![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on April 18 2013. The result of the discussion was delete. |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:209.222.7.234 has been pushing for a rewritten version of the article, claiming that the previous version is not objective. However, the rewritten version of the article is really messy and hard to follow, so myself and User:Palosirkka have been reverting back to this version instead. Clearly, a compromise should be reached. What exactly are the points that 209.222.7.234 finds objectionable with the previous version? It would also be nice to hear what the article's creator ( User:Teemu) thinks of this. -- hydrox ( talk) 16:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I found the longish edition of the User:209.222.7.234 odd and messy. It made me thing what he found bias or non objective but also what is his interest on the topic. Some of the references used are also very bias. -- Teemu ( talk) 11:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I am concerned that the IP user has a close relationship with this orgnisation. In this edit the user seems to indicate that they have represented Finnbay in some official capacity ("contact ansa Gabriel from marketing for confirm"). The user's editing history shows that they are constantly editing this page to make it more favourable for the organisation. -- hydrox ( talk) 01:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Add your suggestions here > do not attack and make sure that your suggestions comply with originality, objectivity and being independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 ( talk • contribs) 15:37, April 22, 2014
Okay this is good! I am going over all of them and will try to present you something that works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I suggest keeping the current revision ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Finnbay&oldid=605310208) and fixing it based on your concerns. Let's start from the first one: 1. I believe that you have a valid point here. Though they produce their own content as opposed to HT, FT and sell their content in library network and others through NewspaperDirect: http://about.pressreader.com/press-room/press-releases/2006/1228.html and http://www.pressreader.com/finland/finnbay So what do you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 ( talk • contribs) 16:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Magazine, again, implies that they also have a printed version, which they lack so far. I don't understand what is the problem with calling them a news website. For example, CNET, ArsTechnica and TechCrunch are all multi-million dollar operations with large editorial staff, and they are all described as "news websites" or such on Wiki. Why do you insist on calling this much smaller website something else, while we both seem to agree that "news website" would characterise them quite well in their current form? Can you honestly say you really don't have an agenda of promoting this website? -- hydrox ( talk) 20:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
In relation to #2 and #3 I am okay with as they are now
In relation to #4 you say that "he is a well-known fringe theorist and extremely unreliable and inconsistent in his statements (section "Controversy")." This is very subjective - your own opinion. I insist on keeping that part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Campsite55 ( talk • contribs) 21:23, April 22, 2014
In relation to #5, I agree with you. I am okay with removing the part. Though I suggest changing "translating articles" part to something else like "content exchange" based on her comments in one of the sources you provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
In relation to your final point #6. I agree with you that we must keep that part. I am okay with the whole paragraph except the way [only] this part is written, "The contact information of the website's domain registration is hidden behind a proxy service and the website does not mention the name of its editor-in-chief, although this is required by Finnish law for both web and print news. In addition, the street address listed on the publications contact page does not exist." This makes us (wiki writers) look like we attack them. It's like we vs. Finnbay and it only has accusations but not the response from Finnbay. I am not sold on the domain information. Everybody does that to prevent privacy. But the address and Chief of Editor points are very important! That's why I suggest rewriting it.
Draft: "Finnbay received several criticisms as the media website did not mention the name of its editor-in-chief, although this is required by Finnish law for both web and print news. In addition, the street address listed on the publication contact page does not exist. Later on Finnbay deleted the address and claimed that it did not give the original address on purpose for security reasons as they said, "We purposefully did not give the exact address on our website due to previous threats we received from anti-immigrant groups in Finland." Ref: http://www.finnbay.com/our-second-letter-to-the-finnish-ambassador-in-russia-hannu-himanen/" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the "Editorial anonymity" -section is problematic. The comparison to the Economist, that is considered to be reliable and high-quality media, is odd. I read this as some kind of justification of the Finnbay's practice. -- Teemu ( talk) 12:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on April 18 2013. The result of the discussion was delete. |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:209.222.7.234 has been pushing for a rewritten version of the article, claiming that the previous version is not objective. However, the rewritten version of the article is really messy and hard to follow, so myself and User:Palosirkka have been reverting back to this version instead. Clearly, a compromise should be reached. What exactly are the points that 209.222.7.234 finds objectionable with the previous version? It would also be nice to hear what the article's creator ( User:Teemu) thinks of this. -- hydrox ( talk) 16:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I found the longish edition of the User:209.222.7.234 odd and messy. It made me thing what he found bias or non objective but also what is his interest on the topic. Some of the references used are also very bias. -- Teemu ( talk) 11:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I am concerned that the IP user has a close relationship with this orgnisation. In this edit the user seems to indicate that they have represented Finnbay in some official capacity ("contact ansa Gabriel from marketing for confirm"). The user's editing history shows that they are constantly editing this page to make it more favourable for the organisation. -- hydrox ( talk) 01:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Add your suggestions here > do not attack and make sure that your suggestions comply with originality, objectivity and being independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 ( talk • contribs) 15:37, April 22, 2014
Okay this is good! I am going over all of them and will try to present you something that works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I suggest keeping the current revision ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Finnbay&oldid=605310208) and fixing it based on your concerns. Let's start from the first one: 1. I believe that you have a valid point here. Though they produce their own content as opposed to HT, FT and sell their content in library network and others through NewspaperDirect: http://about.pressreader.com/press-room/press-releases/2006/1228.html and http://www.pressreader.com/finland/finnbay So what do you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 ( talk • contribs) 16:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Magazine, again, implies that they also have a printed version, which they lack so far. I don't understand what is the problem with calling them a news website. For example, CNET, ArsTechnica and TechCrunch are all multi-million dollar operations with large editorial staff, and they are all described as "news websites" or such on Wiki. Why do you insist on calling this much smaller website something else, while we both seem to agree that "news website" would characterise them quite well in their current form? Can you honestly say you really don't have an agenda of promoting this website? -- hydrox ( talk) 20:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
In relation to #2 and #3 I am okay with as they are now
In relation to #4 you say that "he is a well-known fringe theorist and extremely unreliable and inconsistent in his statements (section "Controversy")." This is very subjective - your own opinion. I insist on keeping that part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Campsite55 ( talk • contribs) 21:23, April 22, 2014
In relation to #5, I agree with you. I am okay with removing the part. Though I suggest changing "translating articles" part to something else like "content exchange" based on her comments in one of the sources you provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
In relation to your final point #6. I agree with you that we must keep that part. I am okay with the whole paragraph except the way [only] this part is written, "The contact information of the website's domain registration is hidden behind a proxy service and the website does not mention the name of its editor-in-chief, although this is required by Finnish law for both web and print news. In addition, the street address listed on the publications contact page does not exist." This makes us (wiki writers) look like we attack them. It's like we vs. Finnbay and it only has accusations but not the response from Finnbay. I am not sold on the domain information. Everybody does that to prevent privacy. But the address and Chief of Editor points are very important! That's why I suggest rewriting it.
Draft: "Finnbay received several criticisms as the media website did not mention the name of its editor-in-chief, although this is required by Finnish law for both web and print news. In addition, the street address listed on the publication contact page does not exist. Later on Finnbay deleted the address and claimed that it did not give the original address on purpose for security reasons as they said, "We purposefully did not give the exact address on our website due to previous threats we received from anti-immigrant groups in Finland." Ref: http://www.finnbay.com/our-second-letter-to-the-finnish-ambassador-in-russia-hannu-himanen/" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the "Editorial anonymity" -section is problematic. The comparison to the Economist, that is considered to be reliable and high-quality media, is odd. I read this as some kind of justification of the Finnbay's practice. -- Teemu ( talk) 12:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)