![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I have reverted an edit by anon IP who was previously known as Luisarfs and who left a previous discussion that was closed after he or HelloAnnYong made no reply for over 30 days. I had to make his suggested edit about Peter Sunde for him. He is an editor from Portugal who edits about a competing organization on anti-piracy enforcement. He is removing sourced material. HelloAnnYong also left the discussion at the same time with no further discussion. Agadant ( talk) 02:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Terms and descriptions used in edit summaries have been completely out of line, provoking and insulting. This latest used by the worst offender is completely uncivil and offensive and since I was the one whose edit he changed, I have to assume it was personally directed towards me. How could anyone not believe this attack on the article is not personally motivated when terms such as this are used by Cameron Scott - remember we are not here to give the company a blow-job - [2] All but the barest descriptions are being reversed. The company is not even being allowed to be called an "international policing company". He has changed that often used term to an organization which is effect, not correct. Agadant ( talk) 10:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It is not involved in policing (which has a very specific meaning) in any way. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 10:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
This is the biggest issue that you have not addressed: Terms and descriptions used in edit summaries have been completely out of line, provoking and insulting. This latest used by the worst offender is completely uncivil and offensive and since I was the one whose edit he changed, I have to assume it was personally directed towards me. How could anyone not believe this attack on the article is not personally motived when terms such as this are used by Cameron Scott - remember we are not here to give the company a blow-job - [3] Agadant ( talk) 11:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I've used the phrase multiple times on multiple articles, it's simply a phrase, it's not aimed at anyone in particular. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 11:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
NO MATTER HOW MANY OF HIS FRIENDS DEFEND HIM, IT STILL STANDS HE WAS OFFENSIVE AND INSULTING! JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO SAY IT'S OKAY DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. Agadant ( talk) 12:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I've fully protected this article for three days. I don't know what's going on here, but you guys need to work it out. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I sincerely hope that I will not look like a fool in 12 hours (at least not more than usual). VQuakr ( talk) 04:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The lede according to WP:Lead does not adequately represent the company - but of course, it will soon as more and more information that was not even close to POV is taken out of it. All links were taken out of the tiny, bare-to-the-minimum lead. Why is that? I notice that this company article has 3 nice paragraphs for the lede and includes internal links. Bridgewater Associates and history - Oh and it also has the word "unique" in the lead, which was removed from this one and called "weasel" word. I believe that is when Cameron Scott referred to my giving the company a BJ for including the word. Agadant ( talk) 21:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The Claim that BT File Sharers "are much more resistant to a friendly approach" is without warrant (at least as is) and not addressed by appropriate research (or really any) in the cited source. While I am sure that they may receive a demand letter, threat, or other sort of legal process if they do not reply/respond to a "friendly" approach, this is a broad and damning/defamatory claim about what is likely a quite broad group. -Unsigned left by 67.11.58.88
I see Keithbob has decided that a company that operates for its clients can not have a client section. Agadant ( talk) 02:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The Million Dollar Homepage This article is a good example for article formatting, section heads, etc.. Pixel Sales would be equivalent to client section in Web Sheriff and Media Attention would be similar to In the Media in Web Sheriff. Agadant ( talk) 23:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) It has a nice little write-up about the founder too and with a quote from him in quote box. Really good article, very informative and nicely put together! Agadant ( talk) 01:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
FA article: The Million Dollar Homepage Compare content on each:
to:
Web Sheriff was founded by former music attorney, John Giacobbi in 2000.[8] Prior to forming Web Sheriff, Giacobbi had been an independent consultant to record labels and artists including Village People. The formation of the company evolved from a need to help Village People retain their rights on the internet, in a time before downloadsbut when the sale of CD bootlegs and other copyright infringements had become a major problem for the band. As their consultant, Giacobbi advised Village People that if something was not done they would lose all their copyrights on the internet. He explained the formation of the company and its naming in an interview for Men's Health: "Much to my surprise, there was no one who really controlled rights at the time, so I stepped up. People used to call the Internet the 'new Wild West', so we thought, who best to ride into town to sort it out than the Web Sheriff?"[5] Giacobbi had previously worked for several prominent music companies including CBS, Warner/Chappell Music,Zomba Label Group and RCA/BMG.[10] Steve Orchard, CEO for Quidem and former group operations director and board member of GCap Media acts as chairman of the corporation.[11] Orchard, a graduate ofUniversity of Oxford, started a career in radio in 1985 as a DJ with GWR Bristol. During the 1990s he was group programme director of GWR, programme director of Classic FM and operations director for GWR's local radio division.[12] The company has offices in Marlborough and London and a team of twenty employees working shifts for clients on a twenty-four basis with a seven day work week.[1][13]
Why would we use an article about a website as a basis to build an article about a company? All I see here is IDIDNTHEARTHAT and (for reasons unknown) a desperate attempt to make sure that a client list is included. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 13:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:NN "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability."
In the media or media attention: (these are only the major, most prominent sources of coverage)
Web Sheriff has been featured in articles in Rolling Stone, [1] Esquire, [2] Q, [3] Los Angeles Times, [4] The Independent, [5] The Village Voice, [6] The Guardian, [7] BBC Radio 6, [8] Evening Standard, [9] Music Week [10] CNET, [11] The Times, [12] The Mail on Sunday, [13] Folha de S. Paulo, [14] CBS, [15] Men's Health, [16] The Scotsman, [17] Syndicated News, [18] The Fader [19] and other newspapers, journals and news media. [20]
Plus add recently:
Huffington Post John Giacobbi
Music Connection: August 2011 P. 22 Music connection Digital copy
Just a few independent quotations from reliable sources about the company:
Huffington Post: "Web Sheriff Founder John Giacobbi is long renowned as the leading anti-piracy specialist in the music industry Since founding Web Sheriff, clients have ranged from all-time legends such as MICHAEL JACKSON, DYLAN, PRINCE and VAN MORRISON, through to today’s hottest artists, such as LADY GAGA, ADELE and BEYONCE, "
The Los Angeles Times: "[Web Sheriff] has emerged as a leading advocate of the soft sell in representing artists including Bob Dylan, Van Morrison, the Prodigy, Adele and others. This gentle, gradual approach -- used on three of the biggest-selling albums of the last year -- represents a sharp turn in the recording industry's life-and-death struggle with piracy, one driven largely by performers and their managers rather than the record companies."
Rolling Stone: "Web Sheriff'client base is growing rapidly...The company provides a range of web-policing services"
Musician Coaching: "John and his company have helped many well-known artists keep the theft of their content to a minimum" "Your company seems as much a fan outreach organization as it does a policing organization,"
The Guardian: "For years ISP's around the world have cooperated wtih his company when he's brought copyright infringement to their attentions."
The Fader: "a pretty weird thing: an artist-hired, sometimes clandestine but always incredibly personable copyright enforcement agency that continues to leave a very real mark on art on the internet, probably differently than forces before them" Agadant ( talk) 16:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm really not sure how we are going to proceed here - your frankly odd behaviour and statements are not conductive to good editing. Your constant IDIDNTHEARTHAT about the client list (you seems increasingly desperate to get that in - like someone is relying on you to do so) and your transformation into a SPI are also troubling. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 08:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
By the way, "Web Sheriff" remains "barely notable". It is mentioned in some articles about Prince's legal actions. With essentially no content beyond (for example) " In September Prince appointed the internet company Web Sheriff to police the removal of up to 2000 clips from YouTube." Such mentions do not particularly inspire a belief that the company is especially notable. Many of the cites found are press releases, which are deprecated as sources, if I recall correctly. Most cites, in fact, are not RS as they are SPS sources using press releases for content etc. I am unsure that BUZZMEDIA [4] qualifies as a reliable source as it has "paid for" celebrity "official site" pages. The only "solid" cit appears to be BBC News - and that article is primarily about the stars and not about "Web Sheriff". John Giacobbi, founder of internet security company Web Sheriff, which has worked with such artists as Lady Gaga, Beyonce and Adele, says pre-release leaks are virtually inevitable. may help in calling Giacobbi notable, but it does not really make "Web Sheriff" notable." Collect ( talk) 16:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Web Sheriff has been featured in articles in Rolling Stone, [1] Esquire, [2] Q, [3] Los Angeles Times, [4] The Independent, [5] The Village Voice, [6] The Guardian, [7] BBC Radio 6, [8] Evening Standard, [9] Music Week [10] CNET, [11] The Times, [12] The Mail on Sunday, [13] Folha de S. Paulo, [14] CBS, [15] Men's Health, [16] The Scotsman, [17] Syndicated News, [18] The Fader [19] and other newspapers, journals and news media. [20] Huffington Post John Giacobbi Music Connection: August 2011 P. 22 Music connection Digital copy
What's this about BUZZMEDIA? I don't believe I added that at all? I don't see it in the article's list of references? Agadant ( talk) 16:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
John Giacobbi Music Connection: August 2011 P. 22 - Music connection Digital copy Very reliable sources - Rolling Stone, Esquire, Q, Men's Health etc etc etc and definitely prove notability... most are visible on line: just find them in the history and the refs will be live to view. The titles I believe show the articles feature on Web Sheriff, BTW. Why do you continue to ignore them? I'm really puzzled. Agadant ( talk)
Internet "policing" by a private company is a valid description as referred to in this thesis from University of Leeds. [5] I think the 5 sources, I included to back it up look cumbersome in the lead sentence. I think it should be accepted without them. If anyone disagrees I will put some or all of them back. Agadant ( talk) 22:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
A PhD thesis is an unpublished document and also original research it should not be used for sourcing. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 09:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The non-RS thesis refers to actual crimes, specifically "fraud", (as opposed to civil crimes) in its abstract. There is no indication that the student referred to "policing" as this article used it, as "Web Sheriff" is primarily interested in "civil crimes". It makes abolutely no mention of "Web Sheriff" in its entire content. Thus it rather works against the use of "policing" in this article as a simple matter of fact. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 11:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
( talk) 17:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, we should use encyclopedic language as supported by reliable sources. The phrase "assist their customers in securing and protecting their intellectual property against copyright violators" is appropriate for WP and if "Internet policing" is not supported by reliable sources it should not be used. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.thefader.com/2011/04/25/respect-yourself-interview-with-the-web-sheriff/#ixzz1W5XNC02E Agadant ( talk) 00:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Progress will come by taking one issue at a time, discussing it, creating consensus and then making changes to the article. In the above thread with the nebulous title "Balance" there are proposals and fragmented discussions about 1)Expanding the lead 2)Creating an "Operations" section 3)Adding text about clients and so on. I don't see this as productive. Can we handle one issue at a time and have a separate thread for each? I think this would be more productive. Thanks. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Achieving a neutral tone and appropriate balance in an encyclopedia article is always a tricky task - even more so if the topic is somewhat contentiousness. Looking at the earlier version of this article I can see reasons for editing and pruning, though in going from that version to the current version something has been lost. In particular the lead has been cut back so far that it doesn't give an effective overview per WP:Lead. Agadant and I have worked together in the past on the Van Morrison article, and while we didn't always agree, I found Agadant to be a conscientious editor, and someone prepared to negotiate (see [7], [8] and [9]). Agadant has asked me to look into this issue as a neutral editor. Disputes and discussions are important elements in the progress of a Wikipedia article, as through the crucible of strong debate an article is hardened, and a fair balance is achieved. I feel that it is worth looking into achieving a balance between the previous version and the current one, and would be prepared to help in achieving that balance. I would ask though that all people involved concentrate on the issues and not on the editors. There has been too much personal comment which simply annoys people, brings in bad feelings and gets in the way of building the article. As far as I can see everyone here wishes to achieve the same thing - to get a fair, accurate and informative article on Web Sheriff. We can do that better and more comfortably by not commenting on other editors, just on the article itself. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the Description section, it may be that much of that could be used as the lead, and then go straight to the History section. Some of the important elements from the History section should also appear in the lead. And some of the responses from "fans" and other observers. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The recently changed second paragraph in the lead, one made and posted without discussion, does not adequately describe the work of the company. The wording is not an improvement at all as it does not explain why the subject is interesting or notable and does not summarize the most important points. The previous one was more descriptive and I have added a referral to the recent changes in the company's operating methods. Agadant ( talk) 04:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
A section on operating methods seems very appropriate, and such a section could be restored and written informatively and neutrally. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Reception is a better title than Fan reactions - some material from the previous In the media section might be considered for Reception. The previous article version had a Clients section. Much of the material from that has been condensed into the current History section. I'm not sure either approach works effectively and it would be worth looking into a different solution.
I feel that with everyone's positive assistance this article could be made into something very helpful and informative for the general reader. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
@Collect. Thanks for your input. Can you clarify the problem with stating that the organisation deals with a range of clients? My understanding is that it does not just deal with musicians or record companies, but also with film companies and with celebrities, as well as other clients, such as newspapers. What specific problem do you see with giving such information? SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
@Cameron Scot. Thanks also for giving your view. The more input we have the better balanced and informative the article will become. Could you expand a bit on your comment. Why do you feel the very short lead is adequate? What do you perceive will be the problem with developing the lead so it gives the sort of comprehensive overview suggested by WP:Lead? SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
@Agadant. I note that the lead has been developed while there are still views opposed to its development. There is no rush in building the article, and it would be preferable to address concerns before implementing changes. It is OK to make suggested edits if objections have been met on the talkpage, and a reasonable time has passed with no further objections. If objections do continue, and there is a deadlock, then further outside opinions are sought. I would prefer that progress is made by consensus on the article, and am prepared to lock it if there is edit warring, so then edits can ONLY be made by consensus, even by an admin. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
@SilkTork: The first paragraph and last sentence of the Reception section do not belong there but should be included in an Operations section. I'll work on a new section to be included and post it here for your response and any changes you may suggest soon. This section would perhaps be the most informative and useful in the article, IMO. Agadant ( talk) 19:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've had my say and you've had yours. I'm sure SilkTork is a good editor and I welcome him and all the other editors here as collaborators in this endeavor. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Esquire Magazine
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).QMagVM
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).latimes
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).independent Chicane
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).villagevoice
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WS guardian
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BBCRadio 6
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Watching you
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).musicweekblocparty
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).timesonlineArctic
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).mailonsunday2005
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
MensHealth
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).TheScotsman
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).thefader
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).JG/MC
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).In May 2011, when a Web Sheriff protected album, Born This Way, by Lady Gaga, leaked a week before release, fans were offered official material such as tracks and videos in return for not posting copies of it on sites. Web Sheriff reported that when a mailbox was set up for reporting leaks, tens of thousands of fans responded and sent in links to copies due to the fans' loyalty and bond to the artist. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14536664
Are there any constructive suggestions for improvements or changes to this write-up? Agadant ( talk) 03:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
This information below also belongs in the history section: Agadant ( talk) 07:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Nick Bracegirdle with Chicane hired Web Sheriff in 2007 to prevent leaks from his album Somersault after selling his Ferrari and mortgaging his home to finance it. Chicane's 2003 album, Easy to Assemble was so widely pirated by a Russian counterfeiter alone, selling thousands of copies with a sleeve from a previous album with the title digitally removed, that it was never officially released. [1] [2] http://www.billboard.com/news/chicane-takes-self-financed-route-back-to-1003611679.story#/news/chicane-takes-self-financed-route-back-to-1003611679.story http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/music/frontier-lawmen-1050557.html
The link to the album goes to an entirely different band so you might want to find the correct one. --
Cameron Scott (
talk)
11:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I see edits being made, and there is some discussion taking place. Is progress being made? Any problems? SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
' I agree with Keithbob - the tone and presentation in the article is repeatedly changed to have a less encyclopedic tone and to less accurately represent the sources. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
"'Drive-by tagging'" is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies"
(1) CNET source: Antipiracy firms patrol the Web looking for unauthorized copies of the music or movies they are hired to protect and must act fast when they do. Giacobbi's staff rushes to send a takedown notice to tracking sites like TorrentSpy and IsoHunt. These search engines don't host any copyright material but are often used by file sharers to track down pirated movies or songs they want.
(5) Billboard: "Web Sheriff still searches the Web for unauthorized music files and then either issues take- down notices or threatens lawsuits on behalf of clients like Adele, Beyoncé and Lady Gaga. But Gi- acobbi says such work accounts for less than half of the company’s activity these days. The kinder, gentler Web Sheriff also tries to establish a relationship with fan sites, blogs and other websites to provide them with music the artist has made avail- able for sharing, along with links to artists’ Facebook, YouTube and Myspace profiles, not to mention their official website. The idea, Giacobbi says, is to engage with an artist’s fans through the online resources where they congregate most and attempt to direct them to artist-friendly content in hopes they’ll leave the leaked stuff alone."
(6)MensHealth: "what we do differently is ask the bloggers to take the leak down, but then give them a couple of official, sanctioned songs or clips from the artist or label that they can listen to and post for free. It kind of turns a negative experience, the whole anti-piracy thing, into a much more positive one."
Sources: (4) Rolling Stone: "in 2007, Prince went even further - attempting to scrub himself fro the Web entirely." Web Sheriff's most agressive policing was for Prince - who hired the company in 2007 with the idea of disappearing entirely from the internet." (22) The Times: "These are steps that the ever innovative Prince is taking to reclaim his art on the internet," a spokesman for the star said. "Prince believes strongly that as an artist the music rights must remain with the artist and thus copyrights should be protected across the board."Very few artists have ever taken this kind of action over their rights. Yet Prince has showed time and time again he is ready to challenge the system in new ways to put artists and music first."
Sources: (36)TorrentFreak: "RLSLOG, one of the world’s most popular release news sites, has been taken down following action by Web Sheriff. The site, which did not host any copyright material whatsoever, has been down for two days after the UK-based outfit issued complaints to the site’s host and the ir bandwidth provider. The site will return." (37)DMV: " the founder and operator of RLSLOG, told TorrentFreak he is looking for a new hosting company for the site, which was also taken offline last year following complaints from anti-piracy firm Web Sheriff."
Sources: (7) Spokesman Review: "Web Sheriff does not use technical tools to interfere with a site or add bogus files to some sharing sites to discourage piracy, he added. Its primary method is identifying the people who run targeted music-sharing sites. (11)Fader: "Obviously we have our own proprietary software and web crawlers that crawl the web" (1)Cnet: Giacobbi's secret sauce is relying more on phone calls than automated systems to spit out takedown notices. The former music industry attorney said his company relies on relationship building more than technology. (12) Esquire: "we use web-crawler programmes"
A Bot was sent in today to archive past NPOV discussions Bot archiving. There has never before been Bot archiving on this article! It was most importantly once again hiding from immediate view the fact that this article was found to not be an advert in March, 2011 by HelloAnnyong.
I reverted it rightly as the editor who put this up before the board had done so with the premise that: "Web Sheriff reads like an advert. Four NPOV discussions have been started by different people in the last year..." Therefore those discussions should be right out there for all to see. It is an attempt to subvert a fair observance of what is going on here by any outside interested parties. I was reverted by Tarc here - WOW - in six minutes time, providing further evidence that the article has been unfairly singled out for special prejudiced treatment by a selective group of POV editors backed up by the NPOV Noticeboard - of all things. Agadant ( talk) 19:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
You are now fighting with the archiving bot as well? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 14:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I have reverted an edit by anon IP who was previously known as Luisarfs and who left a previous discussion that was closed after he or HelloAnnYong made no reply for over 30 days. I had to make his suggested edit about Peter Sunde for him. He is an editor from Portugal who edits about a competing organization on anti-piracy enforcement. He is removing sourced material. HelloAnnYong also left the discussion at the same time with no further discussion. Agadant ( talk) 02:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Terms and descriptions used in edit summaries have been completely out of line, provoking and insulting. This latest used by the worst offender is completely uncivil and offensive and since I was the one whose edit he changed, I have to assume it was personally directed towards me. How could anyone not believe this attack on the article is not personally motivated when terms such as this are used by Cameron Scott - remember we are not here to give the company a blow-job - [2] All but the barest descriptions are being reversed. The company is not even being allowed to be called an "international policing company". He has changed that often used term to an organization which is effect, not correct. Agadant ( talk) 10:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It is not involved in policing (which has a very specific meaning) in any way. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 10:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
This is the biggest issue that you have not addressed: Terms and descriptions used in edit summaries have been completely out of line, provoking and insulting. This latest used by the worst offender is completely uncivil and offensive and since I was the one whose edit he changed, I have to assume it was personally directed towards me. How could anyone not believe this attack on the article is not personally motived when terms such as this are used by Cameron Scott - remember we are not here to give the company a blow-job - [3] Agadant ( talk) 11:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I've used the phrase multiple times on multiple articles, it's simply a phrase, it's not aimed at anyone in particular. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 11:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
NO MATTER HOW MANY OF HIS FRIENDS DEFEND HIM, IT STILL STANDS HE WAS OFFENSIVE AND INSULTING! JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO SAY IT'S OKAY DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. Agadant ( talk) 12:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I've fully protected this article for three days. I don't know what's going on here, but you guys need to work it out. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I sincerely hope that I will not look like a fool in 12 hours (at least not more than usual). VQuakr ( talk) 04:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The lede according to WP:Lead does not adequately represent the company - but of course, it will soon as more and more information that was not even close to POV is taken out of it. All links were taken out of the tiny, bare-to-the-minimum lead. Why is that? I notice that this company article has 3 nice paragraphs for the lede and includes internal links. Bridgewater Associates and history - Oh and it also has the word "unique" in the lead, which was removed from this one and called "weasel" word. I believe that is when Cameron Scott referred to my giving the company a BJ for including the word. Agadant ( talk) 21:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The Claim that BT File Sharers "are much more resistant to a friendly approach" is without warrant (at least as is) and not addressed by appropriate research (or really any) in the cited source. While I am sure that they may receive a demand letter, threat, or other sort of legal process if they do not reply/respond to a "friendly" approach, this is a broad and damning/defamatory claim about what is likely a quite broad group. -Unsigned left by 67.11.58.88
I see Keithbob has decided that a company that operates for its clients can not have a client section. Agadant ( talk) 02:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The Million Dollar Homepage This article is a good example for article formatting, section heads, etc.. Pixel Sales would be equivalent to client section in Web Sheriff and Media Attention would be similar to In the Media in Web Sheriff. Agadant ( talk) 23:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) It has a nice little write-up about the founder too and with a quote from him in quote box. Really good article, very informative and nicely put together! Agadant ( talk) 01:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
FA article: The Million Dollar Homepage Compare content on each:
to:
Web Sheriff was founded by former music attorney, John Giacobbi in 2000.[8] Prior to forming Web Sheriff, Giacobbi had been an independent consultant to record labels and artists including Village People. The formation of the company evolved from a need to help Village People retain their rights on the internet, in a time before downloadsbut when the sale of CD bootlegs and other copyright infringements had become a major problem for the band. As their consultant, Giacobbi advised Village People that if something was not done they would lose all their copyrights on the internet. He explained the formation of the company and its naming in an interview for Men's Health: "Much to my surprise, there was no one who really controlled rights at the time, so I stepped up. People used to call the Internet the 'new Wild West', so we thought, who best to ride into town to sort it out than the Web Sheriff?"[5] Giacobbi had previously worked for several prominent music companies including CBS, Warner/Chappell Music,Zomba Label Group and RCA/BMG.[10] Steve Orchard, CEO for Quidem and former group operations director and board member of GCap Media acts as chairman of the corporation.[11] Orchard, a graduate ofUniversity of Oxford, started a career in radio in 1985 as a DJ with GWR Bristol. During the 1990s he was group programme director of GWR, programme director of Classic FM and operations director for GWR's local radio division.[12] The company has offices in Marlborough and London and a team of twenty employees working shifts for clients on a twenty-four basis with a seven day work week.[1][13]
Why would we use an article about a website as a basis to build an article about a company? All I see here is IDIDNTHEARTHAT and (for reasons unknown) a desperate attempt to make sure that a client list is included. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 13:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:NN "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability."
In the media or media attention: (these are only the major, most prominent sources of coverage)
Web Sheriff has been featured in articles in Rolling Stone, [1] Esquire, [2] Q, [3] Los Angeles Times, [4] The Independent, [5] The Village Voice, [6] The Guardian, [7] BBC Radio 6, [8] Evening Standard, [9] Music Week [10] CNET, [11] The Times, [12] The Mail on Sunday, [13] Folha de S. Paulo, [14] CBS, [15] Men's Health, [16] The Scotsman, [17] Syndicated News, [18] The Fader [19] and other newspapers, journals and news media. [20]
Plus add recently:
Huffington Post John Giacobbi
Music Connection: August 2011 P. 22 Music connection Digital copy
Just a few independent quotations from reliable sources about the company:
Huffington Post: "Web Sheriff Founder John Giacobbi is long renowned as the leading anti-piracy specialist in the music industry Since founding Web Sheriff, clients have ranged from all-time legends such as MICHAEL JACKSON, DYLAN, PRINCE and VAN MORRISON, through to today’s hottest artists, such as LADY GAGA, ADELE and BEYONCE, "
The Los Angeles Times: "[Web Sheriff] has emerged as a leading advocate of the soft sell in representing artists including Bob Dylan, Van Morrison, the Prodigy, Adele and others. This gentle, gradual approach -- used on three of the biggest-selling albums of the last year -- represents a sharp turn in the recording industry's life-and-death struggle with piracy, one driven largely by performers and their managers rather than the record companies."
Rolling Stone: "Web Sheriff'client base is growing rapidly...The company provides a range of web-policing services"
Musician Coaching: "John and his company have helped many well-known artists keep the theft of their content to a minimum" "Your company seems as much a fan outreach organization as it does a policing organization,"
The Guardian: "For years ISP's around the world have cooperated wtih his company when he's brought copyright infringement to their attentions."
The Fader: "a pretty weird thing: an artist-hired, sometimes clandestine but always incredibly personable copyright enforcement agency that continues to leave a very real mark on art on the internet, probably differently than forces before them" Agadant ( talk) 16:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm really not sure how we are going to proceed here - your frankly odd behaviour and statements are not conductive to good editing. Your constant IDIDNTHEARTHAT about the client list (you seems increasingly desperate to get that in - like someone is relying on you to do so) and your transformation into a SPI are also troubling. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 08:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
By the way, "Web Sheriff" remains "barely notable". It is mentioned in some articles about Prince's legal actions. With essentially no content beyond (for example) " In September Prince appointed the internet company Web Sheriff to police the removal of up to 2000 clips from YouTube." Such mentions do not particularly inspire a belief that the company is especially notable. Many of the cites found are press releases, which are deprecated as sources, if I recall correctly. Most cites, in fact, are not RS as they are SPS sources using press releases for content etc. I am unsure that BUZZMEDIA [4] qualifies as a reliable source as it has "paid for" celebrity "official site" pages. The only "solid" cit appears to be BBC News - and that article is primarily about the stars and not about "Web Sheriff". John Giacobbi, founder of internet security company Web Sheriff, which has worked with such artists as Lady Gaga, Beyonce and Adele, says pre-release leaks are virtually inevitable. may help in calling Giacobbi notable, but it does not really make "Web Sheriff" notable." Collect ( talk) 16:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Web Sheriff has been featured in articles in Rolling Stone, [1] Esquire, [2] Q, [3] Los Angeles Times, [4] The Independent, [5] The Village Voice, [6] The Guardian, [7] BBC Radio 6, [8] Evening Standard, [9] Music Week [10] CNET, [11] The Times, [12] The Mail on Sunday, [13] Folha de S. Paulo, [14] CBS, [15] Men's Health, [16] The Scotsman, [17] Syndicated News, [18] The Fader [19] and other newspapers, journals and news media. [20] Huffington Post John Giacobbi Music Connection: August 2011 P. 22 Music connection Digital copy
What's this about BUZZMEDIA? I don't believe I added that at all? I don't see it in the article's list of references? Agadant ( talk) 16:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
John Giacobbi Music Connection: August 2011 P. 22 - Music connection Digital copy Very reliable sources - Rolling Stone, Esquire, Q, Men's Health etc etc etc and definitely prove notability... most are visible on line: just find them in the history and the refs will be live to view. The titles I believe show the articles feature on Web Sheriff, BTW. Why do you continue to ignore them? I'm really puzzled. Agadant ( talk)
Internet "policing" by a private company is a valid description as referred to in this thesis from University of Leeds. [5] I think the 5 sources, I included to back it up look cumbersome in the lead sentence. I think it should be accepted without them. If anyone disagrees I will put some or all of them back. Agadant ( talk) 22:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
A PhD thesis is an unpublished document and also original research it should not be used for sourcing. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 09:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The non-RS thesis refers to actual crimes, specifically "fraud", (as opposed to civil crimes) in its abstract. There is no indication that the student referred to "policing" as this article used it, as "Web Sheriff" is primarily interested in "civil crimes". It makes abolutely no mention of "Web Sheriff" in its entire content. Thus it rather works against the use of "policing" in this article as a simple matter of fact. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 11:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
( talk) 17:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, we should use encyclopedic language as supported by reliable sources. The phrase "assist their customers in securing and protecting their intellectual property against copyright violators" is appropriate for WP and if "Internet policing" is not supported by reliable sources it should not be used. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.thefader.com/2011/04/25/respect-yourself-interview-with-the-web-sheriff/#ixzz1W5XNC02E Agadant ( talk) 00:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Progress will come by taking one issue at a time, discussing it, creating consensus and then making changes to the article. In the above thread with the nebulous title "Balance" there are proposals and fragmented discussions about 1)Expanding the lead 2)Creating an "Operations" section 3)Adding text about clients and so on. I don't see this as productive. Can we handle one issue at a time and have a separate thread for each? I think this would be more productive. Thanks. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Achieving a neutral tone and appropriate balance in an encyclopedia article is always a tricky task - even more so if the topic is somewhat contentiousness. Looking at the earlier version of this article I can see reasons for editing and pruning, though in going from that version to the current version something has been lost. In particular the lead has been cut back so far that it doesn't give an effective overview per WP:Lead. Agadant and I have worked together in the past on the Van Morrison article, and while we didn't always agree, I found Agadant to be a conscientious editor, and someone prepared to negotiate (see [7], [8] and [9]). Agadant has asked me to look into this issue as a neutral editor. Disputes and discussions are important elements in the progress of a Wikipedia article, as through the crucible of strong debate an article is hardened, and a fair balance is achieved. I feel that it is worth looking into achieving a balance between the previous version and the current one, and would be prepared to help in achieving that balance. I would ask though that all people involved concentrate on the issues and not on the editors. There has been too much personal comment which simply annoys people, brings in bad feelings and gets in the way of building the article. As far as I can see everyone here wishes to achieve the same thing - to get a fair, accurate and informative article on Web Sheriff. We can do that better and more comfortably by not commenting on other editors, just on the article itself. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the Description section, it may be that much of that could be used as the lead, and then go straight to the History section. Some of the important elements from the History section should also appear in the lead. And some of the responses from "fans" and other observers. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The recently changed second paragraph in the lead, one made and posted without discussion, does not adequately describe the work of the company. The wording is not an improvement at all as it does not explain why the subject is interesting or notable and does not summarize the most important points. The previous one was more descriptive and I have added a referral to the recent changes in the company's operating methods. Agadant ( talk) 04:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
A section on operating methods seems very appropriate, and such a section could be restored and written informatively and neutrally. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Reception is a better title than Fan reactions - some material from the previous In the media section might be considered for Reception. The previous article version had a Clients section. Much of the material from that has been condensed into the current History section. I'm not sure either approach works effectively and it would be worth looking into a different solution.
I feel that with everyone's positive assistance this article could be made into something very helpful and informative for the general reader. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
@Collect. Thanks for your input. Can you clarify the problem with stating that the organisation deals with a range of clients? My understanding is that it does not just deal with musicians or record companies, but also with film companies and with celebrities, as well as other clients, such as newspapers. What specific problem do you see with giving such information? SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
@Cameron Scot. Thanks also for giving your view. The more input we have the better balanced and informative the article will become. Could you expand a bit on your comment. Why do you feel the very short lead is adequate? What do you perceive will be the problem with developing the lead so it gives the sort of comprehensive overview suggested by WP:Lead? SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
@Agadant. I note that the lead has been developed while there are still views opposed to its development. There is no rush in building the article, and it would be preferable to address concerns before implementing changes. It is OK to make suggested edits if objections have been met on the talkpage, and a reasonable time has passed with no further objections. If objections do continue, and there is a deadlock, then further outside opinions are sought. I would prefer that progress is made by consensus on the article, and am prepared to lock it if there is edit warring, so then edits can ONLY be made by consensus, even by an admin. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
@SilkTork: The first paragraph and last sentence of the Reception section do not belong there but should be included in an Operations section. I'll work on a new section to be included and post it here for your response and any changes you may suggest soon. This section would perhaps be the most informative and useful in the article, IMO. Agadant ( talk) 19:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've had my say and you've had yours. I'm sure SilkTork is a good editor and I welcome him and all the other editors here as collaborators in this endeavor. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Esquire Magazine
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).QMagVM
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).latimes
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).independent Chicane
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).villagevoice
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WS guardian
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BBCRadio 6
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Watching you
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).musicweekblocparty
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).timesonlineArctic
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).mailonsunday2005
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
MensHealth
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).TheScotsman
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).thefader
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).JG/MC
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).In May 2011, when a Web Sheriff protected album, Born This Way, by Lady Gaga, leaked a week before release, fans were offered official material such as tracks and videos in return for not posting copies of it on sites. Web Sheriff reported that when a mailbox was set up for reporting leaks, tens of thousands of fans responded and sent in links to copies due to the fans' loyalty and bond to the artist. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14536664
Are there any constructive suggestions for improvements or changes to this write-up? Agadant ( talk) 03:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
This information below also belongs in the history section: Agadant ( talk) 07:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Nick Bracegirdle with Chicane hired Web Sheriff in 2007 to prevent leaks from his album Somersault after selling his Ferrari and mortgaging his home to finance it. Chicane's 2003 album, Easy to Assemble was so widely pirated by a Russian counterfeiter alone, selling thousands of copies with a sleeve from a previous album with the title digitally removed, that it was never officially released. [1] [2] http://www.billboard.com/news/chicane-takes-self-financed-route-back-to-1003611679.story#/news/chicane-takes-self-financed-route-back-to-1003611679.story http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/music/frontier-lawmen-1050557.html
The link to the album goes to an entirely different band so you might want to find the correct one. --
Cameron Scott (
talk)
11:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I see edits being made, and there is some discussion taking place. Is progress being made? Any problems? SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
' I agree with Keithbob - the tone and presentation in the article is repeatedly changed to have a less encyclopedic tone and to less accurately represent the sources. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
"'Drive-by tagging'" is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies"
(1) CNET source: Antipiracy firms patrol the Web looking for unauthorized copies of the music or movies they are hired to protect and must act fast when they do. Giacobbi's staff rushes to send a takedown notice to tracking sites like TorrentSpy and IsoHunt. These search engines don't host any copyright material but are often used by file sharers to track down pirated movies or songs they want.
(5) Billboard: "Web Sheriff still searches the Web for unauthorized music files and then either issues take- down notices or threatens lawsuits on behalf of clients like Adele, Beyoncé and Lady Gaga. But Gi- acobbi says such work accounts for less than half of the company’s activity these days. The kinder, gentler Web Sheriff also tries to establish a relationship with fan sites, blogs and other websites to provide them with music the artist has made avail- able for sharing, along with links to artists’ Facebook, YouTube and Myspace profiles, not to mention their official website. The idea, Giacobbi says, is to engage with an artist’s fans through the online resources where they congregate most and attempt to direct them to artist-friendly content in hopes they’ll leave the leaked stuff alone."
(6)MensHealth: "what we do differently is ask the bloggers to take the leak down, but then give them a couple of official, sanctioned songs or clips from the artist or label that they can listen to and post for free. It kind of turns a negative experience, the whole anti-piracy thing, into a much more positive one."
Sources: (4) Rolling Stone: "in 2007, Prince went even further - attempting to scrub himself fro the Web entirely." Web Sheriff's most agressive policing was for Prince - who hired the company in 2007 with the idea of disappearing entirely from the internet." (22) The Times: "These are steps that the ever innovative Prince is taking to reclaim his art on the internet," a spokesman for the star said. "Prince believes strongly that as an artist the music rights must remain with the artist and thus copyrights should be protected across the board."Very few artists have ever taken this kind of action over their rights. Yet Prince has showed time and time again he is ready to challenge the system in new ways to put artists and music first."
Sources: (36)TorrentFreak: "RLSLOG, one of the world’s most popular release news sites, has been taken down following action by Web Sheriff. The site, which did not host any copyright material whatsoever, has been down for two days after the UK-based outfit issued complaints to the site’s host and the ir bandwidth provider. The site will return." (37)DMV: " the founder and operator of RLSLOG, told TorrentFreak he is looking for a new hosting company for the site, which was also taken offline last year following complaints from anti-piracy firm Web Sheriff."
Sources: (7) Spokesman Review: "Web Sheriff does not use technical tools to interfere with a site or add bogus files to some sharing sites to discourage piracy, he added. Its primary method is identifying the people who run targeted music-sharing sites. (11)Fader: "Obviously we have our own proprietary software and web crawlers that crawl the web" (1)Cnet: Giacobbi's secret sauce is relying more on phone calls than automated systems to spit out takedown notices. The former music industry attorney said his company relies on relationship building more than technology. (12) Esquire: "we use web-crawler programmes"
A Bot was sent in today to archive past NPOV discussions Bot archiving. There has never before been Bot archiving on this article! It was most importantly once again hiding from immediate view the fact that this article was found to not be an advert in March, 2011 by HelloAnnyong.
I reverted it rightly as the editor who put this up before the board had done so with the premise that: "Web Sheriff reads like an advert. Four NPOV discussions have been started by different people in the last year..." Therefore those discussions should be right out there for all to see. It is an attempt to subvert a fair observance of what is going on here by any outside interested parties. I was reverted by Tarc here - WOW - in six minutes time, providing further evidence that the article has been unfairly singled out for special prejudiced treatment by a selective group of POV editors backed up by the NPOV Noticeboard - of all things. Agadant ( talk) 19:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
You are now fighting with the archiving bot as well? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 14:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)