Talk:Experience Project

Notability
See WP:WEB for establishing notability. University press (stanford, bruins) aren't usable to establish notability. Nor are blogs. While 2 come from CNET and Wired, the CNET one seems to be written by a vague individual with no explanation of qualifications or anything else. The forbes mention is extremely trivial at best.--Crossmr (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply: The CNET review is written by Rafe Needleman, a Director of CNET, not a 'vague individual' Conserrnd (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree: This article should be either deleted or improved. It fails to list the reasons this project was shut down, and fails to provide any notability for the project in the first place. Personally, I feel that the project was of historic interest, but such notability must be justified by reliable sources, not by any WP editor or contributor. The existence of this article violates WP policies and intent. David Spector (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

"Enforced anonymity" along with other terms of service, is not a reality of the site.
 The site emphasizes anonymity to promote conversations unhindered by fear of recognition or embarrassment, going so far as to forbid the use of real names

There is no such rule on the web site although it's always difficult to prove the absence of something.

But going by the guidelines that are part of the Terms of Service, , some don't seem to be enforced at all. It seems tiresome to go back to sexual subjects, but such of them are these: "Experience Project is NOT a place for fantasy, titillation, pornography, sexual harassment, or sexual solicitation. Advocating sexual behavior towards minors, or promoting behavior generally considered illegal in the United States (such as immediate family incest), is not appropriate, and is subject to removal. Likewise, do NOT send another member unsolicited or unprovoked sexual content."

But a search of the site produces a list of exactly those things that are forbidden. Along with that, then, if there is such an enforced anonymity, it's no big surprise that it's not enforced anyway. I have edited the article. 74.226.93.31 (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Forbes article
The link to the Forbes article is not good. It's a link to join Forbes and once you join, you still can't find the article. In addition, the name of the article is incorrect: It is 'Anonymity & the Net' not 'Anonymity on the Net.' Here is a link to the actual article: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1015/074.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.140.135.143 (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No longer an advertisement
I didn't think the page read particularly like an advert but could see some traces of that.

I rewrote the page to take out all the parts that sounded like advertisement.

Having done that, I also deleted the suggestion to do it and the claim that it reads like an advert.

LeoHeska (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)