Jump to content

Talk:Substack

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

Potential sources

[edit]

Jlevi (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To source defender details: [1][2][3]

Jlevi (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jlevi (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jlevi (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

influence.co

[edit]

Hi Isento. I have removed a site that appears to be purely promotional, and therefore not a proper wp:reliable source. The resume linked regarding the author of the piece did not give me any more confidence, as it says that the author is a 'content strategist' and a PR guy, with the resume highlighting his writing of "listicles and advertorial." I would greatly appreciate additions to this page, but I think we should start with reliable sources. As you can see above, there are many high-quality sources that could be added to the page first. Thanks for your understanding. Jlevi (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an advertising site. influence.co is actually even more professional - in journalistic terms - than Substack, with an editorial team headed by a former Billboard executive editor ([4]). And the magazine/section his piece was written for, nofilter, profiles writers and influential creatives like Christgau - the piece you blanked out from the article features an exclusive interview with the music critic. His resume says far more than what you're claiming, including two decades of editing and copywriting for SFist.com, New York magazine, and awards for the former's associated blog. Your deduction of him as some "PR guy" is severe and unfair, and the removal of the content as a whole is ridiculous when it is a third party interviewing a primary source - i.e. Christgau. The site has no bias for or connection to Substack, apart from covering the same field of culture/profession Substack occupies. Saying it is promotional is like saying Rolling Stone is promotional of the music industry, and we don't dismiss sources on those grounds. I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. isento (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I see that Christgau is a notable individual. I'm pretty sure that the site itself is (still) not a typical reliable source, though I think it'd be worth bringing to wp:RSN if you're really bent on pursuing that. However, statements by experts are sometimes useful--I'll take a closer look and see whether Christgau himself has a background that is relevant. Thanks for laying out your concerns. Jlevi (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You (still) haven't cited any guideline that disqualifies the source as being unreliable. You accuse it of being "promotional", but there is no indication the site publishes sponsored content. You accuse it of being unreliable, but it meets basic requirements of reliability like editorial oversight, independence from the topic(s) covered, and a reputation for fact-checking given the editor's credentials, as explained at WP:RS, which WP:RSN says outfront to refer to before considering starting a discussion there. isento (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries if my statements aren't clear. I'm happy to be more explicit about why I find addition of this content promotional, and why I do not think this source meets our guidelines for reliability.
Let us go from WP:RS, as you suggest. Determination of reliability of a source depends in large part on what type of source it is--the standards for blogs are very different from those for academic books, for instance. The policy describes two main preferred types of sources: academic publications and "high-quality mainstream publications" such as "well-established news outlets". However, this source does not seems to fall under those categories. Instead, the source describes itself on its about page as a "platform for the global influencer marketing community to build a professional presence, share and engage around amazing content, and build lasting relationships." That is, it is selling a service. For this reason, I believe it falls under the category of 'vendor and e-commerce sites,' which the policy says is useful only to "verify such things as titles and running times," and which "should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available".
Thus, I think the possible role of this source is very, very limited on Wikipedia, especially regarding a platform that has to do with influencers. In general, I don't think it's a good idea to use articles from sites whose purpose is to sell things.
Now, one could make an argument that the nofilter service is separate from the site as a whole. However, this service's about page says otherwise: "nofilter is both a standalone media property and also an integrated part of the influence.co community". It is meant to be a means for users of the site to increase engagement with the service. Thus, even if it has some level of oversight, it is still fundamentally part of a vendor's platform.
In the end, we also have to compare usage of this source against other sources available. It is sometimes reasonable to use a marginal source if nothing else is available. This is clearly not the case here, however! Plenty of reliable journalistic outlets have written lengthy articles about Substack. Let's use those first. Jlevi (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from now. However, this is not a standard blog. It is a magazine blog, and the writers (and editors) are professionals, so, if used with caution, they may be acceptable, as WP:NEWSBLOG explains. I will not argue for the inclusion of the quotebox or Barmann's personal opinion from the piece. But, at the very least, including the paragraph exclusively detailing Christgau's use of Substack is an appropriate use of the source - much of it is based on Barmann interviewing him, unless we're suspecting he is misreporting or misquoting Christgau?... He is arguably the most famous music critic, and his use of the platform is a prominent example of the journalists and experts using Substack, which is the leading point of this article's "Content" section. That nofilter is not the highest-quality of sources is not justification for outright dismissing its uses for certain content. isento (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No where does it say they are selling anything. I don't understand where you are inferring that from. Building a professional presence, sharing content, and encouraging relationships is not selling anything. The section you quoted in fact says the platform is free. Nothing is for sale or being promoted for sale on the website. You are leaping to unfounded conclusions. isento (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A link to the pricing details is available in the bottom section of the main page of the site.
Given that the specific article is an interview and is therefore a primary source, I don't think it is an appropriate source for inclusion of this detail. If this individual is mentioned in any reliable, secondary source, perhaps it would be a different story. Jlevi (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Christgau

[edit]

Isento, you have repeatedly added details about Christgau using very flimsy sources to demonstrate weight. Now you have used an interview in which his substack is briefly mentioned. In no place have I seen a reliable secondary source discussing his relationship to Substack, and I don't think mentioning him has been shown to add anything to the article. You assert that he is an important critic and therefore intrinsically useful for the article, but assertions are not sufficient. Perhaps this detail would be more reasonable on Christgau's own page. Jlevi (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A question that may help: is this the best sources you have for this statement? This would be a much easier conversation if we had some reliable secondary sources to grab onto. Do you know of any reliable secondary sources that discuss this? Right now, that is the case for all individuals mentioned in this article. Jlevi (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They're not flimsy. You diminish their credibility with stringent, pseudo-encyclopedic interpretations of standards and guidelines, and they're often a stretch. Not to mention consistently overlooking points I counter yours with, like the fact that magazine blogs or primary sources are actually not prohibited by Wikipedia? Meanwhile you suggest a mention of Christgau is unnecessary without claim or evidence that it's detrimental to the article (WP:OWNBEHAVIOR). That's all. Correct me if you like. As I said in the last edit summary, which I assume you did not read when instantaneously reverting, I won't fight this anymore. isento (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear your frustration with my conduct. If you are ever interested in talking more in the future, feel free to give me a shout. If anyone decides to add Christgau back to this page (and someone might--this is a very visible part of the talk page), would you like me to give you a ping?
I have tried my best to address the points you have raised on the talk page, and I think we have an honest disagreement about 1) the proper categorization of nofilter, and 2) what constitutes reasonable grounds for inclusion of a detail. In addition, I think that I may have exacerbated this circumstance through my tendency not to respond to points brought up in edit summaries, given their lack of visibility to later viewers. If you were interested in further discussion, I might suggest we try to engage outside voices (such as through WP:THIRD). The choice to end discussion is, of course, yours to make. Thank you for your suggested additions, and I hope we are able to collaborate more constructively in the future. Jlevi (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi Davidoaye. You recently tagged this article with the advert template. Do you have any suggestions regarding where you see this most significantly? Are there any sections in particular where this issue is most acute? Thanks. Jlevi (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi Jlevi! I'm afraid I don't have any one crucial item to complain about, it just gives me the impression (which I get from a good few startups' Wikipedia pages, I should say) that it was paid for and written by the company. E.g. large amounts of information that doesn't really seem noteworthy, but allows citation to respectable sources and thereby bulks up the page. How about you? Davidoaye (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Well, I wrote almost all of this article as it stands right now, and I certainly didn't get any dough for it. I attempted to hit the major points discussed in reliable sources. If your issue is based primarily on content, then it might not be a solvable problem--these are the topics that RS concentrate on, as far as I can tell. Feel free to point out any sections that seem under-covered in the RS. Jlevi (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skimm on Substack?

[edit]

Does anyone have a citation for the Skimm being hosted on Substack? It's not cited to anywhere in the page itself, and searching online I can't find any reference whatsoever to this.

> Major newsletters on the service included The Skimm, started by two former NBC producers and having millions of readers.

Davidoaye (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​Yes. It's in this article which is cited a sentence or two later in the paragraph. In the source, it says: "More recently, media start-ups like The Skimm, a daily newsletter started by two former NBC producers, have grown from dozens of readers to millions." Jlevi (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I don't think it says they're on Substack, and I don't think they are on Substack. It's just saying The Skimm is a very successful newsletter. Davidoaye (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Yes, you're totally right. Thank you for catching my error. I misread the NYT article when I added that content. I've removed that section. Jlevi (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy about Substack Pro and transphobia

[edit]

There's been a controversy about the Substack Pro program and Substack giving financial support to writers with transphobic views. What's the best way to incorporate this into the article?

Some sources for this:

These are distinct issues, but they're linked because they've been brought up in the same context, so I think it makes sense to talk about them together, but I don't know the best way to do this.

Also, I write on Substack and have strong feelings about the transphobia issue, so I'm not a neutral player in this controversy. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 03:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! A couple thoughts:
  1. Be the change you want to see in the world (on wikipedia). Try your best and I'd be happy to revise, copyedit, and make suggestions. Both sources you suggest are generally reliable. Just be careful not to link them or create logical leaps between them in ways that go beyond what is stated explicitly in each source individually.
  2. Unless you're making non-trivial income via substack or think you could in the near future, I don't think you have a meaningful COI.
  3. Is the Substack Pro thing really new? In Substack#Finance there's the sentence: "In 2019, the site provided a fellowship to some writers, which included a $3,000 stipend and a one-day workshop in San Francisco. In 2020, following the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, Substack extended grants of $1,000–$3,000 to over 40 writers to begin working on the platform." Maybe the issue is over the size of some advances and the lack of communication? Alongside some specific social/political preferences regarding who gets them?
  4. There may be additional sources in my list above that might help you flesh out these details.
Jlevi (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice! I won't have much time to edit this page in the foreseeable future, but I do hope the information gets added. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 05:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compare to medium

[edit]

It would be interesting to compare Substack to similar publishing platforms such as medium. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More authors

[edit]

I guess it's O.R., but shouldn't we be allowed to add prominent Substack authors to this article even without secondary sources? Like:

Michael Schellenberger

Adam Tooze

Greil Marcus

Nick Hornby, the British "cult" author of "Fever Pitch", of novels and of book diaries/ reviews in "The Believer"

Patti Smith

Elizabeth Gilbert

Margaret Atwood

(there are more writers mentioned in a best of S. Guardian article --Ralfdetlef (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now films

[edit]

The Coddling of the American Mind - first substack film 136.36.180.215 (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Substack&oldid=1236502157"