Talk:Radar Networks


 * This page was marked as being written as an Advertisement (I fail to detect why and await feedback from the tagger). I hope it'll raise interest in improving this article in general. I kindly request that those who agree with the tag please either fix the article or suggest revisions, and those who don't speak their mind. ---hthth 20:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Pigsonthewing, the user who originally tagged this article, can not specify what he'd like to see revised. I therefore sought second opinion from the general Wikipedia Editor Assistance page on what I could do to improve the article, the result of which was the following comment:

There is such a thing as neutral advertorial, but it is still advertorial in comparison to encyclopædic writing. In this instance, the article in question is not strongly affected in this manner; there are just some editorial improvements that should be made. I suggest that you remove the tag and then perhaps look at what you can do to improve the editorial. There is a slight issue of undue weight as well; listing the official website twice and a little more "history" to balance the "product", for example. There are no serious deficiencies here. I'll let you look it over and if you can't get any further, come back. Adrian M. H. 13:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As the user who tagged the article does not want to substantiate the claim and a contradictory second opinion has emerged, I suggest revisions according to Adrian's comments and thereafter removal of the tag. ---hthth 21:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: For future reference and to support the earlier removal of the tag; The user who tagged this article has been banned for a year from the Wikipedia. Apparently he's not only been behaving oddly with regards to this article. Case closed. ---hthth 02:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Semanticguy, yeah I had horrific problems with the wikipedia editors getting a page made about Web 3.0. It took many attempts. Certain editors seem to have personal biased opinions about whether such a term deserves a page. They kept deleting the page. Eventually a whole group of people who were concerned about this issue worked together to get the page to a point where they would accept it. The problem seems to be that despite claims of objectivity, some Wikipedia editors are actually highly biased. For example, in the case of Web 3.0, even though there were dozens of articles citing the term in major publications like the New York Times, and hundreds of blog posts and web articles about it, they still would not accept that the term deserved a page in the Wikipedia. That was a clear example of bias. Even though the term had become widely used in the media, the editors of the Wikipedia felt it was not valid. I see a similar thing happening in the case of Radar Networks. In fact, prior this page, there was an earlier page about Radar Networks by a different author that got deleted by a biased editor. Again a clear example of bias. Even though there are dozens of major media and online articles citing the company, certain editors refused to accept it as deserving of a page in the Wikipedia. Perhaps the Wikipedia editors are simply against anything related to the semantic web? I can't figure it out! It is very disappointing to see the Wikipedia reflecting such personal bias. I would have hoped the editors were more able to keep their personal feelings out of it. Anyway, this page looks pretty decent and is supported by plenty of citations so I don't see why they wouldn't let it remain. But who knows? I no longer have much faith in the Wikipedia's editorial policies, so we'll have to wait and see what happens.

Tone
The tone of this article still doesn't seem quite right. Read this paragraph, for example:

The company remains in stealth mode but their research and development has been covered to some extent in interviews and on the founder's personal blog. Although general information on the usage and purpose of their first product has been revealed (see below), and the company's founder has described their work as enabling next generation social software and search, the company has remained very secretive with regards to technical aspects of their systems. As the company has not released software to the public, statements made by the company's representatives on the potential of their systems have only been independently verified by a few, closed in-house demonstrations.

The article just doesn't quite read as encyclopaedic.

Thanks. Computerjoe 's talk 22:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. I've modified it. ---hthth 15:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Update : Twine
Article needs an update, RN's "secret" is out. Twine was announce at the Web 2.0 summit and there's a fair amount of press coverage. Good luck to who ever picks up the slack on this one the whole article needs a face lift to reflect the move from stealth to public modius operandia. 99.229.239.0 11:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)