you may not act like you have those organs exist when you show up to meetin.org events. They describe a situation where your meetin.org "friends" will be people who will greet you first, but not as traditional hosts, but rather as controllers and micro-managers. Enforcers there to keep you from being friendly in the full and traditional scope of the word. There is an implicit anti-sexual anti-human pro-Puritan almost religious feel to meetin.org events. An enforcement "vibe" that really is quite uncomfortable and strange. A fear based "vibe" that is there to keep people from acting like they would normally act at a party, diner, chat, mingle, or toga party, or bar hopping event, with actual friends as opposed to the "friends" you'll find at meetin.org events -- again as as implied by the authors of the criticisms found.

An American Cultural Phenomena: Enshrining an Anti-Sexual Anti-Human Puritan form of "friendship"

The founder of meetin.org lives in the Washington DC area and Washington DC is geographically close to where American Puritanism was founded. Puritanism takes a general anti-sexual shame based approach to life. And for some reason which needs to be researched more by editors here and elsewhere, there seems to be a hostility toward the full spectrum and scope of human interaction present - as put out first by the founder of meetin.org, and then by all the hosts across America who militantly go out and state to their "friends" that meetin.org events are not dating friendly.

Also on the meetin.org website it states that singles are "welcome" but single person groups may not associate themselves with meetin.org events. And again as discussed earlier in this article, meetin.org events specifically prohibit asking other people out on dates at those events. A very strong implicit yet readily enforced muzzle is always there at events - so imply the earlier referenced authors.

The reader of this article may rightly consider if the word single were replaced with the word gay or black on the relevant meetin.org web site sections. "Gays are 'welcome' at events but gay groups are not." "Blacks are 'welcome' at events, but black groups are not." Singles who are very much interested in no longer being single are 'welcome' at events, but the primary way single people become non-single (dating) is not. Thus single people are ghettoized on meetin.org and at their events. References to the status of single people & groups associating themselves with meetin.org events can be readily found on the meetin.org site - both in the rules section of their site and on the pages that come up when you try and organize events of your own.

One could argue that wikipedia could be used as a place to actually think about things. Articles less closely monitored often allow for this, and in such articles editors are more free to make essentially unchallenged comments which are experiential or commentary in nature. More closely monitored articles, or articles which are about more prominent issues seem to exclude changes which tend to reflect observations by editors browsing the web for content who come across new cultural phenomena which they've not encountered before. So go ahead and undo if you want but a web site is going to be added elsewhere about this I'm sure by some good uncensoring soul. Z2401 (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit, for the reasons given above. If you really want some things to stick, I recommend smaller individual edits that make it easier to compare versions and perhaps leave any unproblematic parts intact.
The following is not the "official" explanation, although I hope it's helpful. I only mention it since you seem to think it's a matter of censorship, of suppressing unwanted criticism just because we don't agree:
1. There is no indication that this criticism is shared by more than three people – two bloggers and one Wikipedia editor (who might actually be one of the two bloggers).
2. With so few people criticising the site in this way, who is to say that they are not all doing it for very personal reasons? Such as being in love with a particular member of the site. And, having erroneously behaved in a manner that would appear to be more acceptable at a dating site, having made a traumatic experience.
3. I find it hard to believe that behaviour that would be acceptable in normal social contexts would be outlawed in a social networking site, even if it could lead to a date. (Well, except for age/anonymity considerations, which this doesn't seem to be about.) I think it's much more likely that there is a problem with the critics' approach to dating (too direct? unrealistic targets? unrealistic self-assessment? ...) than with the site. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: At least two and perhaps three people may have noted exactly the same problem with the site. In this case it may not be a numbers game as it is a power of ideas game - or the ability to notice problems and call them out. It seems to me there is something new and something old going on. I was motivated to make the addition because it looks to me like a repackaging of religion and a weird changing of definitions of common words like friend. People are just describing their experiences and reactions. Maybe one or more critics will attach their real names to their articles in which case maybe they'll be added here as a reference. Z2401 (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this wikipedia worthy?

[edit]

This site seems to be dead, the only upcoming meeting is the meetin annual meetup in september 2017 and numerous cities have posts in their forums talking about inactivity. It's a pity this site didn't take off, but it doesn't seem to be important enough for a wikipedia entry. - 80.111.159.148 (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MEETin. 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) 15:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MEETin&oldid=1202540265"