Talk:The Meta Network

Comment
First, I was invited onto MetaNet from "The WELL" about 8 years ago. I found out about this article on Wikipedia because of a post on MetaNet saying it existed. I could care less about promoting the system. Would rather not promote it. Keeps the idiots away which is fine with me. I had never heard of this guy who initially posted it before on Meta in the 8 years or so I've been on. From his posts he was there in the 90's while I was on the WELL. I presume he's been one of the lurkers? He has no connection with the people who host and run MetaNet that I know of.

I will comment on each of the examples listed. '''Examples of language that do not meet Wikipedia standards for * ... We share deeply held values of candor, curiosity, cooperation, and creativity. (1st paragraph)'''

That is the official position of MetaNet. It is no more inappropriate than to quote from UC Davis' principles page that states: "We affirm the inherent dignity in all of us, and we strive to maintain a climate of justice marked by respect for each other." http://principles.ucdavis.edu/ What's the big deal?]]

'''* First, MetaNet is a community anyone can join... (2nd paragraph)'''

It has generally been done by having someone invite you, but it's true. So what's the problem with stating a fact?

* "TMN membership is available to almost anyone, but requires a ...(Joining and Reading section) Much of the article is written as instructions for joining, with detail that is inappropriate to an encyclopedia. As it stands, it could be deleted as spam. I'm going to cut it down, but I would welcome assistance and advice. User Sunray 16:38, 23 May 2007 

While I understand objecting to a lot of stuff in the article about "how to join" - it is an online conference system that people can join. So it seems wrong to not have any link to the system itself. That would be as irritating as an online citation reference to an article that has no link to the article, or a news article about a study that has no link or citation to the study. I know it's done, but it's irritating as all get out.169.237.214.113 (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Blueduck

The Meta Network is Not Even Remotely In Promotional Mode
Unlike the Well or anything else, TMN.com really had its heyday in the 80s and 90s and isn't even remotely interested in Advertising and Self-Promotion. I created the page as an ode to TMN so I will give a go toward "de-advertising" the post.

I posted it so it was really sort of a devotional and a love note. A love-letter since all of the other seminal sites were up already and I wanted to "make love" to my memories in the 90s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisabraham (talk • contribs) 15:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Still, this article is not up to wikipedia standards. See WP:SOAP. --John Kronenwetter (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Advertisement tag
The article, as it stands right now is pure spam and could be listed for speedy deletion. However, The Meta Network has been around for a long time, and is probably notable enough to support an article (others may wish to comment on this).

Examples of language that do not meet Wikipedia standards for WP:NPOV:
 * "... We share deeply held values of candor, curiosity, cooperation, and creativity." (1st paragraph)
 * "First, MetaNet is a community anyone can join..." (2nd paragraph)
 * "TMN membership is available to almost anyone, but requires a registration..." (Joining and Reading section)

Much of the article is written as instructions for joining, with detail that is inappropriate to an encyclopedia. As it stands, it could be deleted as spam. I'm going to cut it down, but I would welcome assistance and advice. Sunray 16:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, the article has no citations. The only reliable source is the Washington Post article. We should try to use the information presented here, although much of it is not NPOV since it is an interview with the website's creator. I'm not sure where the press release came from at the bottom of the article, but if we can find out where it is from, that could be a potential source as well. --John Kronenwetter (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I guess you may have been one of the founders of WIKI here, Sunray - including at http://c2.com and possibly the XP (Extreme Programmers) group there. I also trust you deeply appreciate the value of online asynchronous interaction - partly pioneered by the TMN network, long before the WIKI experience became a Public Good.

So my modest request is that you kindly do not jump the gun here, when it comes to social intercourse over the Internet, and then the WWW.

TMN helped Pioneer the whole thing, and now there are thousands of others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heylars (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Heylars 15:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Against NPOV standards
Isn't this against NPOV? "MetaNet continues to thrive as a haven of stimulating resources and conversation in an impersonal Internet." I mean, "haven" is a positive, approving term, and "impersonal" is degrading to EVERY OTHER WEBSITE ON THE INTERNET. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.106.4.94 (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)