User talk:ProudAardvark

Votimus
Votimus is a few years late in the game of political websites and seems a quick-rich web scheme. I wouldn't put any weight into adding those links. Local coverage will always be much more informed and accurate. Plus Votimus operates as a pseudo-wiki. .:davumaya:. 05:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Did you even look at the site? How you can classify it as a "quick-rich" scheme when it has no ads doesn't make much sense to me. I happen to know some people who work there and they are quite dedicated to giving better political information than project votesmart. Nor is the site a "Pseudo wiki". I actually found your comment really insulting. Please take a look at the site first next time. I was adding the links because I think the information + News combo is more useful to Wikipedia's visitors than many of the other sites that are linked.

ProudAardvark (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, suffice it to say, I disagree and thought I was doing a good thing. Did you have a chance to review the site again? Obviously you've done some great things for the Minnesota wiki community, so I'd appreciate your feedback. ProudAardvark (talk)


 * My comments are evaluating the link itself, not your action or person. I'll try my best to respond but I always dislike taking apart websites. There are various reasons this website is not yet appropriate for Wikipedia. The best way maybe for you simply to read VoteSmart About us and learn about how their organization is formed, their rules and safeguards from influence. Votimus has yet to let you know what bias if any exists on their site, who are the editors? how is the business run? where does the CEO gain his profit? Not that these are criteria to dismiss a site, but they are important to evaluate the context of the site and its appropriateness. But the one phrase that caught my attention was social networking features and I feel even if this site is offering political evaluation, the real purpose of the site is the social networking. I also think Votimus is a little too many eggs in the basket and should focus on building its credibility for political information. Many many candidates had no content in their Issues page, just simple biographies you can glean from any official source. And it merely reprints information from other websites (indicating source and URL) which further diminishes the information quality. As well, there is an annoying set of ads at which repeat all the way until you reach your candidate. There are also bugs yet to be fixed which indicates poor quality (ie: I went to Al Franken  clicked on Issues then clicked Iraq War). Votimus has a ways to go to become a great source for political networking, information, and involvement as it purports to be. .:davumaya:. 17:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the detailed feedback - I had taken your first comment to suggest that I was participating in a get rich quick scheme but I see now where you were coming from. I hold off on adding any more links for now. Do you mind if I forward your feedback to my friend at the company? ProudAardvark (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)