Talk:Ello (social network)/Archive 1

Category:Internet properties established in 2013
Should this be change to "Internet properties established in 2014"? Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Out of beta
I believe Ello.co is now out of beta. All features are in place, finally. Serves seems to be able to handle the quantity of messages posted. Activity you can see is depended upon who you follow, but thanks to discovery and starred modus, this has now been overcome.
 * There's still a beta indication on the site when I'm there. "Beta 2.2", as of a few minutes ago. Bottom left corner of at least the "discover" page. --joe deckertalk 16:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Prod not appropriate
Prod not appropriate here, this subject has gotten loads of secondary source discussion. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Listing Diaspora as failed to attract a significant userbase is inappropriate
According to Diaspora statistics hub Diaspora has more than a million users in total which is quite a large number for a young network. — Bahaltener (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Path is listed on its article as having 4 million users in Indonesia (no figure is given for total userbase), but was also listed as a "failed" example.
 * I have removed the entire section, as it was too woolly to be useful. "Significant number" is so hard to define that examples will always be disputed, and without examples it's just waffle.
 * What it appeared to be getting at was "compete with Facebook in a serious way", but it's not even clear which social networks are intending to compete rather than coexist. Of the three examples mentioned, the article on Path explicitly mentions it not aiming to compete, and the descriptions of both App.net and Diaspora make them sound much more like Twitter competitors. And if we take Twitter as a Facebook competitor, then it is most definitely a successful one, and makes mentioning the others even more pointless.
 * If someone wants to come up with a more informative version of the section - such as a reference showing Ello growing significantly faster or bigger than other networks - feel free to add it. - IMSoP (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For the reference Diaspora is viewed as competing with both Twitter and Facebook, since it shares many features with both. I agree that such section is pointless however and looks more like an off-topic polemics. Still it might be worth adding a section on criticism of Ello itself, since some criticized Ello for failing to implement claimed goals by substantial means (unlike other social networks which actually address issues like decentralization properly). — Bahaltener (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Criticism
Criticism of Ello is valid, and deleting the section is inappropriate. The source of criticism is one of the early supporters of Ello who very clearly highlights its problems. There is no problem with quoting him, especially since all that information is factual (such as the fact that Ello is centralized, closed source and so on). Please don't vandalize the page and don't delete the section. — Bahaltener (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RS - a blog, especially that of one of its early supporters who may have an axe to grind, is NOT a reliable source. Please assume good faith and do not throw around the word vandalism when my edit clearly wasn't. I've been around here for years and I do know what I am doing.--ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I already explained, that criticism expressed in that post is all factual. That source is brought as demonstration that there is criticism expressed, not as source for facts that are being criticized. As such it's a valid source. If you think that facts themselves on which the criticism is based aren't well covered or need extra sources - that's a different matter, and you could explain that point. But that's not what you said before. — Bahaltener (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Factual" isn't a standard for anything on Wikipedia. Criticism must be supported by reliable sources. A blog, particularly this one, is not a reliable source. This guy may have have an axe to grind here - how do we know that the criticisms are "factual" without reliable sources, he could be making them up. You can't say for sure that he isn't, nor can I say that he is. If you can find some others that meet the standards required by WP:RS then have at it. Still waiting for an apology for being labelled a vandal.--ukexpat (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is existing criticism. Do you disagree that it exists? It's demonstrated by bringing the sources that criticize, as simple as that. I.e. when you mention that criticism exists, you bring the source which criticizes. Then there is a matter of whether that criticism is valid (factual) or it's speculative (for example it's just an opinion not based on factual information). That what I was saying about factual above. If you want to see sources which substantiate these facts, I can clarify that in the article. Those facts are mostly boiling down to these: 1. the network is centralized. 2. the network is closed source. — Bahaltener (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The "criticisms" here are largely unsourced or unsourced to one particular more-or-less-competitor, and your previous edits have tried to pump up this competitor (e.g., removing Diaspora from a list of failed networks but not Path, which has, depending on who you believe, either four times or fifteen times as many users as Diaspora).  If you want to include criticism of Ello, that's fine, but you must do all of the below:
 * Better attempt to honor our neutral point of view policy. Statements must be objective and sourced, subjective statements must never be placed into Wikipedia's voice.
 * Better attempt to honor due weight, the balance of the article should largely reflect the amount and kind of discussion that appears on the topic in reliable, independent sources. PROTIP: competitor web sites are not independent nor, in the meaning of our reliable sources policy, reliable.
 * Avoid criticism sections altogether. This is not to say that we avoid criticism!  This is to say that pros and cons on particular aspects of an article subject are best placed with each other for context.  If the question is one of, say, the alleged size of Ello's userbase, then that discussion should be in a paragraph or a section on userbase estimation, and information and views laid out with an eye toward how those views and facts are laid out, what weight they are given, in reliable independent sources.
 * Also, Bahaltener, please avoid personal attacks, per WP:NPA. This is a policy that can be enforced.
 * In short, Ukexpat has it right, all the way down the line. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the one who put the contrasting comparison with competition in there to begin with, I just disagreed with incorrect statement. I'm OK with removing it altogether since it's not really the focus of the article itself. Criticism however is a valid topic. I agree that facts it's based on should be properly sourced. I listed those key points above. Do you consider this article a good source for #1 that Ello is centralized? http://www.dailydot.com/technology/ello-no-ads-social-web/ — Bahaltener (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Source for venture capital investment, and another one. — Bahaltener (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the problems with a "criticism" section is that it may be easy to find sources for statements such as "Ello is a centralised system", and "Ello has attracted venture capital funding", but it would then be Original Research to directly draw the conclusion that those are flaws in its manifesto. Nor is it acceptable under Wikipedia's Manual of Style to state broadly that these are things that "people have criticised" - see WP:WEASEL.
 * I agree that criticism needs to be substantiated, rather than based on speculatively stretching known facts to conclusions. It's not an original research however, since there are enough published materials on the downsides of centralized social networks and security audit barriers of closed source software. Same goes for monetary interests. If you want to avoid original research issue, I can work on finding more sources to substantiate not just the facts, but claims of the stated criticism. — Bahaltener (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The venture capital could perhaps be mentioned on a section about "funding", along with sourced info on the "donations" and "freemium" upgrades they have announced as planned. If a reputable source could be found stating the risks such investment might bring, that could then be added as a short note, ensuring it is not given undue weight in what is quite a short article. - IMSoP (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just re-read the article, and the discussion of Venture Capital is already right there, in the first para of the History section, so definitely doesn't need repeating with a more words and a worse source lower down. - IMSoP (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Why create Ello as a new social network - when we already have usenet?
Seems that everything that Ello wants to be already exists, and has existed for 20+ years.

It's called usenet.

A social network that can't monetize you, track you, identify you, moderate or censor you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.158.197 (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And you're riding a carriage or what? Usenet is rather fiddly, lots of ISPs don't offer access to newsgroups anymore and you have no control over your content once it's posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.186.62 (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The affiliate loophole
https://ello.co/wtf/post/privacy "Ello does not have any affiliated companies right now. But if we do in the future, we may share information with them, too."

Wouldn't it be important to highlight the loophole they left for themselves, that allows them to share your private information with anyone that becomes an affiliated with them, without those affiliates being restricted from doing anything they want with it? --TiagoTiago (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You see - this is why usenet is superior to any new "social network" in current use. Usenet was the original social network. A distributed network, under nobody's control, can't be commercially exploited, anonymity is garanteed, has a 20+ year track record, is an efficient message-transport system, can't be censored by corporations or governments. You have something important to say? Say it on usenet. Say it with complete anonimity. What you say can't be pulled or erased by anyone. Not the NSA, no gov't, no corporation. Want help fixing your car? With a new cooking recipie? With advice about medication? Usenet is a place to get answers, voice opinions, have arguments, seek attention, get sympathy. No tracking cookies, no google ad-words, no click trackers, no advertising. NO KIDDING! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.158.197 (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested Edits
Hello! We'd like to clarify a few lines. Edits are in bold below. :)

In the first sentence:

Ello is a social networking service created by a group of seven artists and designers in March 2014.

In the History section:

....after a year of private use, the creators began developing a version for public use.

In the info box:

Created by: Paul Budnitz Todd Berger Lucian Föhr Gabe Varela Matthew Kitt Jay Zeschin Justin Gitlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna at ello (talk • contribs) 02:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you have secondary sources that can be cited for these claims (other notable news sites)? You'll probably be tasked by some for trying to use the Ello site itself as a source; Primary sources tend to be frowned upon. Unless, of course, we can form a consensus on this page that the site itself as a source is fine, for only this type of information. --192.222.158.248 (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC) /@immanuel


 * Yes! I added a few articles that mention all 7 founders by name. Anna at ello (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This source looks to be a personal blog and should not be used. According to WIRED it was founded by one Paul Budnitz.Business Insider and The Guardian say the same. Though BusinessWeek does say he was a "co-founder" without specifying who the other co-founders were. CorporateM (Talk) 06:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is Ello's help section. You can also get there by clicking "About" on Ello's landing page. Paul (CEO) does a lot of the interviews and has been mistaken as the only founder, but there are seven in total.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna at ello (talk • contribs) 21:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Ello (social network). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141025192530/https://ello.co/wtf/post/featurelist to https://ello.co/wtf/post/featurelist

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)