Talk:Rediff.com/Archives/2012

untitled
Makes too many unsubstantiated claims. Unless citations can be had, it should be tonbed down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shabda (talk • contribs) 9:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

Too much of alleged content
I feel that the neutrality of Wikipedia is compromised in this article, and that the POV moderators should have a serious relook of this. The article looks more like an advertisement of Rediff, and most of the alleged claims are not cited. For instance, it is written that "Rediffmail is the largest provider of web based email service in India" with no citations or references to back the claim. Plus content like "Rediff is known for its clean content" etc is purely advertising in nature, hence inevitably causing POV disruption. rahul regula 10:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Agree. I do not have enough knowlegde of POV to edit this, but somebody must. Shabda 11:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This article has been edited to removed most/all POV content. I don't believe there is anymore POV text in this article. If there is please do point it out or edit it.ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 17:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rediff.com.Logo.gif
Image:Rediff.com.Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed RussNelson 02:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Rediff may have violated GFDL
Rediff published an article that largely copies a Wikipedia page with no citation or acknowledgement, and posting their own copyright on it.

The article "This will be world's tallest building" (http://inhome.rediff.com/cms/print.jsp?docpath=//money/2007/jun/07tall.htm) is dated June 7, 2007, bearing the following copyright label: "(c) 2003 rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed."

Much of the language used in this article is a direct, verbatim copy of text written on the wikipedia Burj Dubai article last month or earlier; a very small proportion of it was written by me (and yesterday was the first time I ever heard of Rediff.com). The Rediff article doesn't cite anyone: wikipedia, the sources cited in the Wikipedia article, other sources, etc.

This seems like potential plagiarism, a likely violation of Wikipedia's GFDL, and if not, is at least intellectually dishonest. I went to their website, and could not find any "contact us" info other than submission of material or job seekers. Does anyone know if this kind of thing has happened before at Rediff.com, and if so, what happened as a result?

see my comments on Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems and Mirrors_and_forks/Pqr. Fredwerner 15:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article link is here: http://inhome.rediff.com/cms/print.jsp?docpath=//money/2007/jun/07tall.htm . Better to actually link to it so that if they're tracking their Referrers, they'll find this article more easily.  The point is not to hurt them, but is instead to make sure that they put the GFDL on articles taken from Wikipedia.
 * Also note that the title of this section draws a conclusion which is not supported by a court decision, and may be actionable under libel laws. Be careful when you make accusations. RussNelson
 * Better? I tweaked the title and other language.  I'm not saying anything that isn't verifiable just by checking the history of the Burj Dubai page, so I don't know what else could be libelous here.  I completely agree with you about the desired end result of just getting more accurate citations and references.  I have no interest in boosting Wikipedia, or putting down Rediff or the author. I am a teacher, so all kinds of alarms go off for me when I see someone copying someone else's work without attribution.   Fredwerner 23:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. I have a contact at Rediff and I've emailed him the URL of this section.  Given the "2003" date on the "copyright" I'll bet it's something that is automatically inserted on all articles without thought.  I've advised them to take prompt action.  Unfortunately, nothing happens quickly in India, but we will see.

Unreliability of Rediff Mail
There should be some mention of the unreliability of Rediff Mail. --Amit 23:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. If Rediffmail is unreliable, someone should say exactly what they did, what they expected would happen, and what actually happened.  In that manner, Rediff can have some possibility of addressing any problems that may or may not exist. RussNelson 01:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have found it quite reliable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjeevdhiman2007 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, from last 8 years i m using rediffmail and till now i found only one issue with rediff(was solved immedietly by them), I m using it as my primary mail id so accessing it daily. So I dont think it has any reliablity issue....even they provide unlimited space.... KuwarOnline (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC).

Chinese visitors
I was surprised to see atleast 100,000 unique visitors (courtesy - Alexa & Akamai) from China peeping into the website rediff.com. Its kinda spooky. Anwar (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)