Talk:Ecademy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have created an archive of the old page Talk:Ecademy Archive1 The AKA thread was still active.
Note to all: what is the point of trying a serious discussion if the first item of it is a collection of silly nicknames, ultimately a "clever" way of getting them published on Wikipedia whilst pretending to be following the rules?? User:Mmorabito67 11:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] AKA
With reference to the first line of the Michael Jackson wikipedia entry, what would be the implications of a similar line? Ecademy is sometimes referred to several nicknames available on this page's history. If one is allowable (Jackson), surely the other should be. Ste 21:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm - isn't the difference that Michael Jackson is widely known by those alternative names, whereas the nicknames of Ecademy management are used only by a very small band of enthusiasts? Jim Wade 21:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'd agree with Jim - AFAIK, only a limited number of people refer to TP by those ames.--YoungTaff 09:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I can think of a number of reasons why you might not want to use those, but the top three would be: some are libelous; some break Wiki's rules on profabity/decency; they are used, but only by a small group. Keep it to things which can be agreed on, rather than things which are interesting and OK off-Wiki/don't break it's rules. Rgds, Trident13 13:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kirstin Myers
Under aims I made a fairly substantial change. Kirstin Myers wrote me from globond indicating Thomas came up with the phrase and she took it from him (with permission). I've asked her to create a quotable source (a webposting) but for a day or two I'm asking you to trust me that I got the email. In the meanwhile can someone cite a source that Myers came up with the slogan? jbolden1517Talk 01:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Good enough for me. I like this Wikipedia process. Cuts thru the misunderstandings and rumours to get at the facts. Jim Wade 06:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Standard of evidence...
I've been away for a while so not had time to contribute, also as it appears to be coming along nicely I've felt less of a need (I've got some bits to add following an email exchange with Jeremy) but...
I think there's a imbalance with the standard of evidence being required to back up some of the claims being made on this page.
Take the whole "A Friend in Every City" slogan, an email from Kristen Myers copied to some ghost written blog is cited as sufficient evidence to back the claim, or in the case of cancelled memberships, Thomas sending a email saying under what conditions people's membership is cancelled (which we know isn't the whole truth), but most of the comments written in the criticsm section have been couched with phrases like "according to", when I and others can produce the evidence.
So we appear to take Thomas and the rest of Ecademy's management's word at face value (who after all aren't neutral, have a business to promote and a myth to maintain) and not everyone elses - where's the balance there?
--YoungTaff 15:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Let me defend that. First off Andy Coote wrote the book entitled "A friend in Every City". Further Kirstin is going to post to the blog confirming Andy's statement. As mentioned above this started as an email. I'm making the changes first and then allowing them to provide citations as a courtesy. There is no question that is a non standard procedure, I'd asked for a few days to provide evidence. You will notice however I've asked for any counter evidence. If we can find any then I think this could be rewritten, but Kirstin saying, "I got it from Thomas" is a fairly high quality source and without some strong counter evidence I think we can conclude she got the statement from him.
- As for Thomas comments. They don't even appear in the article. I did post them to the talk page because it is/was an issue of dispute. As an aside I don't consider them evidence of the truth of the matter. Rather Thomas obviously as the right to speak "on the record" for Ecademy's position. I've been pushing you and Ste to start linking in verifiable materials from Ecademy watch since I got here. I do believe there is a fairly good case that bans were applied too quickly. But my believing something doesn't matter, you all have to provide citations. I don't understand why we don't have a collection of "why I got banned" pages from ecademy at this point. jbolden1517Talk 16:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of social networking websites on AfD
List of social networking websites is currently an AfD candidate. You are invited to partake in this discussion. Czj 18:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "See Also" section
This is starting to get silly, and is simply becoming a list of sites. Have trimmed it back to the relevant Wikipedia links. Ste 09:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recent changes by Patrick Brown (86.2.125.32)
A lot of conjecture and inaccurate information was added recently by user 86.2.125.32. Some of the inaccuracies noted -
It’s also worth noting that the famous ‘Ecademy Watch’ which was originally set up by Patrick Brown has, seemingly, ceased to be. Patrick did hand over the running of this site/forum to a certain Ste Andreassen, approximately sixteen months ago, after which it was suddenly made private i.e. non viewable by the public or search engines! The EW forum now seems to have been completely deleted or at the very least all it’s member removed by the forums moderator that individual being Ste Andreassen!
Ecademy Watch was made private before Ste Andreassen took over its management. This was at the behest of the management of Tribe, who host the Ecademy Watch site. Ecademy Watch is still available. To join, please contact Ste Andreassen.
A lot of the other recently added content centred around phrases such as "seems to". I've edited it to stick to facts, as per the rest of the article. The original authors tried very hard to keep opinion out of the article. Ste 20:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks Ste - I was getting a bit concerned over the activities of both pro/con editors! Rgds, - Trident13 20:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Roger Hamilton
"Roger Hamilton claims that a certain portion of BlackStar membership fees have been donated to charities around the world." Where is the evidence that this claim was ever made?
- Edited main article to correct this (it was a portion of XL fees, not BlackStar) and include citation. Ste 21:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Given this relates to a separate company, XL Results, any payments to charity or not are not relevant to Blackstar. If it's noteworthy then surely it deserves an entry of its own.
"BlackStar Life Membership originated with Roger Hamilton" Where is the evidence that this claim was ever made?
- I've edited the main article to include a citation. See the leaked emails also. Ste 21:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- The cited Web site is hardly valid - it's a Blog posted up under a false name.
