This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Speedy (Telkom) 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 rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
An edit describing the current practice of advert injection was reverted without further comment (either here or in the edit summary). Presumably this was due to policy violation or other problems with the text? 180.251.44.247 ( talk) 08:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Here are the 3 relevant (and now reverted) edits:
I'd prefer to restore this text or some variant thereof, reasoning follows:
I'm not too familiar with wikipedia policies so my apologies if I'm missing steps somewhere, but based on the above I intend to restore the original edit (on this page only, to simplify matters). 180.251.44.247 ( talk) 08:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply.
As such, I believe that the text (or some version thereof) should be restored - or at least those two other pages should be similarly trimmed for consistency? 180.251.44.247 ( talk) 10:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
180.251.44.247 ( talk) 10:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Speedy (Telkom) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
Material like this, which criticizes a company, needs care for proper sourcing. Blogs and forums are not
WP:RS reliable sources. The material as presented in the IP's version of the article (see URL below) cannot be used, as the sources are blogs/forums and not sufficiently reliable to source this kind of statment. The most you can do is to cite the
Speedy Product Description page (FN5 in your version), which states Seluruh paket dapat disisipi advertising, which Google translate renders as "All packages can be inserted advertising". You cannot say more than this unless you have better sources. @ Billinghurst: while I agree with you about the inadequacy of the sources, I am surprised at your comment about the ephemeral nature of this. What I've quoted above is in the company's own product description, with no evidence that this is a short-term policy. Moreover, you haven't touched the blatantly promotional statement that "Speedy using ADSL technology, which delivers digital signal via the telephony network is optimal for Internet content consumption purposes" in the previous paragraph, sourced to the home page of the product's own web site, which doesn't verify it anyway, and would be even more ephemeral even if true. What we're left with is merely a promotional article with no secondary sources at all. Any thoughts? Regards, Stfg ( talk) 12:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC) |
Web forums are not authoritative sources as described at Wikipedia:Citing sources and should be avoided wherever possible. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Speedy (Telkom) 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 rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
An edit describing the current practice of advert injection was reverted without further comment (either here or in the edit summary). Presumably this was due to policy violation or other problems with the text? 180.251.44.247 ( talk) 08:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Here are the 3 relevant (and now reverted) edits:
I'd prefer to restore this text or some variant thereof, reasoning follows:
I'm not too familiar with wikipedia policies so my apologies if I'm missing steps somewhere, but based on the above I intend to restore the original edit (on this page only, to simplify matters). 180.251.44.247 ( talk) 08:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply.
As such, I believe that the text (or some version thereof) should be restored - or at least those two other pages should be similarly trimmed for consistency? 180.251.44.247 ( talk) 10:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
180.251.44.247 ( talk) 10:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Speedy (Telkom) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
Material like this, which criticizes a company, needs care for proper sourcing. Blogs and forums are not
WP:RS reliable sources. The material as presented in the IP's version of the article (see URL below) cannot be used, as the sources are blogs/forums and not sufficiently reliable to source this kind of statment. The most you can do is to cite the
Speedy Product Description page (FN5 in your version), which states Seluruh paket dapat disisipi advertising, which Google translate renders as "All packages can be inserted advertising". You cannot say more than this unless you have better sources. @ Billinghurst: while I agree with you about the inadequacy of the sources, I am surprised at your comment about the ephemeral nature of this. What I've quoted above is in the company's own product description, with no evidence that this is a short-term policy. Moreover, you haven't touched the blatantly promotional statement that "Speedy using ADSL technology, which delivers digital signal via the telephony network is optimal for Internet content consumption purposes" in the previous paragraph, sourced to the home page of the product's own web site, which doesn't verify it anyway, and would be even more ephemeral even if true. What we're left with is merely a promotional article with no secondary sources at all. Any thoughts? Regards, Stfg ( talk) 12:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC) |
Web forums are not authoritative sources as described at Wikipedia:Citing sources and should be avoided wherever possible. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)