Talk:Leaf Group/Archives/2014

Please don't Speedily Delete this article again
This article has been deleted multiple times because of COI. It doesn't help that the originating author has no history and has a username that starts with "DM" All that said, I would prefer that the article not be speedily deleted again. It's on my watchlist because of a contribution I made a long time ago about it trashing the maps of Topozone (which was a wikipedia source for topo maps on articles). Further its dumbed down for profit trails.com is still a wikipedia source for topos even if they are now lame. I do find the article helpful. Yes there are excesses but they can cleaned up after the article stabilizes for a few days. The websites it owns are indeed major. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Article seems to be well referenced: keep
I agree that speedy deletion is uncalled for. There is some interesting information here that seems to be supported by legitimate sources. The claim that this web site made the top ten list of growing sites is a verifiable claim, so it is a significant subject. If there are issues not addressed they should be added by other users and supported by legitimate references. Georgiamonet (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

don't see what the fuss is about
Demand Media is a huge internet company that is making waves in the industy. Thats quite an accomplishment for only existing 2 years. The article seems factual. Why would you delete it? 75.42.225.134 (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Reads like an ad
This was clearly entered and/or doctored by someone with an interest in Demand's wellbeing. It's basically advertising. It mentions the acquisitions and successes, the thousands of articles written and paid for...but not the extremely low pay rates and convoluted editorial process. There's also no mention of the writing mill phonemenon, of which organizations such as Demand and Associated Content are major proponents.
 * I've added a new report that said that DM lied about its earnings. Given that, and the COI, we should be very careful about the claims made in the article, even those that are sourced.  - Wikidemon (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "lied" is a little strong. Most of the news indicates they were using some creative accounting to come up with a net profit, not unusual in their industry. tedder (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Disingenuous citing
The first line refers to Demand Media as a "content farm." However, the source provided to support this label. http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/jay_rosen_vs_demand_media_are_content_farms_demoni.php is merely an IM exchange between the interviewer and Demand Media's CEO Richard Rossenblatt that utterly fails to support the claim. The interviewer puts the question to Rosenblatt, "Does the description of your company as a 'content farm'...seem inaccurate...?"

Rosenblatt responds: "Completely missing the point...What's more like a sweatshop: someone's living room working their own hours or a typical newsroom?"

Without answering this question or explaining why "content farm" is indeed an accurate label for Demand Media, the interviewer shifts the conversation toward the editorial brand. Later, still without providing any support for the label of "content farm" or addressing the Demand Media CEO rejection of the term, the interviewer merely uses the term as if it had been proven accurate:

"if you love the Web, then why are you doing this, running these content farms... ?"

This seems like a clean case of confirmation bias: ask if the term is accurate and then ignore the answer if it doesn't harmonize with preconceived notions continuing to assume they must be true. Again Rosenblatt rejects the label and provides a rebuttal.

"We do not have a content mill as we discussed but an efficient method to get people the information they need when they want it."

Again the interviewer does not refute or even address the rebuttal but shifts to another topic. Maybe "content farm" is an accurate label, maybe it is a bit derogatory and unfair. My problem is the source cited doesn't support the label other than repeating it without defending it in any way. The source cited actually provides more support from Rosenblatt in defense of the view that Demand Media is more than a content farm.

A more accurate line to point toward that source would be "some critics of Demand Media have deemed it a "content farm," a label Demand Media founder and CEO Richard Rossenblatt rejects." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.9.131 (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia reflects what others say about Demand Media, not what Demand Media or Rosenblatt says about Demand Media. There are plenty of reliable sources that use the "content farm" moniker- NYT says "Demand Media, once the most notorious of the content farms", WSJ says "third-party content farms, such as Demand Media", others can be found. This is common on religious and MLM articles- the organization doesn't want to be known as a cult or pyramid scheme, but Wikipedia reflects the public's term. Some of this logic can be seen in WP:POVTITLE. Generally it's important to note that a company doesn't own their Wikipedia article and that information should be presented from a neutral point of view using reliable sources, which means it should be absent PR spin from a company. tedder (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine, Tedder, then cite one of the "plenty of reliable sources" rather than a source that does not explain or defend the label. You seem intent on missing the point. The fact that you have to bring up other sources proves the source cited doesn't defend the label. Many people using a moniker doesn't make it accurate, and the bias is clear when you can't simply acknowledge and report the facts: critics call it a content farm, Demand Studios rejects the label. Your claim that Wikipedia reflects what others say about Demand Media not what Demand Media says is absurd. True objectivity would report what both sides say rather that hide behind a distorted idea of encyclopedic content. If the article was about a politician being labeled a communist would you likewise delete the fact that the politician rejected the label by your ad hoc explanation "wikipedia reflects what others say about the politician, not what the politician says about himself?" I guess it depends on whether you like the politician as it depends on whether you like Demand Media. If you had any journalistic integrity, you wouldn't be deleting a CEO defending himself. Just as Demand Media has a content farm label, Wikipedia has a biased label. So I think I'll go write a Wikipedia article about how biased it is, using your actions as support, and if you try to post a defense of your actions I will delete it based on your absurd premise that "wikipedia reflects what other people say about you and your bias, not what you say about yourself. It's sad that I have to admit the people who've been telling me you can't take Wikipedia seriously are increasingly accurate. Go ahead and do whatever you want, I happen to agree that it's a content farm, I just have the journalistic integrity to call out a poor citation and give both sides of the story to let the reader decide, the fact that you have to present only one side and delete the other says more about your ethics than about Demand Media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.9.131 (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)