This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
EHow article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I think it would be stronger to discuss the history of the writer pay using external sources rather than just links to the current compensation page. The article could use more more sourcing according to WP:RS. I can't add to the article right now, but here is at least one articles from 2007 to get started: http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/06/demand_media_offers_payforplay.php. Are there other news articles that discuss the history of payment? Flowanda | Talk 02:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I added much of this material, it was adapted from Jack Herrick's writeup about the history of eHow, on wikiHow. At some point Jack split the history into two pages, one for eHow and one for wikiHow - my original reference pointed to the history article before it was split. I'm guessing that's why it was removed. I'm not sure where this page falls in the WP:RS/WP:OR category.. it's certainly self-published by Jack.. Anyway, if it seems appropriate to use this as a ref in the article.. please add it. -- Versa geek 03:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think eHow was founded in 1932... What is the correct date please? - Verity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.98.47 ( talk) 10:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
1st paragraph says
Near end, says:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Damiens.rf has now removed this twice with the edit summaries "This is not relevant. egocentrism" and "this is egocentrism by wikipedia." I have asked him to stopped edit warring and discuss. Personally I did not add this section but I think it is worth including as it shows the level of reliability of eHow, with a reliable ref cited. - Ahunt ( talk) 19:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Please, discuss content, not me. Why should we cite an wikipedia policy in an article? Which other serious encyclopedia would do that? -- Damiens.rf 23:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Please, consider drafting an RFC. -- Damiens.rf 17:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
So what exactly is this debate about? Whether or not to include ehow to the blacklist, or whether or not to mention it on the page? There isn't any reason why it should be included in the article if its blackklisted. Most people browsing Wikipedia don't really care about the behind-the-scenes stuff at Wikipedia and would find it irrelavent. AGiorgio08 talk 22:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, I was just interested in joining the debate. And thought I would choose the minority's side, just to make things more interesting. AGiorgio08 talk 09:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
OK I have been through the arguments and looked at the references and my conclusion it that the statement should not be included. We have three sentences:
I will remove the article protection and leave the article without the statement without prejudice to re-adding if consensus changes in the future. Although for that to happen ehow.com and ehow.co.uk should both be blacklisted and all references actually removed; it would also need some secondary references to the notability of wikipedias actions and condideration why Wikipedia considering it not to be an unreliable post is any more important than any other criticisms, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 15:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Has been removed - refer above. MilborneOne ( talk) 15:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
eHow has been classified as a content farm or similar by two search engines and Wired Magazine. We have an article that describes this at Content farm which is an accurate characterization of this type of website as per the refs cited. One editor keeps changing this infobox item to Content Publisher, which is a redlink as this "type of site" description does not exist. Since we have refs and an actual article on Content farm I propose it be changed back to that. Full disclosure - I have no connection to eHow or any other website they compete with, I never visit their site. - Ahunt ( talk) 12:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Any article with a "Criticisms" section larger than its history is likely a candidate for an NPOV tag, and this one is a good example. I understand from doing some searches that there are a few people with very public axes to grind. You can find significant public criticism of any large site or company, from Amazon to Apple, but without some NPOV all the article becomes is "this is a bad site, people hate it." Clearly not everyone hates it, it's one of the most-trafficked sites on the Web with major sponsors and a parent company that is making money. It's time to turn this into a viable Wikipedia article. HelpnWP ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I can't agree that user Versageek reverted my edit as a spam. It's not a spam absolutely. Not at all.
May be I am wrong, but on my opinion, articles of EHow is a handy collection of informal step-by-step algorithms. DRAKON is a friendly graphical algorithmic notation.
That is why I created "See also" with DRAKON. I am sure, that some step-by-step articles for EHow will be written in DRAKON. -- Владимир Паронджанов ( talk) 06:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on EHow. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on EHow. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there a reason that eHow.com isn't a hyperlink to eHow.com? I'm just wondering; I'm not exactly a Wikipedia veteran. Human-potato hybrid ( talk) 00:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
EHow article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I think it would be stronger to discuss the history of the writer pay using external sources rather than just links to the current compensation page. The article could use more more sourcing according to WP:RS. I can't add to the article right now, but here is at least one articles from 2007 to get started: http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/06/demand_media_offers_payforplay.php. Are there other news articles that discuss the history of payment? Flowanda | Talk 02:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I added much of this material, it was adapted from Jack Herrick's writeup about the history of eHow, on wikiHow. At some point Jack split the history into two pages, one for eHow and one for wikiHow - my original reference pointed to the history article before it was split. I'm guessing that's why it was removed. I'm not sure where this page falls in the WP:RS/WP:OR category.. it's certainly self-published by Jack.. Anyway, if it seems appropriate to use this as a ref in the article.. please add it. -- Versa geek 03:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think eHow was founded in 1932... What is the correct date please? - Verity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.98.47 ( talk) 10:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
1st paragraph says
Near end, says:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Damiens.rf has now removed this twice with the edit summaries "This is not relevant. egocentrism" and "this is egocentrism by wikipedia." I have asked him to stopped edit warring and discuss. Personally I did not add this section but I think it is worth including as it shows the level of reliability of eHow, with a reliable ref cited. - Ahunt ( talk) 19:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Please, discuss content, not me. Why should we cite an wikipedia policy in an article? Which other serious encyclopedia would do that? -- Damiens.rf 23:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Please, consider drafting an RFC. -- Damiens.rf 17:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
So what exactly is this debate about? Whether or not to include ehow to the blacklist, or whether or not to mention it on the page? There isn't any reason why it should be included in the article if its blackklisted. Most people browsing Wikipedia don't really care about the behind-the-scenes stuff at Wikipedia and would find it irrelavent. AGiorgio08 talk 22:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, I was just interested in joining the debate. And thought I would choose the minority's side, just to make things more interesting. AGiorgio08 talk 09:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
OK I have been through the arguments and looked at the references and my conclusion it that the statement should not be included. We have three sentences:
I will remove the article protection and leave the article without the statement without prejudice to re-adding if consensus changes in the future. Although for that to happen ehow.com and ehow.co.uk should both be blacklisted and all references actually removed; it would also need some secondary references to the notability of wikipedias actions and condideration why Wikipedia considering it not to be an unreliable post is any more important than any other criticisms, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 15:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Has been removed - refer above. MilborneOne ( talk) 15:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
eHow has been classified as a content farm or similar by two search engines and Wired Magazine. We have an article that describes this at Content farm which is an accurate characterization of this type of website as per the refs cited. One editor keeps changing this infobox item to Content Publisher, which is a redlink as this "type of site" description does not exist. Since we have refs and an actual article on Content farm I propose it be changed back to that. Full disclosure - I have no connection to eHow or any other website they compete with, I never visit their site. - Ahunt ( talk) 12:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Any article with a "Criticisms" section larger than its history is likely a candidate for an NPOV tag, and this one is a good example. I understand from doing some searches that there are a few people with very public axes to grind. You can find significant public criticism of any large site or company, from Amazon to Apple, but without some NPOV all the article becomes is "this is a bad site, people hate it." Clearly not everyone hates it, it's one of the most-trafficked sites on the Web with major sponsors and a parent company that is making money. It's time to turn this into a viable Wikipedia article. HelpnWP ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I can't agree that user Versageek reverted my edit as a spam. It's not a spam absolutely. Not at all.
May be I am wrong, but on my opinion, articles of EHow is a handy collection of informal step-by-step algorithms. DRAKON is a friendly graphical algorithmic notation.
That is why I created "See also" with DRAKON. I am sure, that some step-by-step articles for EHow will be written in DRAKON. -- Владимир Паронджанов ( talk) 06:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on EHow. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on EHow. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there a reason that eHow.com isn't a hyperlink to eHow.com? I'm just wondering; I'm not exactly a Wikipedia veteran. Human-potato hybrid ( talk) 00:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)