Talk:What3words

Reads like an advert for WhatThreeWords

Most the of the material parts of this Wikipedia page reads like promotion rather than a factual article. Even supposedly factual statements are dripping with a sense of impartiality. If the page is promotional then it should clearly state that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Peacock (talk • contribs) 17:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• read Matt Peacock (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous User 81.109.76.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to be sanitising this article of any possible criticism (eg removing discussion and links to articles where emergency services have criticised W3W and replacing with content where they have praised). Moreover, their edits are poorly described (eg edit described as moving content into a different section is actually an edit which removes a material amount of content, which happens to be negative about What3words). What is stated here is a summary, and the user’s full edit history should be reviewed so that one can form their own view. Matt Peacock (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Matt Peacock: Agreed - looks to be a continuation of COI editing from someone connected to W3W. I will take a look and revert where necessary. SmartSE (talk) 09:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The reason I initially came along to edit was seeing a link to a tweet of mine that grossly misrepresented what I said, by the same anonymous user. Cybergibbons (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Now coming from 80.87.27.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) but per very similar edits in July: [1] [2] they are almost certainly the same person as 81.109. SmartSE (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

It's worth pointingout that the IP corresponds to what3words.direct.quickconnect.to - a Synology NAS drive someone has named what3words. Now, anyone could do that, but it's a strong indicator something is amiss here. Cybergibbons (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

For a guess, a reputation management agency at work. . --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

It was almost certianly What3words themselves. Please be vigilant about material that uncritically promotes w3w, or links to puff pieces doing the same Ms7821 (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Tierney citation

For the moment I think we need to retain this citation:

• Tierney, Andrew (29 April 2021). "Why What3Words is not suitable for safety critical applications".

because it makes important challenges to the company's assertions (as reported by RSs). But it fails WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLOGS (because the author is not personally notable). It would be better if we could replace it with a report in RS that confirms it. Can anyone supply? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Awkward one that - what does RS mean? It was printed in Mountain Rescue Magazine, and there has been limited secondary reporting. Cybergibbons (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

That would mean Wikipedia:Reliable_sources -- i.e. your blog is not a peer-reviewed academic journal.

I know some academics knowledgeable of DGGS, and I can tell you that the interest in doing or confirming research about w3w is zero - partly because the system is already deemed useless, and partly because (let me quote the article) «The company has pursued an assertive policy of issuing copyright claims against individuals and organisations that have [...] reverse-engineered code that replicates the service's functionality». The chilling effect is very real (and after seeing this week's events, I'm going to say it's even sought). -- Iván Sánchez^(talk) 19:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Cybergibbons: RS = reliable source. That's not to say that your blog is unreliable, but we try to base content on sources where there is some editorial oversight. Thanks for the info about Mountain Rescue Magazine - I found it online here (page 30 of the pdf). Another possibility would be to cite This from Techdirt which summarises the blog. SmartSE (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Mountain Rescue would qualify as a wp:RS (peer-reviewed academic journals are only required in exceptional cases) because it is a serious publication with editorial control. Unfortunately they've published it as an OpEd without analysis or comment, so it is not unambiguously better. But better certainly, in the sense that if they thought it a load of rubbish they would not have given it a two-page spread. I suggest we use it for now, with Andrews's blog going into External Links. Does anyone disagree? (Smartse, I've corrected your page number, I assume you don't mind? Also TechDirt is a blog too, so no good). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC) revised 10:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. It was collaboratively edited with them, but that still doesn't stop it being OpEd. Cybergibbons (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The key factor in making it usable is knowing that they exercised some editorial judgement and control. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Criticisms section

I see from the history there used to be one, but now the criticism is incorporated into the Design and Reception parts. Any objection to recreating the section and moving some stuff around? WikiNukalito (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Generally we have felt it better to embed criticisms in the relevant sections rather than hive them off to the end of the article where they have no context (and less likely to be even read by readers on mobile [aka, most]). Also, IMO, doing so would weaken sections like 'Design and Reception' because it would leave them stating the company line without balancing response. Can you be more specific about what you have in mind?

Meanwhile, the lead as it stands says nothing about any criticisms. WP:LEAD says that it should summarise the key points of the body and this is certainly key. Would you rectify that issue in any case? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly reasonable. My only thought was that when looking at it with all the sections collapsed (default on mobile I think) it looks like there are no criticisms, but a sentence in the leading paragraph would also account for that. Something like

--------------------------------------------

What3words has been subject to a number of criticisms both for its closed source code and the high potential for ambiguity and confusion in its three word addresses. This has resulted in some to advise against the use of What3words in safety critical applications.

---------------------------------------------

Where the refs are to existing sources (Eden comments, Arthur paper, Tierney blog, Mountain rescue article) WikiNukalito (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

That reads fine except for the word "high", which would need explicit and neutral sourcing. Maybe "risk" might be a better word than "potential"? The citations need to be formatted properly, do you need help to do that? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

It is the criticism itself which has claimed high potential e.g. the entire Tierney blog or from the abstract of the paper "What3Words has also attracted criticism for being less reliable than claimed, in particular that the chance of confusing one address with another is high. This paper investigates these claims and shows that the What3Words algorithm for assigning addresses to grid boxes creates many pairs of confusable addresses, some of which are quite close together. " which I think supports the statement, though if you have a better way to word it I'm fine with that.

Since the page already references those sources I was just using the <ref name="xxx" \> syntax (with the slash the right way !) WikiNukalito (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:synth, we can't combine sources to reach a broader conclusion. But I think "significant risk" is just about ok. "High risk" or "high potential" are a step too far. Leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions from the sources.

Yes, the named references are needed for multiple use but by formatting I meant using {{cite journal}}, {{cite report}} or just {{cite web}}. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that is synthesising, the quote above says "What3Words has also attracted criticism for ... the chance of confusing one address with another is high", which is how I read the first sentence. As in, the reason people are criticising it is because of the high risk. Nonetheless, I think significant is fine, but I was saying high because that's what the source says! WikiNukalito (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I've made the suggested edit (and fixed the refs), I think it's supported by the text of the sources cited, but if you decide to change 'high' to 'significant' or similar it I won't complain. Cheers. WikiNukalito (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Article on EEAST

I've included this because it shows that emergency services are promoting the app regardless of its shortcomings, and because it's very clearly an issue with reading the choice of words the app offers (prime.twice.shows vs prime.twice.slows). I don't think this is saying as much about this ambulance provider as it is the general attitude towards w3w among fire, ambulance and police. Ms7821 (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Removing press releases

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What3words&diff=prev&oldid=1236241044 - what's wrong with using a press release to note that there's a w3w beer? I don't think it was covered in the news but it shows the variety of uses a w3w address can be used in and is therefore interesting even if not notable on its own. Ms7821 (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing the WP:PROMO policy, I think we are objectively reporting the W3W usage regarding the beer content (but improvements are welcome if I am mistaken) so I restored it. BBQboffin^{grill me} 00:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not just that it is a press release, more importantly it incidental WP:TRIVIA. The article is about the W3W company and its technology, not about hangers on. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry only just spotted this. See Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Press_releases. It's a very widely held viewpoint that corporate articles do not cite press releases. The brewbound source appears independent at first glance, but the "about" sections at the end indicate it's just a copied press release, not even trying to masquerade as churnalism. SmartSE (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, what's wrong with using a press release to factually describe something that's not described elsewhere? Ms7821 (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It is a question of WP:WEIGHT - how can we determine if this is important when the only sources are not independent? It doesn't seem as if anyone but W3W or Stone care about this, so it shouldn't be in the article. SmartSE (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

"I don't think it was covered in the news but it shows the variety of uses a w3w address can be used in and is therefore interesting even if not notable on its own." Ms7821 (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

That's your own subjective viewpoint, which has no basis in Wikipedia policies. SmartSE (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

So is "It doesn't seem as if anyone but W3W or Stone care about this". This is a circular argument and there's always WP:IAR.

They're an example of a phenomenon that's uniquely associated with w3w addresses, and I've even found two more beers that have done the same - Google for mouth.pan.hops and hence.mute.lizards. You've also left the photo of a beer bottle dangling unexplained next to a section that should really now be rewritten. Ms7821 (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I've removed that section entirely and move the emergency services section to Reception. If anyone adds a new Users section it can move back, and I still think noting the kinds of adopters of w3w is important for an article about it.

I'd like to pick up on your recent edit message "Content needs to be based on independent sources, which these are not". Nobody is going to challenge whether these beers existed or were named as claimed, and the article is not based on these details. WP:ABOUTSELF applies. Ms7821 (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It is still incidental trivia. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)