This article was nominated for deletion on August 30, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are a number of different text ads on the network pages now. Maybe the business model paragraph should be altered? Unfortunately I don't have time for this right now, but I wanted to note the change here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meinhard Benn ( talk • contribs) 14 June 2007
The following sentence is a clear violation of neutral point-of-view: "There is a great value in the model of Ning's framework since it creates an environment where applications can be cloned, customized, and arranged."
Otherwise the article is generally factual in tone, although it does lack citations for its most specific statements of information, for example the difference between a paying account and a free account.
I do get the impression that it is somebody associated with the Ning organization who is primarily writing and editing this article. I suppose that's fine as long as it adheres to wikipedia policy, though I'm no expert on the finer points of that policy.
Jupitermenace 15:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I Was Reading On PCworld about Ning & Nexo. Here's The Link: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,130604/article.html if anyone wants to add content relating to the article. 67.86.247.138 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
If we're actually going to keep this page (amazing considering the lack of content and attempts to explain its notability after all these months), let's try and make it decent. I've started by removing a bunch of cruft, hopefully someone else can go from there. Newtman ( talk) 07:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
"are built in standard PHP"
Is there a non-standard kind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.175.5 ( talk • contribs) 19 April 2008
The IP 199.89.80.16 has made three unsourced POV edits, reverted each time, trying to get links to some blog called "Charting Stocks." Recommend banning this IP after these clear repeated Wikipedia terms violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.17.128 ( talk) 21:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a bit of an edit war over the Controversy section's content and neutrality, which is why I've started this discussion and asked for third party comments from the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. The dispute is over this two versions, the version on the left was primarily written by Muggzzi, and the version on the right is the one by me. The full history of the dispute can be seen starting with this edit.
I will now explain how I attempted to make the section more neutral:
That is not to say my version is perfect or complete but what I attempted to do was bring the section's neutrality down and lay the groundwork for further addition neutral information. - kollision ( talk) 02:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
How come somebody keeps trying to tie scripts4ning in with widgetlaboratory? The two are mutually exclusive. They have nothing to do with each other. If we're trying to get the record straight - how come this supporter of widgetlaboratory is insistent upon creating an unrelated tie between a legitimate Ning acquisition and a banned plugin maker? I don't want to see this changed to suit whims any longer. Widgetlaboratory was removed back in August and much has occurred since then. Scripts4Ning is not a competitor of Widgetlaboratory. Do not add "(see "banning of third-party provider above)" to the scripts4ning entry any longer. Ningipedia ( talk) 19:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this article from the blog Charting Stocks [1] a reliable source for the article Ning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demoxenos ( talk • contribs) 30 April 2009
Muggzzi:I have again reverted your changes to the controversies section. Linking to a GetSatisfaction thread is not evidence of a controversy, and the review you linked to had no relation to the section it was added to. The scripts4ning relationship is mentioned in features and is not a controversy in any sense. You are trying to use wikipedia to push forward your own isolated point of view on Ning, and this is not the purpose or intent of wikipedia. Speckssommer ( talk) 00:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Muggzzi: Thank you for restoring my update - especially my addition in the FEATURES area of the Ning licensing features. This is a real important feature - as it gives Ning big, big rights to use Network Creator content. There is now obvious meatpuppet/sockpuppet behavior evident with user Speckssommer - and probably Ningipedia and Gogo Dodo. Looks like the company treats this page as part of their marketing department. There are some other very important features that need to be added to this article. I'll get to it shortly.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotsocial ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Under the heading "Features", it reads "The unique feature of Ning is that anyone can create their own social network for a particular topic or need, catering to specific membership bases." In fact, this feature is in no way unique to Ning. There are dozens of customizable DiY social network sites that share this market with Ning, and some of them (such as WebScribble) *predate* Ning. Any suggestions as to how best to rewrite this sentence? Bricology ( talk) 23:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's a forum post from John McDonald, the VP of Advocary: http://creators.ning.com/forum/topics/ning-update Here's the associated TechCrunch article: http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/15/nings-bubble-bursts-no-more-free-networks-cuts-40-of-staff/ People are scrambling to figure out what their options are - to get their content off Ning (and where to go with it) or figure out how much "premium" will cost. - Royanee ( talk) 12:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Ning (website) → Ning – WP:Primary topic. About 60x more views than Ning (surname). Marcus Qwertyus 00:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought The Ning was a social network for Nerdfighters.
Benjamin ( talk) 05:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Ning (website). 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Just a note to say that I manually updated the Alexa rank on this page, because the bot that was assigned to update it monthly was clearly not working (the most recent update was several years ago). Magic1million ( talk) 18:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on August 30, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are a number of different text ads on the network pages now. Maybe the business model paragraph should be altered? Unfortunately I don't have time for this right now, but I wanted to note the change here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meinhard Benn ( talk • contribs) 14 June 2007
The following sentence is a clear violation of neutral point-of-view: "There is a great value in the model of Ning's framework since it creates an environment where applications can be cloned, customized, and arranged."
Otherwise the article is generally factual in tone, although it does lack citations for its most specific statements of information, for example the difference between a paying account and a free account.
I do get the impression that it is somebody associated with the Ning organization who is primarily writing and editing this article. I suppose that's fine as long as it adheres to wikipedia policy, though I'm no expert on the finer points of that policy.
Jupitermenace 15:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I Was Reading On PCworld about Ning & Nexo. Here's The Link: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,130604/article.html if anyone wants to add content relating to the article. 67.86.247.138 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
If we're actually going to keep this page (amazing considering the lack of content and attempts to explain its notability after all these months), let's try and make it decent. I've started by removing a bunch of cruft, hopefully someone else can go from there. Newtman ( talk) 07:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
"are built in standard PHP"
Is there a non-standard kind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.175.5 ( talk • contribs) 19 April 2008
The IP 199.89.80.16 has made three unsourced POV edits, reverted each time, trying to get links to some blog called "Charting Stocks." Recommend banning this IP after these clear repeated Wikipedia terms violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.17.128 ( talk) 21:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a bit of an edit war over the Controversy section's content and neutrality, which is why I've started this discussion and asked for third party comments from the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. The dispute is over this two versions, the version on the left was primarily written by Muggzzi, and the version on the right is the one by me. The full history of the dispute can be seen starting with this edit.
I will now explain how I attempted to make the section more neutral:
That is not to say my version is perfect or complete but what I attempted to do was bring the section's neutrality down and lay the groundwork for further addition neutral information. - kollision ( talk) 02:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
How come somebody keeps trying to tie scripts4ning in with widgetlaboratory? The two are mutually exclusive. They have nothing to do with each other. If we're trying to get the record straight - how come this supporter of widgetlaboratory is insistent upon creating an unrelated tie between a legitimate Ning acquisition and a banned plugin maker? I don't want to see this changed to suit whims any longer. Widgetlaboratory was removed back in August and much has occurred since then. Scripts4Ning is not a competitor of Widgetlaboratory. Do not add "(see "banning of third-party provider above)" to the scripts4ning entry any longer. Ningipedia ( talk) 19:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this article from the blog Charting Stocks [1] a reliable source for the article Ning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demoxenos ( talk • contribs) 30 April 2009
Muggzzi:I have again reverted your changes to the controversies section. Linking to a GetSatisfaction thread is not evidence of a controversy, and the review you linked to had no relation to the section it was added to. The scripts4ning relationship is mentioned in features and is not a controversy in any sense. You are trying to use wikipedia to push forward your own isolated point of view on Ning, and this is not the purpose or intent of wikipedia. Speckssommer ( talk) 00:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Muggzzi: Thank you for restoring my update - especially my addition in the FEATURES area of the Ning licensing features. This is a real important feature - as it gives Ning big, big rights to use Network Creator content. There is now obvious meatpuppet/sockpuppet behavior evident with user Speckssommer - and probably Ningipedia and Gogo Dodo. Looks like the company treats this page as part of their marketing department. There are some other very important features that need to be added to this article. I'll get to it shortly.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotsocial ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Under the heading "Features", it reads "The unique feature of Ning is that anyone can create their own social network for a particular topic or need, catering to specific membership bases." In fact, this feature is in no way unique to Ning. There are dozens of customizable DiY social network sites that share this market with Ning, and some of them (such as WebScribble) *predate* Ning. Any suggestions as to how best to rewrite this sentence? Bricology ( talk) 23:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's a forum post from John McDonald, the VP of Advocary: http://creators.ning.com/forum/topics/ning-update Here's the associated TechCrunch article: http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/15/nings-bubble-bursts-no-more-free-networks-cuts-40-of-staff/ People are scrambling to figure out what their options are - to get their content off Ning (and where to go with it) or figure out how much "premium" will cost. - Royanee ( talk) 12:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Ning (website) → Ning – WP:Primary topic. About 60x more views than Ning (surname). Marcus Qwertyus 00:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought The Ning was a social network for Nerdfighters.
Benjamin ( talk) 05:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Ning (website). 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Just a note to say that I manually updated the Alexa rank on this page, because the bot that was assigned to update it monthly was clearly not working (the most recent update was several years ago). Magic1million ( talk) 18:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)