Talk:Citysocializer/Archives/2015

Complaint
My particular concern is with CitySocialising reporting that they have 120,000 members on this Wikipedia page. They arrive at this figure by counting every member who has ever used their site, even if they have ceased paying any subscriptions and have no longer gone to any events for several years. This is borne out by the large number of visible member profiles where the member last attended a social event in 2008 or 2009, and also the fact that despite supposedly having 120,000 members, they did back down on the Facebook login issue due to the few hundred strong "vocal minority" who threatened to cancel their membership.

Therefore, including this 120,000 figure in the Wikipedia entry as a fact is misleading (because people will think that it does actually have 120,000 active members, when it does not), and appears more as an advertisement for CitySocialising than anything else. Since it is not possible to determine the number of active members (only that it is much lower than 120,000), this figure should be removed, or qualified by a statement indicating that it is their own management estimate rather than an absolute fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.191.9 (talk • contribs)

Previous entry has not been "signed". Mine begins here:

My concern is that this article has been locked without proper thought or assessment. The edits that I have made have been accurate reportage of a significant development in City Socialising - namely the decision by the company to insist that users could login solely through Facebook. This caused huge resentment among very many (paying) members: this is verifiable from the blog posts that CS posted on their own site (see http://blog.citysocialising.com/). What is no longer easily verifiable is the fact that CS deleted all posts to these blogs that opposed their proposed change,and prevented any further posts. What they were unable to remove was the independent "iPetition" on the subject (links are unfortunately blocked by Wikipedia, but can be found by searching for iPetition and No Facebook login). There has been constant deletion of changes to this article - to remove any adverse comments - with the result that it now reads as an advertisement for the company. It is for these reasons that, in the interest of producing a balanced article, I have attempted to include these more "negative" aspects of the company's policies. You may note that they pulled back from their decision with just a day or two to go - and yet they still cannot tolerate any mention of their awful attitude towards their customers. Hence the reference link to "censorship", because that is what CS management has been about - in an attempt to prevent any further bad publicity (resulting from their ill-thought out decisions). RearGuards RearGuards (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem with this article are the lack of sources. We need reliable secondary sources or 95% of this article can be wiped clean with legitimacy by any user. SarahStierch (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone. I took the time to actually rewrite the article with secondary sources on my userspace, including the correct spelling of the company. Please take a look. I consider it suitable and neutral now, and upon unlocking I'll probably just copy and paste it over. Thanks! Go here to view my version: User:SarahStierch/CitySocialising SarahStierch (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely that what are needed are reliable sources, but this exemplifies the problem I have highlighted already. How exactly does one provide references in this electronic arena when a company such as CitySocialising engages in wholesale censorship of views expressed by its members that are opposed to the public face that the company is seeking to present? CitySocialising was set up - notionally - as a means whereby people could use online links to arrange to meet. A laudable aim, of course. However, the commercial imperative that began to develop caused the company to become dismissive of their members. Now, had the entire system been free to use, people would have voted with their feet, or keypad digits, and simply have left, but in this instance they were, in essence, shareholders in the enterprise. When a company - whether big or small - feels it can ignore the wishes of its shareholders, then trouble generally ensues. This is what occurred with CitySocialising when they decided to pursue the idea that members would be forced to login through Facebook. Attempts were made, on the CitySocialising blogs, to claim that this would not lead to a breach of privacy, but numerous well-informed contributions pointed out the falsehood in such claims. The response from CitySocialising was to begin deleting blog entries that contradicted their view and, when challenged, deny that any censorship was taking place. As I have pointed out, this can be verified by the entries, timed and dated, that were made on the "iPetition". Eventually, when protest became too great, the company simply deleted all entries on their blogs and prevented any being made. Now, to my mind (and that of many others active in these protests), this is a straightforward case of an assault on civil liberties and of corporate "untruths". If CitySocialising is allowed, through Wikipedia, to present itself as an honest and straight-dealing commercial outfit, and can simply consign anything it dislikes to the electronic "memory hole", then we have truly arrived at Orwell's "1984". I find it ironic that SarahStierch feels that she can take upon herself the right to oversee all edits regarding this company. Has she any direct knowledge of the company? And if so, are they associations with its corporate structure? Would she feel the same about the criticism of the company and CEO, I have to ask, were the CEO of CitySocialising a male, rather than an under-35 female? I am astounded that she feels confident enough to state that, once unlocked, she will probably just copy and paste her version onto the article - conveniently having removed any negative material which might give free-thinking people pause for thought before getting involved with the company! Just ask yourself: if one of the big banks was behaving in this fashion, would you be so eager to remove truthful but negative comments? RearGuards (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @RearGuards. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006. I live in the United States. I didn't know anything about this website until I decided to participate in helping to rewrite the content. Nor do I ever intend on using the website. I am merely trying to get this article unlocked and working to keep it neutral, as seen in our neutral point of view policy. Wikipedia is editable by anyone, and as a user I have the right to do whatever I wish in regards to rewriting this content. I have rewritten this article to reflect a neutral point of view, so that it does not appear to be an advertisement, and has reliable secondary sources. This follows the policy of Wikipedia. Learn more here:
 * Neutral point of view
 * No original research
 * CHALLENGE
 * SOURCES
 * If you can provide reliable secondary sources regarding corporate untruths that have been published, I would support that content being added into the article. I hate to say this, but, I believe your negativity and uncivil manner is the primary reason why this article is locked. I hope you'll take the time to understand that Wikipedia is not here to provide a sounding board for consumer concerns. If you are concerned about unethical business practices and this organization, perhaps you should take that up with the appropriate legal or ethical organizations. I would also appreciate it if you would keep attacking comments to yourself. If you have a problem with my own behavior and contributions you can bring those up with administrative volunteers. SarahStierch (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

SarahSteich, That you live in the United States (I believe you mean the United States of America) is evident from your novel use of language and grammar. I would point out, first of all, that the CitySocialising article lies within "WikiProject United Kingdom" (I shan't bore everyone with the correct title of the country...), and I had - perhaps naively - presumed that contributions would be made by people with first-hand knowledge of both the subject of the article and of the country. Clearly your wide experience permits you to feel quite secure in making contributions across the web, regardless of geographic, linguistic or cultural differences. And jolly good - I wouldn't wish you to become further enraged by the suggestion that you are indulging in American cultural imperialism. Now, I think you misunderstand the meaning of "neutral". Something may be neutral but nonetheless critical - provided that criticism is factually true. It is rather tiresome that I must keep repeating this point, but perhaps you have not really taken it on board: the comments I made in my edits are based upon fact, and can be verified - most easily by looking at the history of the "iPetition" to which I have referred. Regrettably Wikipedia seems to bar links to the "iPetition" site, so it is not a matter of simply providing a hyperlink. Since this article relates to a company that exists online, and has gone to great lengths to censor any views that oppose its corporate policy, then these surely are relevant facts that need to be included? As for referring this matter to administrative volunteers, then please do so. Any truly independent reading of the article and its various edits will certainly support my view. RearGuards (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there is some press coverage of the iPetition petition, perhaps in the business press. You need a reliable source to put information in a Wikipedia article, at least for controversial information. Your personal experience is not a proper source. What's with all the chauvinism? User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)