Talk:RateItAll/Archive 1

New
I am learning how to edit and want to include this among the other social networks on Wikipedia. RateItAll had 942,000 visits in January, 2007. It covers topics ranging across all spectra of opinions from Art through Music to Cinema to Politics to Religion to History and more. I am speaking of an entity similar to the "List of social networking websites" Bear with me, I am learning how to do this. I am trying to figure out how make links and other features. This is my first project on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GenghisTheHun (talk • contribs).

I may not be as swift as the editors would like as I am not a programmer and have to master the terminology. Please check notability at http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2066703,00.asp and http://www.rateitall.com/wt-press_room.aspx. Also, This is one of the first user generated sites to introduce revenue sharing as noted by tech blogs: mashable John Battelle You gotta bear with me, as I am working hard to figure it all out. In fact, I am going to ask some of my friends to help me out as I appear to be all thumbs on this programming. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.111.136.227 (talk • contribs).

Hello, I'm also learning how to work with this, but I'll do my best; please let me know if you would like me to delete/change my contributions. I've added a rudimentary info bar on the side (hopefully) Annie Barbe Kamylienne 02:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
Hello, now we are getting a lot of flack about neutrality and others. I am a volunteer who is trying out writing an article for the first time, and I am about as neutral as one may get.

As far as sources are concerned, I cited as many of the sources as I know.

For style, I agree that things may always be improved. I am working on it.

I'll certainly take any and all suggestions, and take all the help I can get. I had some help when I started this article and I would ask that person to give me advice as to how to proceed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GenghisTheHun (talk • contribs).
 * Any claims that you make must come from a source. If you're including information from things you've seen or heard and can't find a reliable source to pull the information from it can't be in the article. As far as neutrality goes, the sentence I removed is an example of a neutral point of view issue and often a lively interchage occurs in the comment section. this is opinion unless you can cite a reliable source which makes that claim. If you have a look at my user page you'll see some links to various policies and guidelines for article creation, including things like the policy on Verifiability, Neutral point of view, no original research and citing sources so that you can see how that is properly done. Make sure any material you add or decide to keep in the article is compliant with those policies otherwise you'll find that other editors will remove it.--Crossmr 03:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

And I'm going to be honest with you here, this Blog Link Doesn't exactly seem like the most neutral statement to make. You may wish to read WP:COI.--Crossmr 23:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Further, Genghis, I note that you are a top Rateitall user and have been publicly recognized by the CEO. Although you may or may not have a financial interest, you certainly have a conflict of interest. William Pietri 23:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources, original research
For some clarification on what is and isn't a reliable source please visit WP:RS and WP:V for what they are and why its important. Also read up on WP:OR for what constitutes original research. Blogs are self-published sources and anyone can write anything in them, therefore they're reliability is extremely low and as a citation they're almost useless. They're typically only allowed in very limited capacities. If the blog is being cited to source information about the write who is otherwise notable it can be used. For example if Bill Gates maintained a blog and wrote in it that he had cancer, that could be used as a citation in his article. If a company normally makes official announcements and press releases and otherwise communicates with the public in a blog like manner, it can be drawn on as a source for information about that company (Livejournal is a notable example where that occurs), however any comments left to those entries have never been considered reliable and usable for citation that I've seen. There is an exception made for self-published sources in the event that the writer is a well known professional researcher or journalist information can be used, however its expected that if what they have self-published is important it should be covered by other reliable sources. The journalist or researcher being well known is important. Someone claiming their a journalist and writing about stuff in a blog doesn't meet the threshold for that exception.--Crossmr 03:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding a source
This source here: http://www.webpronews.com/blogtalk/2006/11/27/lawrence-coburn-on-marketing-with-widgets is questionable. Its definitely a blog and there is no indication that the individual is either a well known journalist or professional researcher. Its going to need to be replaced with something that meets the criteria to be a reliable source as indicated above. Also citing an individual profile as evidence of the factual items that are in a profile, i.e. biography sections isn't necessary. However the citation won't support the claim of "Many members use widgets for shorthand information or for film strips on subjects of interest, often of a humorous nature." that is opinion and unless someone has written about the site saying that, it can't be in the article.--Crossmr 23:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your reliable sources comment in RateItAll page
I read your discussion and here is the provenance concerning the cite you removed.

Lee Odden is President and Founder of TopRank Online Marketing, specializing in organic SEO, blog marketing and online public relations. He's been cited as a search marketing expert by publications including U.S. News & World Report and The Economist and has implemented successful search marketing programs with top BtoB companies of all sizes. Odden shares his marketing expertise at Online Marketing Blog offering daily news, interviews and best practices.

I proffer that this contradicts your statement that the guy is not a subject matter expert.
 * I never said he wasn't a subject matter expert. I said there was no evidence the individual was a well known journalist or professional researcher. The source is still self-published and there is no expection made for subject matter experts.--Crossmr 04:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

One more point on WebProNews (where the article in question appeared): It's been cited 74 times on Wikipedia as a source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=webpronews&fulltext=Search

I forgot to add a Google search
By the way here is a Google search on John Battelle, another removed source re; The RateItAll page discussion. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=john+battelle&btnG=Search+News
 * Which doesn't change the fact that he doesn't meet the criteria to have his blog considered a reliable source.--Crossmr 04:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Crossmr, here's John Battelle's Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Battelle He's kind of a big deal in the Web industry, especially as a Google watcher. IMHO, there is no more credible, respected source in the world for info on revenue sharing via Google AdSense. He really can't be included as a source? I won't meddle any more, as I am an employee of RateItAll, but I'm hoping you can rethink this one. Also, WebProNews is considered a legit news source in for web stuff... it's indexed by Google News for example. Anyway, thanks for your time.
 * Not if his word is being taken from a self-published source, no. Any blog that john battelle writes can only be used to source two things: Information directly about him or information about something he directly controls, like a company. Maybe I'm confused, but John Battelle isn't even mentioned in the source that I questioned here: . Its written by Lee Odden and Battelle's name isn't even mentioned in the article. Every source cited so far has been a blog if its not from the main page or a press release. Doing a google search I see rateitall only has 37 unique google hits, and it doesn't appear to have any reliable coverage. That is a notability issue. .--Crossmr 15:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Crossmr, I'm not sure where you're getting the 37 results figure from. Can you explain?

A Google search is yielding 824,000 results for me:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGGL%2CGGGL%3A2006-45%2CGGGL%3Aen&q=rateitall&btnG=Search

A yahoo search yields 891,000 results:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=rateitall&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

RateItAll is a top 6,000 web site according to Compete:

http://snapshot.compete.com/rateitall.com

RateItAll is a top 25,000 site according to Alexa:

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=rateitall&url=http://www.rateitall.com/about.aspx

RateItAll was recently featured as the Site of the Week by PC Magazine - one of the most respected tech magazines out there:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2066703,00.asp

Over the years, RateItAll has appeared in Wired, San Francisco Chronicle, on ABC News, in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, etc, etc.

Here's an ABC World News Tonight piece (video) about RateItAll:

http://www.rateitall.com/pressreleases/interview_56K_Dial_Up.mov

RateItAll was covered by Mashable and BattelleMedia (two of the most important tech blogs on the Web) as being pioneers in the Web 2.0 revenue sharing space. Here is the Battelle article:

"User generated content is hot - HOT! But if you're a UGC (yup, I'm using the acronym) site, like RateItAll, Facebook, YouTube, or MySpace, how do you incent your members to post more great stuff, so you can make more money?"

Here's a link to the whole article:

http://battellemedia.com/archives/002603.php

(YouTube has since announced that it will be adopting RateItAll's revenue sharing approach)

Here's a link to Battelle's Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Battelle

Hope that helps.

Actually it doesn't get 800,000 we only care about unique hits, for which there are 44, your same search, and as already pointed out Batelle's blog isn't useful here, its not reliable.--Crossmr 00:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be done?
I can't believe that the article has such a poor value that it deserves to be deleted especially in light of some of the other articles that exist.

I would appreciate any assistance you can give me. Thank you very much.

By the way, I am a senior citizen, who likes to learn from the internet. I have no financial ax to grind.

GenghisTheHun 16:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

Leading?
The "history" section claims that Rateitall is a leading aggregator and publisher of user reviews. Do we have a citation for an expert saying that? If not, at least the word "leading" should be removed. William Pietri 23:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
A discussion about the criticism was had on Kamylienne's talk page. I'm going to copy the important bits here. "Criticisms may be subjective, but they still require a reliable source to both label them a negative, and of course to even make the information itself usable in an article. Personal experiences which are not duplicated by a reliable source fall under WP:NPOV see undue weight and WP:OR. Every thing on wikipedia requires sources which is one of the big problems with the articles. Your personal experiences, while important to you, are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards, and not a basis for article content. Whether you find that smug or not, thats the way articles work on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a primary source and as such an editor relating their personal issues with a subject just isn't acceptable. Creating a criticism based on your experience, or things you've read on a forum, or from talking to people just doesn't work, same with any other information. If you wanted to add something like 'The founder was at my house on Friday and said he was selling the site' true or not, unless thats reported by a reliable source, it can't be used. The Alexa speed rating, while true, doesn't support your criticism of it. You've labeled it RateitAll's biggest criticism, says who? You've also reported a remedy of them adding another server this month, source? You can say that Alexa ranks their site speed as slow, but you can't label it their biggest criticism, or report on their solution to that without providing sources for that opinion and information." Not only does criticism have to meet this threshold, all material added needs to.--Crossmr 02:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting
I put a comment in, similar to this, and someone wiped it out or it disappeared without a trace! I didn't keep a copy as I thought that at least my signed comments wouldn't be erased. Maybe I was wrong.

Anyhow I have substantially revised the article and removed lots of stuff that I considered relevant, but I am not able to "fight city hall" as I have not the requisite experience. In any event I would like to know how to get all those boxes off the article. Who is in charge and is there an appeal process? Many thanks.

GenghisTheHun 22:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

We're all in charge, Ghengis. It's a community effort. To get the boxes off, you'll have to build consensus among your fellow editors. In this case, it's especially important to get wide agreement from people who don't have your conflict-of-interest problems on this article. Hoping that helps, William Pietri 23:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think one of your comments is missing check the page history. Any edits made to the page are there and you can view the changes made on an edit per edit basis to see if it was accidentally removed. As far as getting the maintenance tags removed, I will remove two of them now. The article has been cleaned up and is tidier, and the introduction has been shortened. As far as the neutrality and references go, I'll go through your new version and see if there is still anything I can see an issue with. Part of the alleviating any neutrality concerns is to address that above. We've already found you to be making non-neutral statements elsewhere and to be recognized multiple times by the creator of the website for working on this article. If we can get the neutrality of the article cleaned up thats one thing, but there is still an issue of your editing this article because of that.--Crossmr 23:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Well at least I received an answer and thank you for removing some of the clutter. This was my first foray into Wikipedia writing.

You made a conflict of interest or non-neutral charge. Please state your proof.

Of course I worked on the site multiple times. I did most of the writing.

Let's say I write an article on George Washington. I like Washington. Does that make me a non neutral source?

Who are the "We've already found you to be making non-neutral statements elsewhere." That is a rather Kafka type allegation. Where, is that pray tell? Does that mean I have expressed an opinion? I thought that the article was to be judged from its content and not who is the writer.

Gee, I post on RateItAll--if that is your proof, I plead guilty. Now ask how much I make from posting here, there or anywhere? ZERO

Let's examine your policies under What is a conflict of interest?

Financial--none. I guess for all the time I spend, I wish I did received something.

Legal antagonists--nope

Self-promotion--Har! Har! Har! That's funny!

Autobiography--nope

Close relationships--I do post on the site and like it. Of course I am an American also. Would that deter me from writing on anything involving the USA?

Campaigning--I don't understand what this means.

Citing oneself--I did cite my profile page on RateItAll as a footnote to illustrate how the site works. I did that in answer to criticisms, and more that were being leveled at the article.  Where "vanity" is allowed'''--nope

What is frustrating about this matter is the ambiguity of the accusations and the lack of knowing where to go to get these matters cleared up.

Many thanks,

````GenghisTheHun
 * The evidence has already been provided. You have a close relationship with the owner. You've twice been publicly recognized by the creator for working on this article. Has anyone else from Rateitall gotten that kind of attention in regards to this? No. You've also been shown to make non-neutral statements which indicate a bias, which was provided above as well. As far as financial, the site is a revenue sharing site and you are one of the top contributors. Any exposure created by this article could benefit you financially. As for self promotion your account on rateitall was added to the article as a citation with an IP that is likely yours as its edited other articles you edit. This self-promotion also can lead to a financial gain as exposure of your profile can lead to an increased income for you. There is no ambiguity in the accusations. They were very clearly spelled out above with links included to the problems. Where to go to get this cleaned up is to let someone else edit this article, as you've got a conflict of interest on several levels.--Crossmr 00:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you like we'll go through each item again:
 * Closeness to situation - You are a top contributor, you've been recognized twice by the creator working on this article , and
 * Self-promotion - An IP which has edited the same articles as you added your profile to the article, contribution history here . If necessary a check user can be filed to verify that that was your IP at the time if it still isn't.
 * Financial gain - this is a revenue sharing site, so any exposure for the site or your profile could potentially benefit you.
 * That is three issues from the conflict of interest page, and you've shown in the first blog posting that you intended to "sing the praises" of rateitall. thats hardly a neutral statement to make.--Crossmr 00:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I might add this? What is the burden of proof on Wikipedia? Is it making a charge and then the burden shifts and it is guilty until proven innocent? I am used to the American System of Justice whereby those who make the charges must also prove them.

Many thanks,

GenghisTheHun 23:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun
 * As I pointed out. The proof was given above by myself and another user where you were shown to make non-neutral statements and shown to be too close to the subject where you were being publicly recognized for working on this article.--Crossmr 00:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What? That is no proof at all! If you hold up fact that I was working on the article and was recognized for it as proof, that is laughable. What else do you have? That is an ad hominem attack and has no substance. How many editors have to pass on a subject to make it canon?

Many thanks,

GenghisTheHun 03:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun
 * The evidence is rather clear. What other editors are editing this article and getting praise from the creator? None. What other editors added their profile to the article? None. What other editors claim to be neutral yet make statements saying they're going to sing the praises of the website in relation to this article? None. Deny it all you want, your conflict of interest is blatantly obvious. One of those on their own is enough to show a conflict of interest.--Crossmr 04:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I think we have two choices here and that is for you to make what suggestions you want changed or to call in a board of neutral editors and have a dispassionate discussion of the issues. Your self-evident proof would not stand up. By the way, I only added the profile as a footnote to show example. That was because you stated that we didn't have enough proof in the article. After I add proof, then you go on a different tangent.

That being said, if you want to make suggestions, I will act on them. If you want to continue on the conflict of interest tack, then I call for fairness and a review. I have nothing to hide and nothing to gain. I have no financial interest in this whatsover. I am a senior citizen pursuing an avocation on the internet. I have the defense that I am a newbie and this was my first article. If I made a mistake, then shoot me.

What is the review policy for disputes on this site?

Many thanks,

GenghisTheHun 16:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun
 * Conflict of interest is as much about appearance as it is whether or not you can be a neutral editor. In this case you have an appearance of conflict of interest because of your involvement in the site, the recognition by the creator and the fact that exposure can possibly generate income for you. Regardless of whether or not you feel you can edit neutrally someone in that position should refrain from editing the article as the guideline suggest. No one here can know 100% whether or not you have a conflict of interest, but you cannot deny that you are more involved with the subject than random editor x. I asked for citations, you could have done that without linking to your profile.--Crossmr 18:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The policies state nothing about appearence of conflict of interest. The policies state nothing about participation. The policies state nothing about recognition by the creator. How in the world is my income going to grow with more exposure as I draw nothing from the site?

Of course I am interested in the site. That is why I started the article. The policies state nothing about interest in the subject matter.

I see that we need other disinterested editors to come in to mediate this disagreement. With no proof and innuendo, I have nothing to counter. I await advice from other editors.

On the other hand, I stand ready for any suggestions that you have for improvement of the article. I don't need a battle with you.

Many thanks,

GenghisTheHun 18:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun
 * I removed the headers here, since we're continuing the same conversation it doesn't need to be broken up repeatedly. You work on the site do you not? Does the site not participate in revenue sharing and are you not one of the highest ranked users? Therefore any increase in traffic and exposure for the site and your profile will increase the revenue share you might receive. you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes) - You are receiving recognition and exposure on the creators blog for editing this article. This raises your profile and exposure on the site.--Crossmr 18:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Call for a review
I would request that the headings be restored. It highlights the discussion. I looked up "Wikipedia." Lo and behold, lots of editors contribute. I guess that makes them suspect.

As far as Adsense, everyone on the site can participate, and the returns are de minibus. Just for fun, I went to the account to check my "earnings" for all day yesterday, March 4th. It was the princely sum of fifteen cents.

Anyhow, I see I am getting nowhere here and need someone who is disinterested to intervene. Please restore the headings, if you please, and notify the powers that be of my requests. I would like to check if there are any previous tie-ins between this editor and the new editors. I would not want the appearence of conflict of interest to creep into the discussion.

I have offered to make corrections and take advice and my overtures have been rejected.

Many thanks,

164.154.206.114 22:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

I might have forgotten to login on my call for review.

Many thanks

GenghisTheHun 03:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

Notability Call, Again
Evidently the same editor has put in another notability notice. It is hard to meet this as the notice is anonymous. I already went through the notability business and it passed muster. Why is this starting again? It appears to be personal and I thought that was not supposed to happen on Wikipedia.

Has the emphasis of the attack on me changed? It was conflict of interest, previously. I am not an employee, I am not a contractor, I am not a PR rep of the site. I have never met the founder of RateItAll, and have zero financial or contractual relationships with the company. I am not receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization, directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes.

All this quite frankly is silly. I started this as my first writing project on Wikipedia, but now it is becoming a quest!

To look back on yesterday's objections, to use the fact that the site engages in revenue sharing to try and bar people familiar with the site from editing is preposterous. Doesn't an editor's personal prestige get raised from edits that he makes on Wikipedia? Wouldn't this disqualify him from editing under the criterion propounded?

I don't know where to go from here. I have to deal with anonymous allegations and non-proofs. What and where is the forum for the redress of grievances?

Many Thanks

GenghisTheHun 03:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun
 * Actually the notability tag was put on by another editor . In regards to the revenue sharing you're comparing apples to oranges. Editors who edit wikipedia well and frequently are often recognized by their peers and given respect for it. That doesn't give them any possible bias other than to continue with positive frequent contributions. On the other hand you're editing an article about a subject which, however small, you have a financial tie to. You already admitted an income above, and now state you have zero financial ties to the site, which is it? Because on more than occasion already you've claimed one thing only to turn around and claim something else. There are also no anonymous allegations and the proof has been presented to you. If you can't even look at those incidents without bias and realize there is an appearance of a conflict of interest then you're just proving it by trying to deny all evidence as "non-proof".--Crossmr 05:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Crossmr, as this is not a deletion discussion, I am assuming it's OK to respond. Just so I can be sure of Wikipedia's position on this, you are saying that it's a Wikipedia policy that because RateItAll is a revenue sharing site, anybody who is actually a participant on the site is not able to edit the article? As this is the first that we've heard of this particular argument from you, it might be helpful for you to show us a precedent for a similar situation. I'd also love to hear another editor's viewpoint on this.

(And just to reiterate: GenghisTheHun is not an employee of the site, he's not a contractor of the site, he doesn't represent the site, and I have never met GenghisTheHun.)

On a site with hundreds of thousands of monthly visitors, GenghisTheHun's financial gain from the handful of clicks coming from the Wikipedia article to the RateItAll home page would amount to perhaps a penny per year. This is probably why he believes he has no financial gain associated with this project. If necessary, I will open RateItAll's traffic statistics to you to show referrals from Wikipedia as a percentage of overall traffic. It will be an easy task to demonstrate daily clicks from Wikipedia (12 today) divided by the number of total visits today (today about 33K). If GenghisTheHun made $0.15 on about 33K visits, how much would he make from an additional 12 visits? My calculator shows 0 (though that's not exactly right).

Obviously if we took this indirect logic and apply it to other listings, it would mean that the eBay article couldn't be edited by people who have used eBay, that the Craiglist article couldn't be edited by users of Craigslist, etc, that the Epinions article couldn't be edited by Epinions users. Indeed, given how extraordinarily tiny that GenghisTheHun's potential financial gain from this article is, using your logic, it would probably be safe to make even more dramatic exclusions - say no American could edit the USA listing because the tiny bit of added promotion might result in a single additional tourist. I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but this is the scale that we're talking about here. This doesn't seem to me that it would meet Wikipedia's definition of a financial conflict of interest. --Lawrencecoburn 07:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I'm saying, and the guidelines say that if an editor has a closer than normal relationship to the subject, especially one which contains a financial link, they should avoid editing the article. Your showing up to defend him and the article again when you clearly stated you'd be staying out of anything to do with the article on wikipeda demonstrates that conflict of interest all too clearly. As far as another editor, one posted above that hey felt there was a neutrality issue because of the recognition he was receiving from you in regards to this, as well as due to the fact that he is a top user on the site. Contrary to how you and him are trying to spin it, he is not some random user x of your website. You've publicly recognized him twice for working on this article, there is a financial tie directly to the well being of the website, and he's within the top 10 users of the website.--Crossmr 14:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Crossmr, am I breaking the rules by participating in this discussion? If so, can you please point me to the rule that I am breaking?  Also, can you please point us to the Wikipedia rule that says that editors of a web site entry need to be a "random user x?"  If there is that rule, I certainly don't see it applied to the Wikipedia entry (or any other web site entry that I've looked at).  Of all people, a Wikipedia editor like yourself should be able to understand that not everything is driven by financial motive.  As he has stated repeatedly, GenghisTheHun is an unpaid, unaffiliated RateItAll user who has never met any employee of the company and who has nothing to gain personally from the creation of this article.  His primary flaw would appear to be that he is an expert on the subject matter. Again, maybe all of us would benefit from a fresh pair of eyes looking at this.--Lawrencecoburn 18:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest. As the creator of the website you should be avoiding any and all discussion on wikipedia related to your website or the article on it. The simple fact that neither you nor him can recognize that if we were to pick a random user from your site, or a random wikipedia editor we would not find someone with the ties that he has. Of the top 10 users on the site how many of them have been recognized by you for the work they've done on this article? How many of them have tried to put their profile into the article? None. That falls on one user. --Crossmr 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Crossmr, of course I'm pleased that GenghisTheHun (and a few others) have undertaken the task of launching a Wikipedia article. That shouldn't surprise anybody.  As far as my participation in this discussion, I've only stepped in to fact check some of your more egregious mis-statements.  When you repeatedly said that RateItAll only had only 42 unique Google Hits, I showed why you were off by a factor of tens of thousands and provided screenshots of the search results pages .  When you said that John Battelle was not qualified as an industry expert , I pointed out that he was perhaps the single most recognized journalist in the industry.  When you said that a feature article in PC Magazine was "trivial,"  I pointed out that perhaps you didn't take the time to click through to the whole article.  And now, when you state that GenghisTheHun has a financial conflict of interest, I am stating that this is utterly and patently false.


 * You have repeatedly made misleading and inaccurate statements in regards to this article, and the record is there for everybody to see. In reading your "talk" history page, it would appear that you have a history of this sort of aggressive and territorial behavior .  Everybody who has been involved involved in this article has politely and repeatedly asked for your guidance in making this article better.  Yet not once have you volunteered anyting but accusations and deletions.  Pursuant to Wikipedia Conflict of Interest guidelines, I will not edit the article, and I will not participate in any deletion discussions.  But I will continue to fact check you.--Lawrencecoburn 19:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't fact check me. You couldn't prove your point after I provided you with screenshots and claimed I had spyware on my machine which I do not. Nor does any spyware I'm aware of limit google results. As for your own misleading statements And now, when you state that GenghisTheHun has a financial conflict of interest, I am stating that this is utterly and patently false., I didn't limit his conflict of interest solely to financial motives, I provided three separate conflict of interest issues. I've also already shown him stating with intent that he was going "sing the praises of rateitall", and then turned around and tried to claim he was completely neutral. That is not a neutral statement that an individual makes. There is no way you can spin that. He's also been shown to have intentionally added his profile to the article. Which could have been forgiven as an honest mistake if he hadn't just made several edits to the article with his account and then suddenly logged out and added it with his IP address. And as I've already pointed out to you twice, I'm not the only one who is concerned about his editing. As for what I've offered beyond in this addition to the talk page I explain reliable sources, how they work, and the problem with some of the language in the article, here I give some more advice on original research and reliable sources , here I explain the problem with a source and recommend finding a new one, I also explain what a source that was provided could be used for and couldn't be used for , here I explain in detail the problem with the criticism section that was added . I've taken the time to explain the policies on reliable sources and original research more than once and in great detail. Here we have a third party who expresses that he feels Genghisthehun has a conflict of interest , not once, but twice, , and I notice that you took the time to dig through my archives, but you left out the link to the latest comment on my talk page where another editor expressed concerns about his editing this article . That is 3 editors that are concerned about his editing this article.--Crossmr 21:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've posted elsewhere, I'm also very concerned about GhengisTheHun's conflict of interest. Even if his financial conflict of interest is small, he has one. And it is obvious, given that he is one of the top partipants of the site and one who has been publicly acknowledged by the CEO, that he has a strong personal interest in the site. Wikipedia pays me nothing, but when I write about Wikipedia elsewhere, I disclose very clearly my conflict of interest. And my involvement here appears to be a small fraction of GhenghisTheHun's involvement with RateItAll. William Pietri 22:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, there. I'm poping in due to a request on the Village Pump, hoping to provide an entirely unbiased perspective.  I've made a quick review of the stated facts here, and you all seem to be in agreement that (a) Genghis does get financial renumeration from the traffic that this wikipedia article generates, and that (b) said renumeration is in all probability negligible.  There is also the consideration of any social renumeration he gets through knowing and helping the owners of the RateItAll site.  The real question is whether or not all of this adds up to a significant conflict of interests.  It's a very borderline case.


 * A conflict of interests doesn't necessarily require a person to stop contributing to an article, it merely requires them to act in an advisory capacity, provinding information to those who do not have a conflict in interests, such that the (theoretically) less biased members can weigh that information and information from other sources in order to produce a balanced and unbiased result. It doesn't take much of a conflict of interest to create a biased result.  In this case I would have to say that Genghis looks on RateItAll quite favorably, otherwise he probably wouldn't have bothered contributing so heavily in exchange for the nearly non-existant reunumeration that he claims.  In any case, the strong contributions indicate a significant emotional stake in the site.  In a professional situation I would expect Genghis to recuse himself to an advisory capacity.  I hope this helps -- Robert Rapplean 23:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for chiming in, and that is helpful. It's obviously a difficult tightrope to walk between allowing participation from those with the knowledge / interest, while excluding those with self interests.  If anyone has specific feedback on any parts of the article that read as having bias, it might be helpful for future editors to post that feedback.  In my (admittedly biased) eyes, it reads in an extremely dull and disinterested fashion - I guess exactly what an encyclopedia entry should read like.  Crossmr, I'll ask you specifically - do you feel that there are any sections in the current article that read with bias? --Lawrencecoburn 23:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just removed another statement which was unsourced opinion. Pretty much all of the bias statements have been removed after that one since I've been been keeping an eye on most of the edits going through here and trying to nip them in the bud. The problem isn't just with existing edits (which in the initial edits there was much bias) but in future edits as well. I think there needs to be a discussion about the history section and the traffic ranks. This being an international encyclopedia and the internet being an international place, how relevant is citing the US traffic rank as opposed to citing an international traffic rank? Or does this data even exist? the site doesn't operate solely within the confines of the US from my understanding. To me that could be a bit of a bias by listing the US traffic ranks which, while true, may attempt to cast the site in a greater light than it really achieves. Overall though I think the history section needs the most work, and it would be good to see a source or two for the syndication and trusted network section. And any good secondary sources should be added to the links section if they're not used as a source. I'm going to remove the NPOV tag for now.--Crossmr 00:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * US traffic rank can matter a great deal in a business context if they are focused only on US participation. If that's the case, we should probably mention that as an explanation of why the US traffic numbers are important. I think we should keep the Alexa one, though, as that seems to be the most popular global measure, both on and off Wikipedia. William Pietri 00:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Historically, a little more than 75% of the site's traffic has come from the US.  The bulk of the rest of it has come from Canada, UK, and Australia, in that order.  The site is US focused, though we do include topics that are relevant to other parts of the world as well.  In terms of stats services, I would agree that Alexa is currently the best known.  Quantcast is one to watch however, as they are now offering a traffic validation service in an effort to acheive greater transparency.  You embed some javascript in your site template, and Quantcast reports real traffic numbers.  RIA has enrolled in this program, but it will be a few days before the real stats take hold.  Alas, until Quantcast's figures update, there won't be any third party source for breakdown between US and intl traffic.--Lawrencecoburn 00:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Disappointed
As a former member of rateitall I find it insulting anyone from that site would try and pass themselves off as not having a conflict of interest. I could edit the rateitall page without bias because I have no interest in the site yet have the knowledge to speak on it with precision. But it is a subject that does not belong on wikipedia. I left the site BECAUSE of the lack of integrity and the obvious conflicts of interest inherent in the site and the way the "community" functions. The best example of how twisted the site is can be explained this way...    While it touts itself as a free flowing community where opinions matter and the ratings meaningful a well known user who is "popular" among regulars can post "that sucks" in reply to a well thought out multi-paragraph treatise on global warming and get loads of helpfuls. The well thought out view is all but ingored or given unhelpfuls. In my time there it became apparent that the millions of ratings and 25,000+ lists was a complete sham. There are at most 50-100 active contributors and they all hope to get approval from others in the form of those helpfuls. The revenue sharing is just that. They are out to make money and hear themselves talk. Most especially the creators and owners. On one hand they will say the revenue is "minimal" but having been an active member and reading the blog they have routinely touted their earnings. It is a mark of credibility to them. I am disappointed to see the reference on wikipedia was viewed as a KEEP. I shouldn't be surprised given almost every single person voicing an opinion is an active member. Not just active but very high on the contributions list and therefore standing to gain the most by added traffic through wikipedia. The lack of ethics and integrity on the site cannot be explained fully here. I am glad to explain at length the ridiculous nature of the site should someone from wikipedia want real insight through other means. And before any of you current users post a reply here let's get something straight... I have nothing to gain from rateitall or wikipedia. I removed all my commentary and have NEVER earned a single penny from the revenue sharing. I thought it was a bad idea and specifically destined to bring up COI issues. COI issues on the site itself and now a great site such as wikipedia has to deal with the nonsense. So save your speeches and defenses. If you stand to gain ANYTHING from rateitall you don't have a leg to stand on. Abusing what wikipedia was intended for to further personal gain is insulting. I hope the entry for rateitall is removed. It doesn't deserve a wiki entry. The only real reason anyone wants an entry is to get more traffic to their pages. 1 rateitall user can generate 100-200 lists within weeks. Each of those lists can have 20 or more "items" and each item can have countless comments. If only the top 100 users create 100 lists on average that is 10,000 lists. So the idea that 25,000 lists is significant is laughable. And if just the top 100 users add 10,000 comments within 6 months to 1 year that is 1,000,000 comments. These are facts that wikipedia doesn't grasp because they don't know the site. I DO. The site is San Francisco based and there are numerous blogs and other locations to find information on the 2.0 efforts and general information sharing community there. The bottom line is it all comes down to marketing. Alexa is mentioned but has been proven as unreliable. So have most other traffic sources. It is a marketing campaign driven by those interested in making money and those who like to hear themselves talk in the process. I work in the information industry and know how things work. It makes me sick to see an effort to invade wikipedia by members of rateitall. I hope it is removed by the founder out of respect for another site. We'll see but he has never shown himself to be concerned about anything but his own bottom line and now even has his tools creating wiki pages for him since he knows he can't do it himself. And the last point I will make to wikipedia is that the helpful system is what makes rateitall so pathetic. I suggested LONG ago that the helpful rating system be removed in its entirety. It was kept and in fact promoted on the site and the blog. Why? Because those running the site know as well as I do that if they take that feature away those talking heads who like to hear themselves think will leave. Sure, they make some dough with revenue sharing but it is all about the egos and without the most helpful, most contributory user lists site traffic would plummet within days. So the vote on deletion may be over but I EMPHATICALLY vote DELETE. Unlike all of those commenting who have some vested interest I have none. I left the site over integrity issues and am disappointed that those issues remain at the site and have now spilled over to a site I have used for years and respected as truly unbias. It is a shame.

Bippity 05:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. As much as I dislike the site, and as good as your points are, the site seems to be somewhat notable. ~ Andrew Williams


 * Bippity, I read your comment and believe it is heartfelt, but I disagree, and wanted to tell you why I felt this way. I don't get why you think everything which is marketed is "bad". Why? And I think there's a bias here -- a bias in Wikipedia generally as well as in your comment -- the bias is that buying and selling activity is inherently untruthful. And I don't think this is the case. That is, I think the whole issue of integrity has little to do with marketing. That is, if somebody is trying to sell something, it doesn't automatically disqualify them as being somehow untruthful. Most things (in my view) which are marketed are good things, truthful things, valuable things, with some kind of benefit. The New York Times advertises. Amazon advertises. Are they untruthful because they advertise? I generally respect these sources of information. I count on the NY Times for solid reporting, and I think you do too. And Amazon is an excellent source to learn about books. But the New York Times is a business. So is Amazon. They're out to make money. So, because of this commercial purpose, are they inherently liars? I don't think so. If the New York Times prints false information or Amazon lies about books, then it doesn't make money -- both have a financial interest to tell the truth. And I think RateItAll is no different in a business sense from The New York Times or Amazon. And I'll go further -- I think businesses which are fraudulent, which advertise, generally get exposed QUICKER. As consumers, people aren't stupid. If RateItAll was as bad as you say, it would have been out of business years ago. Now, are any of these businesses perfect? No; we're all human. And, is Wikipedia necessarily honest because it's "free"? Again, I don't see the relationship. Or, another question: if somebody is trying to sell you something, are they necessarily lying? I don't think so; lying is bad business. Liars get found out. Their businesses fold fast.Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

Upgrade to article
I upgraded the article striving to maintain NPOV with references and links; I added categories. I don't think this business is a "social networking website" but rather a ratings website in a specific niche market, and I changed the lead sentence to make it tighter, clearer, notable. I think there should be pictures, hopefully a company logo -- please anybody who works for this company upload a company logo to the Wikimedia Commons website and make sure to say you're the creator (unless you have copyright problems) and release it to "public domain". Also, other pictures would be helpful, since the article is only text. Is there information about whether it's publicly owned? Is it a subsidiary of Yahoo? I didn't find this out from my research. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer


 * Changing my position about RateItAll being a "social networking site" -- I think it is definitely one. So I'm rewriting lead sentence back to where it was before. Also, about categories, I'm confused. There's a tag about categories. Trying to find categories is like hunting for jackrabbits in an abandoned mine.Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer