![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thanks for removing my last edit. In retrospect, it was entirely inappropriate, as not a reliable source. Wont do that here again. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 02:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
For some reason, it has struck me as an echo of FOX news, which I avoid because of its more extreme, known biases. If it's really serious about doing legitimate business, I'm also curious why its editorial board hasn't put up something on W'pedia themselves, by now. When I see articles in the Google news layout attributed to this paper, I avoid them as well. More info was what I was looking for in coming to this site, but I guess it will be necessary to look elsewhere--of course, maybe that's what they want to do, force you to look for them online directly. Oh, well... 96.237.240.126 ( talk) 02:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
PROBABLY STILL YET ANOTHER CIA FRONT COMPANY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.213.101.94 ( talk) 03:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a source for who owns IBT in the article itself. Here’s a link to the source. Nicmart ( talk) 20:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
this story appears to completely blur reportage and editorializing. I believe that consensus on this science report is NOT that time travel will now be possible or that a pillar of physics is about to fall. the scientists that did the research didnt make these conclusions. I seriously question this sources reliability, and question their legitimacy as a target for news aggregators like google news. Im saying this to spur research into what has been reported on them. I dont have a source saying this aticle is biased, but I doubt it would fly as a source at the article on the experiment. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 15:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The article is now written primarily as a promotional tool for the business. Somehow, i expected this. I will try to scale back the promotional language, and check the refs to make sure they are all neutral and reliable, or, if press releases or company sites, contain noncontroversial facts. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 16:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) -- 174.226.196.40 ( talk) 01:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC) This page highlights the differences between IBT and other newspapers and also details the history of the company, including leadership and growth. I don't see this as out of character for this category of company, even when compared to the competitors in that space, Financial Times and Wall Sreet Journal. In fact entries for those publications include the same broad categories. Given the amount of content this company puts out, it's important to understand who this company is and this entry serves that purpose. If you feel otherwise perhaps you can try to edit it or revert it.
At least one person has raised questions about their business model, [1], though this may not be a reliable source.(mercurywoodrose) 99.35.48.227 ( talk) 19:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I have restored the sourced content that has now been deleted three times in five hours by the same user. It now merges my earlier text and the stronger source from Phil Bridger. I have included CT twice because there are two different articles which each provide relevant information, and (at least in my part of the world) they're not clearly linked to each other on CT's website. I will also try to introduce it into the lede, in due proportion. If you look at Washington Times, another general news source owned by a Korean religious leader, the majority of the lede is about that ownership. So I think that it deserves a mention a least. Matt's talk 15:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
this source states that controversial religious leader David Jang founded IBT. Now, this may be in dispute, but its a NOTABLE dispute. It can be added to the article now, and David Jang can be mentioned on the talk page to spur searches for more sourced information.(mercurywoodrose) 99.14.218.50 ( talk) 21:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
All of a sudden I'm seeing news stories from IBT turn up "elsewhere on the web" bits and google etc (probably some good SEO going on). Should we alter the lead to reflect that it also does "ordinary" news as well as business news? Sophie means wisdom ( talk) 19:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I would argue a lot of the articles are repetitive, not news worthy and just plainly false. Search "Google Nexus" with IBTimes, and you will see similar rumour articles repeating itself every 3-4 days, with a slight different title, and with blatantly false news. This is not characteristic of a news site, so I would argue this site should not be compared to other news sites. Jimmy Tseng ( talk) 14:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
IBTimes is simply a clickbait site that will copy and republish stories as well as publish repeated smartphone and other electronics rumors. It is difficult to consider IBTimes a legitimate news website. Not sure where in the article this could be added. 2604:5500:2D:12FF:8C03:2344:7175:C360 ( talk) 22:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes,this article is a mess and needs lots of work. IBT is probably notable, but this is a promotional piece, built up by editors who either have a COI or are otherwise credulous when reading IBT's self-reports.
That said, this piece is laughable:
The first source is the IBT article in question, stating someone said time travel is possible. It does not say the article is "not just inaccurate, but entirely fictional". The second source is a NY Daily News article from three years earlier. Without looking at it, I know we have a problem. If the 2011 article says the 2014 article is inaccurate/entirely fictional, then time travel is possible.
Kidding aside, we probably have two newspapers reporting on two different studies that apparently had differing conclusions. From this, a Wikipedia editor seems to have synthesized up a storm.
If there are independent reliable sources that directly state that the IBT article was "entirely fictional", feel free to restore a neutrally worded statement to that effect, with a citation to that source. - SummerPhD v2.0 16:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The entry states: "IBT is one of the world's largest online news sources,” and offers a Mother Jones article as a source. The source that Mother Jones uses is the IBT media kit referred to just after the aforementioned quote. I don’t think a company’s media kit is a reputable source. In 2015, In March 2015 an IBT blog noted: SOCIAL MEDIA NOW DRIVES >30% OF ALL REFERRAL TRAFFIC.” In August 2016, Fortune reported, "According to those numbers, some of the largest news publishers on the web have seen significant declines in traffic from the giant social network. Among the biggest losers are Newsweek owner IBT Media, which saw its visits drop by 47% in the second quarter, and TheStreet.com, which saw a drop of 53%.” The media kit claim in this entry is PR flackery. Nicmart ( talk) 19:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Overall, I reverted International Business Times because of the poor and promotional references, while at the same time well-referenced information was removed with a misleading edit summary International Business Times. Some of the material from the new "Growth" section may be worth mention, but please work from better references with clear edit summaries and smaller edits so the material can be easily reviewed by others. -- Hipal ( talk) 21:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
International Business Times has a global audience of more than 55 million readers per month across all of its properties. [1] The US website was ranked among the fastest growing online properties on the Internet in 2011 with 31% month-over-month growth [2] and in 2015 with 38% month over month growth [3], according to web analytics firm Comscore. The US site ranked No. 2 for video views among business publications in 2011, just being Yahoo Finance. [4] It is among the top 10 largest business sites globally. [5]
The network, which runs across desktop, mobile and app platforms, reaches Corporates, 'C' level audiences, Entrepreneurs, General Managers along with professionals who reach out for curated content, enabling their growth in professional and personal world. [6] The site reaches a disproportional amount of readers with high household income, with 42% of readers earning 100k+ in the United States. [7] IBT also over indexes in Comscore ratings for readers with the highest levels of education. [8]
IBT is part of the inaugural sites selected by readers of the Economist as part of their favorite destinations ranging from business to globalization to join the Economist Ideas People Media. [9]
References
International Business Times is a privately held company started by Etienne Uzac and Johnathan Davis in 2006. The company is "boot-strapped" and the co-founders utilized personal savings, credit cards, and bank loans to start the company. [1] The company has not taken money from outside investors. [2]
IBTimes worked closely with California-based Olivet University in the early years and received technological support that allowed the company to scale. [3] Davis learned of the technical capabilities of the university through his wife, Tracy Davis, who was the Academic Dean of Olivet. Davis himself was a director of the Olivet College of Journalism [3]
As described by Dev Pragad: "Since 2006, the University developed various versions of digital publishing platform which IBT used to build and scale its digital media business. The University shared its proprietary technology solutions to assist in building out these platforms through multiple phases of research and development. IBT currently has royalty free use of the IP after completing licensing and R&D payments to the University." [3]
The relationship has been likened to how universities like Stanford work with several Silicon Valley companies in its infancy, such as Google, Snapchat, Yahoo, SUN Microsystems, which derived its name from Stanford University Network, among 40,000 other companies. [3] [4] [5] [6]
The partnership led to the creation of IBT's digital publishing platform, which included the content management system, and ad server. [3] Those systems were phased out late 2010 but Davis said it would continue to explore opportunities with the university just as it would with other organizations. [4]
By 2010, IBT had 10 employees and revenue of roughly $2 million. IBTimes experienced rapid growth, particularly from 2010, as it began using metrics to help tailor coverage to what readers wanted. That sort of analysis helped traffic increase 1,200 percent in 2010. [5] The company became profitable from 2010. [7] [8]
In August of 2011, IBTimes was ranked among the top 10 online growth properties in the United States by digital analytics company Comscore, growing 31 percent in one month. [9]
They moved into the former Newsweek office building's fifth floor, in the Financial District, in July 2011. Reporting staff at the time of the move numbered 50. [10]
By 2014 Mr. Davis said. Today, IBT has 240 employees and 40 million unique monthly visitors and posted revenue of about $21 million last year, largely from digital banner ads, and generated a profit of about $500,000.
[2]
In 2017 IBTimes reached over 50 million people per month. [11]
References
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thanks for removing my last edit. In retrospect, it was entirely inappropriate, as not a reliable source. Wont do that here again. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 02:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
For some reason, it has struck me as an echo of FOX news, which I avoid because of its more extreme, known biases. If it's really serious about doing legitimate business, I'm also curious why its editorial board hasn't put up something on W'pedia themselves, by now. When I see articles in the Google news layout attributed to this paper, I avoid them as well. More info was what I was looking for in coming to this site, but I guess it will be necessary to look elsewhere--of course, maybe that's what they want to do, force you to look for them online directly. Oh, well... 96.237.240.126 ( talk) 02:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
PROBABLY STILL YET ANOTHER CIA FRONT COMPANY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.213.101.94 ( talk) 03:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a source for who owns IBT in the article itself. Here’s a link to the source. Nicmart ( talk) 20:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
this story appears to completely blur reportage and editorializing. I believe that consensus on this science report is NOT that time travel will now be possible or that a pillar of physics is about to fall. the scientists that did the research didnt make these conclusions. I seriously question this sources reliability, and question their legitimacy as a target for news aggregators like google news. Im saying this to spur research into what has been reported on them. I dont have a source saying this aticle is biased, but I doubt it would fly as a source at the article on the experiment. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 15:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The article is now written primarily as a promotional tool for the business. Somehow, i expected this. I will try to scale back the promotional language, and check the refs to make sure they are all neutral and reliable, or, if press releases or company sites, contain noncontroversial facts. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 16:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) -- 174.226.196.40 ( talk) 01:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC) This page highlights the differences between IBT and other newspapers and also details the history of the company, including leadership and growth. I don't see this as out of character for this category of company, even when compared to the competitors in that space, Financial Times and Wall Sreet Journal. In fact entries for those publications include the same broad categories. Given the amount of content this company puts out, it's important to understand who this company is and this entry serves that purpose. If you feel otherwise perhaps you can try to edit it or revert it.
At least one person has raised questions about their business model, [1], though this may not be a reliable source.(mercurywoodrose) 99.35.48.227 ( talk) 19:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I have restored the sourced content that has now been deleted three times in five hours by the same user. It now merges my earlier text and the stronger source from Phil Bridger. I have included CT twice because there are two different articles which each provide relevant information, and (at least in my part of the world) they're not clearly linked to each other on CT's website. I will also try to introduce it into the lede, in due proportion. If you look at Washington Times, another general news source owned by a Korean religious leader, the majority of the lede is about that ownership. So I think that it deserves a mention a least. Matt's talk 15:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
this source states that controversial religious leader David Jang founded IBT. Now, this may be in dispute, but its a NOTABLE dispute. It can be added to the article now, and David Jang can be mentioned on the talk page to spur searches for more sourced information.(mercurywoodrose) 99.14.218.50 ( talk) 21:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
All of a sudden I'm seeing news stories from IBT turn up "elsewhere on the web" bits and google etc (probably some good SEO going on). Should we alter the lead to reflect that it also does "ordinary" news as well as business news? Sophie means wisdom ( talk) 19:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I would argue a lot of the articles are repetitive, not news worthy and just plainly false. Search "Google Nexus" with IBTimes, and you will see similar rumour articles repeating itself every 3-4 days, with a slight different title, and with blatantly false news. This is not characteristic of a news site, so I would argue this site should not be compared to other news sites. Jimmy Tseng ( talk) 14:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
IBTimes is simply a clickbait site that will copy and republish stories as well as publish repeated smartphone and other electronics rumors. It is difficult to consider IBTimes a legitimate news website. Not sure where in the article this could be added. 2604:5500:2D:12FF:8C03:2344:7175:C360 ( talk) 22:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes,this article is a mess and needs lots of work. IBT is probably notable, but this is a promotional piece, built up by editors who either have a COI or are otherwise credulous when reading IBT's self-reports.
That said, this piece is laughable:
The first source is the IBT article in question, stating someone said time travel is possible. It does not say the article is "not just inaccurate, but entirely fictional". The second source is a NY Daily News article from three years earlier. Without looking at it, I know we have a problem. If the 2011 article says the 2014 article is inaccurate/entirely fictional, then time travel is possible.
Kidding aside, we probably have two newspapers reporting on two different studies that apparently had differing conclusions. From this, a Wikipedia editor seems to have synthesized up a storm.
If there are independent reliable sources that directly state that the IBT article was "entirely fictional", feel free to restore a neutrally worded statement to that effect, with a citation to that source. - SummerPhD v2.0 16:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The entry states: "IBT is one of the world's largest online news sources,” and offers a Mother Jones article as a source. The source that Mother Jones uses is the IBT media kit referred to just after the aforementioned quote. I don’t think a company’s media kit is a reputable source. In 2015, In March 2015 an IBT blog noted: SOCIAL MEDIA NOW DRIVES >30% OF ALL REFERRAL TRAFFIC.” In August 2016, Fortune reported, "According to those numbers, some of the largest news publishers on the web have seen significant declines in traffic from the giant social network. Among the biggest losers are Newsweek owner IBT Media, which saw its visits drop by 47% in the second quarter, and TheStreet.com, which saw a drop of 53%.” The media kit claim in this entry is PR flackery. Nicmart ( talk) 19:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Overall, I reverted International Business Times because of the poor and promotional references, while at the same time well-referenced information was removed with a misleading edit summary International Business Times. Some of the material from the new "Growth" section may be worth mention, but please work from better references with clear edit summaries and smaller edits so the material can be easily reviewed by others. -- Hipal ( talk) 21:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
International Business Times has a global audience of more than 55 million readers per month across all of its properties. [1] The US website was ranked among the fastest growing online properties on the Internet in 2011 with 31% month-over-month growth [2] and in 2015 with 38% month over month growth [3], according to web analytics firm Comscore. The US site ranked No. 2 for video views among business publications in 2011, just being Yahoo Finance. [4] It is among the top 10 largest business sites globally. [5]
The network, which runs across desktop, mobile and app platforms, reaches Corporates, 'C' level audiences, Entrepreneurs, General Managers along with professionals who reach out for curated content, enabling their growth in professional and personal world. [6] The site reaches a disproportional amount of readers with high household income, with 42% of readers earning 100k+ in the United States. [7] IBT also over indexes in Comscore ratings for readers with the highest levels of education. [8]
IBT is part of the inaugural sites selected by readers of the Economist as part of their favorite destinations ranging from business to globalization to join the Economist Ideas People Media. [9]
References
International Business Times is a privately held company started by Etienne Uzac and Johnathan Davis in 2006. The company is "boot-strapped" and the co-founders utilized personal savings, credit cards, and bank loans to start the company. [1] The company has not taken money from outside investors. [2]
IBTimes worked closely with California-based Olivet University in the early years and received technological support that allowed the company to scale. [3] Davis learned of the technical capabilities of the university through his wife, Tracy Davis, who was the Academic Dean of Olivet. Davis himself was a director of the Olivet College of Journalism [3]
As described by Dev Pragad: "Since 2006, the University developed various versions of digital publishing platform which IBT used to build and scale its digital media business. The University shared its proprietary technology solutions to assist in building out these platforms through multiple phases of research and development. IBT currently has royalty free use of the IP after completing licensing and R&D payments to the University." [3]
The relationship has been likened to how universities like Stanford work with several Silicon Valley companies in its infancy, such as Google, Snapchat, Yahoo, SUN Microsystems, which derived its name from Stanford University Network, among 40,000 other companies. [3] [4] [5] [6]
The partnership led to the creation of IBT's digital publishing platform, which included the content management system, and ad server. [3] Those systems were phased out late 2010 but Davis said it would continue to explore opportunities with the university just as it would with other organizations. [4]
By 2010, IBT had 10 employees and revenue of roughly $2 million. IBTimes experienced rapid growth, particularly from 2010, as it began using metrics to help tailor coverage to what readers wanted. That sort of analysis helped traffic increase 1,200 percent in 2010. [5] The company became profitable from 2010. [7] [8]
In August of 2011, IBTimes was ranked among the top 10 online growth properties in the United States by digital analytics company Comscore, growing 31 percent in one month. [9]
They moved into the former Newsweek office building's fifth floor, in the Financial District, in July 2011. Reporting staff at the time of the move numbered 50. [10]
By 2014 Mr. Davis said. Today, IBT has 240 employees and 40 million unique monthly visitors and posted revenue of about $21 million last year, largely from digital banner ads, and generated a profit of about $500,000.
[2]
In 2017 IBTimes reached over 50 million people per month. [11]
References