User talk:009o9/Draft GDMG

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

009o9 (talk · contribs) has been paid by Real Publicity Genius (RPG). Their editing has included contributions to this article.

Edit Request -- version to replace online version

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. [see below]

Routine changes to GoDigital Media Group already published. Does restore or repair some content that was pruned or is new info. Notes or strikethru indicates changes to the article.

not ready yet, see below Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Since this is a whole rewrite, I am bringing general comments here as opposed to the actual article which I haven't looked at before now.

There isn't content showing that each of this entities are part of GDMG nor how each of them came to be part of it. From a business perspective the history if meaningful. As it stands the assertion that all of the entities here are part of GDMG is unsourced. Are these wholly owned subsidiaries or companies that GDMG just has equity interest in? Unclear.

GMGD is an angel, or vulture capitalist, however you want to look at it. They develop software in the digital media delivery and copyright genre. The CEO is a specialty attorney and a voice in the DRM and Net neutrality discussions. The entire business model is in flux and quite complicated, basically, there are too many suppliers and too many catalogs, they are being absorbed while the market is starving and undervalued. The core companies are here Core Solutions section I don't dare cite the primary source in the lede, what's her name will come unglued.

sources 2 and 4 are the same, sources 1 and 3 is a press releases. please fix the dupes. When I review this again I hope to find the sources cleaned up, working, and minimal use of press releases - if something is only in a press release it is of questionable encyclopedic value.

Done

there is unsourced stuff in here, including in the infoboxes. please make sure everything included in the article is reliably sourced.

Done

its unclear how Adshare makes money with their matching software. please clarify what they actually do.

They sign the artist/copyright holders and monitor their spins. Licensing music before you use it is very cheap, pennies per thousand, licensing after the fact is very expensive. There's another blurb and reference in that section now.

please mind WP:RELTIME as much as possible and provide dates instead of vague content like "Jim Selby, former CEO of Naxos of America, Inc., has been appointed president of AdShare"

That paragraph is prefaced with " July, 2015,"

You don't need to show markup. I will just review this as is without comparing to the existing article.

Done

That's enough for now. You can ping me here when this is ready for review if you like. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Thanks 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 05:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this dif you didn't add anything:

You must have the wrong diff, that one changes the byte count by almost 400.

explaining the relationship between GDMG and each of these entities (All it appears that GDMG did was fund the university researchers... what is the relationship between Adshare and GDMG?

Commercial funding (adoption) is a very common occurrence in open-source software, FAM is the technology HAWK appears to be a trademark. AdShare is a subsidiary, an LLC, privately held. There may be other investors, but my understanding is that GDMG holds the controlling interest. Note that GoDigital is no longer on the GDMG main webpage. GDMG still holds an interest in the company they created, but they no longer consider it a subsidiary, i.e., controlling interest.

enough explaining how Adshare makes money from its identification software. "Adshare will monitor otherwise overlooked revenue streams and recover residuals with its HAWK technology" is something but what does that actually mean? Do they actively seek licensees for content or are they just policing for copyright violators and if so, just online? What do they do when they find violators; do they actually enforce the copyright and do a license or do they just notify the rights holder? Whatever it is, it would be best to come out and just say this clearly.

My understanding is that they offer a software service, anything else added to the article would be OR on my part. My presumption is that HAWK is a trademark for their version of FAM, but it is not stated in the source.

Sources 2-5 are still press releases. Didn't get farther in source-checking than that.

It isn't the GDMG guy's writing (I know it well, I read all of it) and it's sourced to BroadWay World -- Alexa 14,719 world rank. The content is independent, reliable and secondary.

I started doing some reading of my own. I didn't see mention of Michael Petersen in this article other than a "key person", but he claims to be a founder and an architect of this whole thing - see here. Is he Jason's dad or something?

I'd noticed another Peterson on one of the company websites, without an independent source I didn't mention. (The inclusion/disclosure may have come from a press release that now been removed -- not sure.)

It seems that they have had some controversy over false copyright claims. This should be discussed?

I recall reading a couple of blogs that mentioned DMCA take-downs, it appeared to me to be a software glitch. I think the most reliable source I found was Alex Jones' Infowars. I think it was A/V content, so not sure how to find it now. Anyway, if you think it belongs, I probably shouldn't be the one to compose the prose.

There is a dearth of independent sources on this company and its subsidiaries. Jytdog (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So far, you've provided a press release and a resume, neither seem independent RS to me? Additionally, are you sure you are differentiating the coverage between GoDigital and GoDigital Media Group? I've seen some of the source authors shorten GoDigital Media group to just GoDigital

What happened to the Digital Media Bank that launched in 2010> per this? Jytdog (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do see primary sourced press releases like the one you've provided about GDMG purchasing catalogs, the only thing I'm seeing on Omar Kaczmarczyk/GoDigital that is remotely usable is from a blog. [1] The press release says, it's a strategic partnership, probably would not be considered a subsidiary, it doesn't look like any money/property changed hands. These catalog partnerships are extremely commonplace.

@Jytdog: Now let me ask you something. When you were approached for comment concerning the COIN discussion on this article,[2] and the somehow now related PostModern Jukebox article[3] why did you take that conversation private?Section, Diff You and I discussed the issue openly on my talk page. Perhaps it would be best if somebody else reviewed this edit request. Thanks for your input. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 16:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't respond to this. Yes i get pinged for my advice on COI matters sometimes. I took the discussion with Lemongirl offline because I wanted it to be private. The Postmodern Jukebox article is not a paid editing matter and I have no desire to discuss that article; I don't care about pop music articles in Wikipedia. You and I discussed your behavior as a paid editor on your Talk page. In the midst of that you asked me to review this draft, and I said I would after we got done discussing your behavior. We finished that. Now I am reviewing this. There is no mystery. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nice. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? I asked for a review of my writing and said i'd try to keep the editor out of the drama-board by not quoting his review.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 22:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So there are not enough good sources to describe what AdShares business actually is nor to describe the relationship among the various companies here. That is not a good thing. It is not clear to me that this article is actually sustainable based on the dearth of independent sources. I am not sure the GDMG article would survive an AfD and your seeming inability to bring independent sources is not lending confidence that it can survive. The Broadway World piece is a press release - it is exactly the same as this. Making those kinds of claims does not breed trust. Trust is what you need to succeed here. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it that way, press releases cite their source author and are generally in a press release section. The Broadway World content is authored by Music News Desk, why would they open themselves up to being responsible for inaccuracies if they didn't write it? Additionally, there is nothing in the GNG that says an independent author, writing for a reliable source cannot use a primary press release to write his own secondary material. Finally, every source does not have to go to notability, which is where press releases are not allowed. The guidance on where primary sources can be used is here WP:SELFSOURCE. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 22:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The commonality here is that the subsidiaries are the product (creations) of GoDigital Media Group. The reason this article exists is that ContentBridge is notable, but it was determined in AfD that it should be under an article about the parent company, so WP:NNC applies on the rest of the material. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 23:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The broadway world source is word for word the same as the press release, and as you must know many so-called "newsdesks" just reprint press releases like this one did. We can bring this to RSN if you like. Shall we do that? Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the only thing BWW did to it was add their stock photo, I thought is was paraphrased. I'll check with press guy to see if it was paid, or if BWW picked it up independently. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 23:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. It doesn't matter if they picked it up off the wire or if it was placed. We just need to name things for what they are as we work. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The GDMG guy got back to me, the BWW article is not a paid placement. I guess they thought it was notable enough and reprinted on their own. Unfortunate that they just did a copy paste. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 00:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one that looks independent, explains in a little more depth what AdShare does. [4] the hypebot.com site is Alexa 89,465 which is respectable, also an approved Google news site. Looks like it is a music daily and supports itself through ads and want ads. [5] 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 00:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]