Talk:Discovery network

I think the term "Discovery Network" should not be reserved only for Discovery Chanel. We can probably find another way to satisfy Discovery Channel's needs to associate with "Discovery Network".


 * Perhaps, but an article removing the existing redirect must start off with much better references (see the change note for the reversion.) If you can find references (not self-published) which establish Notability and Verifiability for the concept you are referring to, and avoid the second link which is pure advertising, then it would be possible to consider this again. I Searched briefly but could not find anything. There can be an explanatory note at the top of a new article mentioning the previous redirection. Mirokado (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Discovery Network concept, as described in this article, is new. The perfect reference for it is to link to where it appeared first, in order to establish its existence and to trace it's origin. This is the reason for the "Multitude Project" external link. Other references would be different forums, which are volatile, and cannot be linked to directly. There is no paper trace of this new concept yet. As for the second link, its main purpose is to show that this is not only a concept, it is actually put into practice. The second link refers to the first and the only application to date. There is absolutely no commercial intent behind this page. The world needs to know that a new type of economical institution is forming, taking advantage of the new digital technology, based on values such as collaboration, sharing, openness, etc. The architecture of this organization is in the public domain, and can be reproduced anywhere, and by anyone. Furthermore, a new concept dose not have to be verified, it must only be presented. Its place in Wikipedia must mainly rely on its value (social, political, cultural, economical, etc.), not solely on references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.191.199 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. The changes you propose qualify as Original_research "Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term 'original research' refers to material&mdash;such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories [and in this case a new concept]&mdash;not already published by reliable sources." You will need to wait until this new concept is published by such "reliable sources" before mentioning it on Wikipedia.


 * You can indent responses on talk pages by preceding each paragraph by colons (one for each level of indentation. Please sign each comment with four tildes (~) which generate username (or IP in your case) and the date. Mirokado (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)