Talk:Meetup/Archives/2018

Article improvement

I was trying to fix the page since it had a tag at the top and a couple of IP addresses immediately reverted my edits. Not sure if someone wants to look into this. ThaiTee (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Your edits were promotional in nature, precisely why the article was flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:0:ABE7:59B2:7C4E:78B6:FFC0 (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This article flagrantly violates NPOV in my opinion as it stands currently. It is obvious the editors have an issue with Meetup's changes. Every comment is framed in a negative manner. Marsman57 (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Did my best to remove a lot of the complaining, most of which was original research or sourced to nonreliable sources like user comments. White 720 (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe back on Feb 6, since then the article has been reverted to Promotional status, with many many references removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B169:8A39:7FAA:D65A:E89C:2F80 (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

Hi. My name is Kristin Hodgson and I work on the Brand Team at Meetup. I recently posted this on the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) Noticeboard. Kristin hodgson at meetup (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kristin hodgson at meetup: I have added a COI information tag on top of this talkpage. Please feel free to suggest neutrally-phrased improvements with the "request corrections on or suggest content" link, and make sure to provide independent non-promotional sources for your suggestion. Please try to avoid PR speak and excessive secondary details, and focus your suggestions on the most noteworthy objective facts. Such suggestions will be put into a queue and reviewed by uninvolved editors. Thank you for following Wikipedia's COI guideline. GermanJoe (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see the very first posting on this talk page, here. Chromedomemalone (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Competitor listcruft in "See also" should be removed

Granted, WP:SEEALSO allows some "common sense" leeway in that regard: "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic" (emphasis mine). But that doesn't mean that such tangential listcruft must be added at all cost. Competitors are not "relevant" just because they incidentally happen to be in the same branche (otherwise an article like BBC would list 200+ broadcasters in its "See also" section). Suggest to remove these vaguely-related links (of course Wiki-links with a more relevant connection could be retained). Please discuss here to form a consensus. GermanJoe (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I note that the article about the Ford Motor Company includes a list of American automobile manufactures under its "See Also" section. The BBC article includes a link to the "British Broadcasting" article which is a list of its (BBC) competitors.

I don't think the section should be summarily blanked. The links go to other thoughts and theories and ideas about how to accomplish basically the same or similar things. Showing different approaches can be enlightening. If anything, add more links. Exploring ideas is what Wikipedia is all about.73.50.16.107 (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The Ford Motor Company is actually a good example for a more selective approach: All entries in this "See also" section are not only random US automobile manufacturers, but have an additional topical connection (shared history, sister companies, disputes involving Ford, etc.) that makes these entries possibly relevant for any reader interested in broader Ford-related content. Their connection to the main article is much closer than here. Just 2 additional cent, but let's wait for other editors to chime in aswell. Fixed message indentation per Wiki-standard. Hope you don't mind. GermanJoe (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Ford's "See Also" section includes this for America, which leads to this for the world.

I stopped counting at 200 competitors...

Note that competitive pressure was the impetus for much of Meetup's recent strategy and decisions. Would be good to link to those articles for a fuller picture of what has been happening. 73.50.16.107 (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• GermanJoe, I agree with you. IP, we're not going to link a dozen article to satisfy some undefined curiosity as to "what has been happening". Drmies (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Alexa ranking

I noticed that this article had a rather odd listing of Alexa rankings over the years in the infobox. A cursory search found that other articles about websites just list the most current ranking. I tried to remove the extraneous ranks and was reverted. [1] The editor mentioned references within the article, but those aren’t easlily identifiable to me, nor do I think they’re necessary. The whole article has a rather negative slant to it to be honest. Could someone else share some thought to help make sure I’m approaching this correctly? Many thanks. Ckoerner (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The article is being sat on by Meetup itself. The "negative slant" is just reality, which Meetup doesn't like. Not every enterprise is perpetually successful. In recent years, for various reasons, Meetup has been floundering. Just the unvarnished fact. If you look above you will see how Meetup is attempting to skew the article's tone. Meetup has gone so far as to seek proxy editors to mask and spin reality.

Meetup does not allow usage figures to be published. Alexa provides a 3rd party assessment. If you can find a replacement reference source for the steady decline in users of Meetup then by all means, use it in place of Alexa.2601:243:0:ABE7:EDFE:8A3F:1ACE:E731 (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox website says the infobox should include “The website’s current Alex ranking” as oppose to historical rankings. Also, the infobox appears to include only specifically selected years. Maybe @Drmies: and/or @GermanJoe: have an opinion? Kristin hodgson at meetup (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote above, Meetup closely monitors and polices this article. Perhaps they can provide usage numbers? After the fact I see that CKoerner is a Meetup Organizer. 2601:243:0:ABE7:D02D:1C79:C5D1:3BD (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Should I create a table within the body of the article showing historical figures, take them out of the info box? I'm sure you are aware that the most recent Alexa numbers are worse than what is currently being shown? 2601:243:0:ABE7:D02D:1C79:C5D1:3BD (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, if that's what the infobox documentation says, we should go with it. A table--meh, I don't know. That just seems like another opportunity to fill up all articles on websites with more table porn. I don't know about a negative slant in this article; the sentence starting "In November 2017..." seems pretty factual to me. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You could move the "old" references (#2 - #5) as references behind the "In November 2017" statement to avoid cluttering the infobox. That's by no means optimal, but may be an acceptable compromise. Keeping such old numbers as article content adds nothing of value in the long run (imo). It's sufficient to mention that there was an apparent decline in usage numbers during this time (Wikipedia is no repository for statistics, and interested readers can always look into the Alexa history for specific numbers). A quick additional request: please avoid vague allegations about "proxy editing" without clear evidence. Myself and the vast majority of regular editors are not proxy-editing, and such unnecessary comments are not constructive. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand that the popularity of web-based services wax and wane over time. In support of WP:DUE I think it's a little excessive to try and list arbitrary points through time. I'm not sure that it's encyclopedic. Taking the advice of more seasoned editors, and to attempt to strike a compromise, I've removed the historical items from the infobox and moved the citations to the body of the article. If a reader is curious as to the historical ranking it's still contained within the body of the article.

As the IP pointed out (and I feel is a little creepy and not in good faith) yes I use Meetup.com, but do not pay, nor am paid, for using the service or editing here. Ckoerner (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

− Does Wikipedia bother anybody but me in how the entries on companies turn into essentially blurbs for the company, because criticism is automatically controversial and hence not "encyclopedic?" I'm a happy user of meetup who today thought he would like to find some "perspective" on the organization that comes from some source besides Meetup.com. I'm not going to find it here. I also think there is a tendency to overstate companies' place in the marketplace, because the critics of such as meetup.com are not motivated to do research and write it here. But of course the principals or employees of meetup.com are so motivated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.164.52 (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B02F:9457:59B5:B04F:746A:4FB0 (talk)

Not supported by the cited source

I'm requesting that someone remove the uncited text, specifically: “lacking the funds necessary to compete against rising competition.”

I cannot find anything in the cited source [2] to support this: “lacking the funds necessary to compete against rising competition.” Kristin hodgson at meetup (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Reply 21-JUN-2018

Approved The COI editor is correct in that the presently worded claim statement mischaracterizes the need of the company for cash as a sole reason for the sale (along with declining usage) by stating the company "lacked funds necessary to stay independent." The cited source states:

This past summer, he began speaking to investors to raise money. In light of the urgent need for Meetups, he explained, he endeavored to grow Meetup to a billion members. Pronto. Investment opportunities gave way to multiple acquisition offers from what Heiferman calls 'the usual suspects' — and an invitation to meet from an unusual suspect: Neumann. Over a month of meetings that included a late-night ramble through Manhattan, they hit upon a strategy that would allow Meetup to remain independent, just as Instagram had at Facebook, or Waze had at Google, while benefitting from WeWork’s cash, resources, space, and ambition.

The article states that funding was part and parcel of an overall state of affairs inherent to the rubric of free-market economies, whereby competition is a necessary component and where institutional demands, based in part on access to funds, vary from year to year (i.e., Facebook re-doubling efforts to focus in the same area as the subject company) and can be cumulative (as demonstrated by the many sources cited regarding the company's decline in users over time). The claim statement mentioning only a lack of funds implies that this was the sole component leading to the sale. Notwithstanding the fact that any sale of a business involves a need for access to funds (on the part of both seller and buyer) making special effort to mention this detail seems to limit the breadth of the information originating from the cited source. Unless the article wishes to elaborate upon every salient reason why the sale was conducted, including only one reason and not the others seems arbitrarily restrictive. The company's lack of users seems sufficient enough reason to be given here, (considering its numerous references).

WP:IMPARTIAL states that "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized." By hammering home the point that the company lacked funds, the article strays into an arena of impartiality, by implying that not having large amounts of cash on hand during a time of reduced user numbers represents some sort of moral failure on the part of the company - since the previous version of wording from the Wikipedia article did not include information given in that same source that the company's leadership attempted to prevent this from happening. For these reasons, I believe that the eventuality of losing money in situations where users decline is a given, and that the lack of funds need not be additionally mentioned after already stating the "decline in usage". Stating that the company ran out users and ran out of money appears to double the size of the company's missteps, when it may be more accurate to describe the company's loss of users as one misstep with many different consequences - the loss of investment funds being only one of them. Characterizing it as two mistakes instead of one seems to be unnecessarily critical of the company (even if unintentionally so). The claim was thus omitted.  spintendo  16:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with @Spintendo:'s rationale to rephrase this problematic sentence and have re-added the valid change (no "proxy editing" here as alleged in the ad-hominem edit summary). Of course further discussion to improve the phrasing based on explicit facts from independent secondary sources is welcome. GermanJoe (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I third this sensible request. I've reverted IP editors twice now, each time asking them to participate in conversation here on the talk page. At this point I've requested semi-protection for the page as I'm at a loss on what else to do. Ckoerner (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Price for WeWork sale

I realize the source mentions a 200 million figure in the headline, but headlines simplify out of context. They are usually not reliable article content. The main article clearly includes a disclaimer that this value is not a verifiable fact. The anonymous source does not verify the company's price for a specific buyer in a specific situation by the way, but estimates its general value for a potential buyer. In short: such values are little more than rumors and can't be taken as actual price tags, unless they can be verified by an acknowledged expert as a qualified estimate or the company itself as publicly announced information. GermanJoe (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. The $200 million number is a correct estimation, but Meetup/WeWork never publicly disclosed the exact number. I'm not aware of any better sources that would address your concerns. Kristin hodgson at meetup (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

If the price is not clearly verifiable, it can't be added (imo). But it's not a big issue anyway - interested readers can easily access additional details in the source article. GermanJoe (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggesting a new draft

Hello, I have prepared a draft of proposed new content for the Meetup page. I hope this is a starting point for a more comprehensive article with proper sourcing. The current Meetup article is incomplete and has random information without a historical narrative. I hope some independent editors will take the time to review and provide feedback, or consider it as a replacement. You'll notice this is a warts-and-all draft that includes both Meetup's successes, and the more challenging moments in the company's history. I've made every effort to be neutral and objective when preparing this. Kristin hodgson at meetup (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this draft is a far more articulate article that the current one. On first blush most references seem good. It's probably a little too fluffy still. :) I appreciate the effort by a paid editor to work within our community in a respectable manner. Ckoerner (talk)

@Ckoerner: Hi. Thanks so much for taking a look, and for your comment. Do you think the draft is an improvement that's ready to be published as an article, or do you have more feedback to share? I noticed @Audacity: recently made edits to the page. Maybe they would chime in on the draft?Kristin hodgson at meetup (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kristin! Thanks for your feedback request. The draft looks pretty good to me - you've done a great job of inline sourcing. I agree with Ckoerner that it's still a bit "fluffy" though; for example, "After the fee was incorporated, traffic on Meetup dropped 95%, but rebounded over time." and "The website was redesigned in 2013 with fewer features and a simpler design for mobile devices." Although true, these facts seem more to be "telling the story of Meetup" than presenting an encylopedic overview.

I think we can continue to work on this draft and then merge it with the current article. Cheers, Λυδαcιτγ 02:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback @Audacity: @Ckoerner:. I edited the draft with your notes in mind. Let me know if you have additional feedback. Hopefully other editors will continue to improve it, as well.Kristin hodgson at meetup (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Thank you for all your feedback on the page. It seems we all agree that this revision is better than what currently exists on the Meetup page, so I moved it into article space. Please let me know if this is an issue or it needs more improvement.Kristin hodgson at meetup (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)