Revision as of 13:19, 8 February 2005 editAhoerstemeier (talk | contribs)110,683 editsm rv - you censored← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:25, 31 July 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,152 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Bomis/Archive 2) (bot |
(250 intermediate revisions by 84 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
==Bomis Babe Report== |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
''moved from the village pump'' |
|
|
|
| action1 = WPR |
|
|
| action1date = 23:23, 30 December 2013 |
|
|
| action1result = copyedited |
|
|
| action1oldid = 588440950 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action2 = WPR |
|
While conducting a review of sexism and the Internet, we came across this site: http://babes.bomis.com/ |
|
|
|
| action2date = 07:05, 16 January 2014 |
|
|
| action2result = copyedited |
|
|
| action2oldid = 590934292 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action3 = WPR |
|
Can anyone here add anything to our understanding of the relationship between the Bomis Babe Report and the founders of Misplaced Pages? |
|
|
|
| action3date = 07:22, 19 January 2014 |
|
|
| action3result = copyedited |
|
|
| action3oldid = 591381811 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action4 = WPR |
|
:Almost certainly not. It is extremely unlikely you would ask this question if you didn't already know the answer. See also ]. ] ] 05:41, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| action4date = 22:30, 23 January 2014 |
|
|
| action4result = copyedited |
|
|
| action4oldid = 592087897 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action5 = GAN |
|
::It would be extremely difficult for me to know in advance what thousands of Misplaced Pages contributors might be able to add to our understanding. My colleague is exploring the Bomis site, among others, but I suggested a querry on an open Misplaced Pages question page might develop information on this side of the equation, apparently opening myself to your allegation. I know Bomis is, or was, owned by some of the same people who founded Misplaced Pages, which is now either owned by, or being transferred to ownership by a foundation. I'm not yet up to speed on perceptions of how Misplaced Pages reflects the values of Bomis' operators, what happened to Bomis' related more academically oriented product Nupedia, or what place Misplaced Pages holds in the development process of open encyclopedias, except that it currently holds a major market share. ] 06:20, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| action5date = 01:12, 26 January 2014 |
|
|
| action5result = listed |
|
|
| action5link = Talk:Bomis/GA1 |
|
|
| action5oldid = 592409277 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action6 = WPR |
|
: See ].--]] 06:08, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| action6date = 19:49, 24 February 2014 |
|
|
| action6result = copyedited |
|
|
| action6oldid = 596960883 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action7 = WPR |
|
::I checked that first. I know a bit about wikis and Misplaced Pages, and from that I know not to assume articles on wikis are complete or current, which is why I querried here about the relationship. The Babe Report does appear to be primarily a Bomis product, but that premise is based primarily on placement of the Babe Report link on Bomis' main page. The Bomis article in Misplaced Pages is somewhat ambiguous about what is owned by the foundation, what is the property of Bomis, and who actually controls operation of Bomis' or the foundation's open-source products. ] 06:20, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| action7date = 18:46, 10 October 2014 |
|
|
| action7result = copyedited |
|
|
| action7oldid = 629086780 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|topic=computing |
|
:::I don't see what significance that has. All Bomis does is provide some bandwidth to Misplaced Pages. It is not related to the ] foundation.--]] 06:32, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Companies|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Computing|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Florida|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Media|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Pornography|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Tampa Bay|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Technology}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Miniapolis |date=February 24, 2014}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
| subject = article |
|
|
| author = Evan Hansen |
|
|
| title = Misplaced Pages founder edits own bio |
|
|
| org = Wired |
|
|
| url = https://www.wired.com/2005/12/wikipedia-founder-edits-own-bio/ |
|
|
| date = {{date|19 December 2005}} |
|
|
| quote = |
|
|
| archiveurl = |
|
|
| archivedate = |
|
|
| accessdate = {{date|7 July 2017}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive =Talk:Bomis/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Good Job|"Tellingly and laudably, Misplaced Pages's entries on its own history and the roles of Wales and Sanger have turned out, after much fighting on the discussion boards, to be balanced and objective." — {{cite book|title=]|authorlink=Walter Isaacson|first=Walter |last=Isaacson|page=440|year=2014|publisher=Simon & Schuster|isbn=978-1476708690}} }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The citation method is a bit wack == |
|
::::Nor have we yet formulated any conclusions about what significance the relationship might have. If we were to find any significance in the affiliation, it would most likely be in values infused by the founders that might affect operation of the foundation and its products, in the context of meta-data related to value-systems potentially associated with ideas about sexism. ] 06:52, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The citation method currently used is unorthodox and uncomfortable, IMO. Looking through this talk page I understand that it was changed to its current format in 2014 in order to mirror the method often used in FAs. The problem, such that I see it, is that in FAs this citation method (short form in "References" and more detailed form in "Bibliography") is usually used, and IMO works well, only for books. When used for websites as it is here, it is uncomfortable and makes a very long "Bibliography" section. Looking through the past couple TFAs I don't see any use this exact format. |
|
::::: If I understand you correctly, we have a strongly enforced ] policy which you may want to see. ] 07:00, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Misplaced Pages is written and edited by the consensus of its editors. Of these editors, all but a tiny handful have nothing to do with Bomis or any of its products, and many aren't even aware of them. As Misplaced Pages's ], ] has final say in community policy (although he rarely exercises this,) and is the original source of Misplaced Pages's editorial policy, the ]. Jimbo exercises no control over article content. Articles reflect the values and biases of whatever editors have worked on them, not the values and biases of Bomis, whatever these may be. ] 07:31, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Am I the only one who thinks this? Would there be any significant opposition to my changing the citation method yet again, to use the current post-2014 method for books and other printed sources and return to the "normal" pre-2014 long-form-in-references for websites and other electronic sources? I'll also see if I can introduce {{tl|sfn}} into sourcing when I'm done. Thanks! – ] (] • ]) 05:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
See ] and ask: ''Are ] and Michael13 the same person?'' If, like me, you think they probably are, act accordingly. ] 11:54, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:There is nothing wrong with the citations. They can be interlinked . ] (]) 09:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:*Given that websites don't (usually) have "pages" like a book does, a website need be cited only once in the References section. The current citation format essentially gives the "References" section twice, which is a pain IMO. I see the use of the format in books, and have myself written/contributed to FAs with that format, but there's no reason to have it for websites. – ] (] • ]) 04:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The citation method is odd. I really wouldn't be against having a discussion about changing the style (in lieu of ]). The ] was depreciated in September 2020. – ] (]) 04:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
], if you have a real interest in the study of wiki systems, you may want to contribute the results of your research to . ] 12:48, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "Analysis" == |
|
:Thanks for the invitation, JW, but we rely on a paying readership to support research for articles. If you watch the non-refereed trade journals related to the topic of Internet psychology, you might notice the results of our inquiry a few months from now. But the article is not primarily about wiki culture, it is about perceptions of sexism in electronically networked communication. Misplaced Pages would likely be a small part of the article, if it makes the cut at all. A wiki enthusiast could probably briefly summarize our work as fair use, if they find it relevant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "Analysis" section is ] quotes about the company. Nothing indicates these mentions are inherently notable. Why is this included, and what is the "analysis" that it provides? --] <sup style="color:black">]</sup> 15:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
:These responses have inspired some thoughts about paranoia and expression of suspicions in networked environments, but we would first need to persuade an editor we have a viable premise before investing any research in that topic. I am still interested in any additional information about why Bomis chose to provide bandwidth to Misplaced Pages instead of to Nupedia, because the two formats are generally indicative of two coping styles we are exploring. Eventually we might call Bomis' owner and ask directly, but this seems a fair way to querry a network of writers. ] 23:20, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Now this is has been "Description of site" which is even more non-encyclopedic. We don't need to include a bunch of opinions about a website unless they are notable in themselves. --] <sup style="color:black">]</sup> 04:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I disagree. We document what RS say about Bomis. This is part of what makes it notable enough for an article here, and it's of interest what reputation it has among RS. Bomis is the one that's notable, while the sources only have to be reliable. We document both facts and opinions here. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 04:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Remove yacht photo description? == |
|
::Bomis is a very small company; for most purposes rather than talking of ''Bomis'' as some kind of disconnected entity we should simply speak of '']''. Bomis is basically Jimmy, a partner or two, and a few employees. He started Nupedia, hiring an editor (]) and donating hosting for it on Bomis's servers. After a while Nupedia spun off a side project, Misplaced Pages, which was to be a little more free-form and faster paced and was meant originally to provide draft text potentially to be refined by Nupedia. Work on Nupedia (with high barriers to entry) slowly dried up while Misplaced Pages (with very low barriers to entry) took off to everyone's astonishment. Eventually a server problem knocked Nupedia offline and there've been relatively few requests to try to restore it. I'd recommend you contact Jimmy directly for more information. --] 22:24, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the "Hosted Content" section a photo of Jimmy Wales in a yacht is described but not included. I'm not sure that the photo is notable or relevant to the article (maybe ]?), but if it is mentioned, the photo itself (published by The Register here, seemingly under Jimmy Wales's copyright https://www.theregister.com/2012/03/12/jimbo_whitehall_divine_master/) should be included. In my opinion the photo does help convey Wales's image during the dot-com boom era, but that would make it more appropriate for his bio page than this one. ] (]) 01:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
Speaking of the Bomis Babe Report, is it ever going to be updated again? :P --] 17:51, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Internet company == |
|
== Add another bracket? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The beginning of the article, "Bomis (...from Bitter Old Men in Suits (rhyming with "promise")..." is written in this manner. Shouldn't there be another bracket after the "promise" part? So it would be "Bomis (...from Bitter Old Men in Suits (rhyming with "promise"))" ] (]) 14:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
Is ] an article that should be created, or not? - ] <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 21:54, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Fixed (not by me). All the best: ''] ]''<small> 10:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC).</small><br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Vandalism== |
|
==Server(s)== |
|
|
Trivia, perhaps, but the line "Wales used money from Bomis to maintain the Misplaced Pages servers in Tampa, Florida." may give a slightly misleading impression. For some time there was "a server" (I have no idea where it was) and it would be good to be sure that does not overlap Bomis 100% funding. |
|
A vandal keeps on taking out this picture: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All the best: ''] ]''<small> 10:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC).</small><br /> |
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
] 13:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:A troll keeps adding it - it does not belong there and is a copyright violation. ] 13:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|
The citation method currently used is unorthodox and uncomfortable, IMO. Looking through this talk page I understand that it was changed to its current format in 2014 in order to mirror the method often used in FAs. The problem, such that I see it, is that in FAs this citation method (short form in "References" and more detailed form in "Bibliography") is usually used, and IMO works well, only for books. When used for websites as it is here, it is uncomfortable and makes a very long "Bibliography" section. Looking through the past couple TFAs I don't see any use this exact format.
Am I the only one who thinks this? Would there be any significant opposition to my changing the citation method yet again, to use the current post-2014 method for books and other printed sources and return to the "normal" pre-2014 long-form-in-references for websites and other electronic sources? I'll also see if I can introduce {{sfn}} into sourcing when I'm done. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
In the "Hosted Content" section a photo of Jimmy Wales in a yacht is described but not included. I'm not sure that the photo is notable or relevant to the article (maybe Misplaced Pages:INDISCRIMINATE?), but if it is mentioned, the photo itself (published by The Register here, seemingly under Jimmy Wales's copyright https://www.theregister.com/2012/03/12/jimbo_whitehall_divine_master/) should be included. In my opinion the photo does help convey Wales's image during the dot-com boom era, but that would make it more appropriate for his bio page than this one. 69.123.217.7 (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The beginning of the article, "Bomis (...from Bitter Old Men in Suits (rhyming with "promise")..." is written in this manner. Shouldn't there be another bracket after the "promise" part? So it would be "Bomis (...from Bitter Old Men in Suits (rhyming with "promise"))" 178.75.53.169 (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Trivia, perhaps, but the line "Wales used money from Bomis to maintain the Misplaced Pages servers in Tampa, Florida." may give a slightly misleading impression. For some time there was "a server" (I have no idea where it was) and it would be good to be sure that does not overlap Bomis 100% funding.