Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:48, 30 March 2015

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Websites: Computing C‑class High‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Companies C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments

More detail

According to the knowledge market article, a knowledge market is "A knowledge market is a mechanism for distributing knowledge resources. There are two views on knowledge and how knowledge markets can function. One view uses a legal construct of intellectual property to make knowledge a typical scarce resource, so the traditional commodity market mechanism can be applied directly to distribute it. An alternative model is based on treating knowledge as a public good and hence encouraging free sharing of knowledge. This is often referred to as attention economy. Currently there is no consensus among researchers on relative merits of these two approaches." The Quora article does not clarify which one it is. Is it an expert-driven system where people can suggest edits like Britannica? Or is it more like Misplaced Pages?

--Smkatz (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a really good observation. My opinion is that Quora is intended to be an expert-driven system. Users can suggest edits and questions are supposed to be fielded by experts. Unfortunately I don't think there is much vetting of expertise, you can only really flag as promotional or not. There is not a mechanism that I am aware of where you can be noted as an SME. I do think Quora intends to treat knowledge as a public good, it is very easy to share information there. What is your opinion about other answer question sites like LinkedIn, Yahoo answers, etc? I don't know that they have been categorized either.NCSS (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Misc

Fixed the ambiguity. Ludi317 (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Added Quora's Logo. Buddydavid (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Registration required?

The infobox says that registration is optional, but it seems to me that it is required in order to participate. Am I right? --Jaqen (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

YesLborodkin (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right Jaqn. NCSS (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's why it is probably going to fail. I find my answers someplace else now. I hate when websites force people to sign in with their facebook, twitter etc accounts. 88.238.95.24 (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Competitors

Why are the competitors listed in the introduction? The competition probably warrants its own section.

Also, would LinkedIn not also be a competitor? NCSS (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't think LinkedIn has much of the Q&A component that online knowledge markets have. Facebook Questions might be a more relevant competition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.207.128.254 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Flags

I flagged this article for structure as the sections do not read like paragraphs should (prose). the article seems to be well sourced, but it needs some help. NCSS (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Registration free and open?

User:Biblbroks thinks registration is not free, but still invite only. But visiting the site allows anyone with a Facebook or Twitter account to register and use the site. Looking for a source that states current status. --Pmsyyz (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked: http://www.quora.com/Getting-Started-on-Quora/Do-you-have-to-receive-an-invitation-to-use-Quora , users outside the US need an invitation, but users in the US can register. I'll change it. ToastIsTasty (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Registration has always been free. Invitations were required for all, even post-beta, but that ended by early 2011, maybe before. Invitations are required for users outside the U.S.A. in general, but there seem to be a few exceptions e.g. Germany, though even that isn't consistent, nor a stated company policy.

The company policy is that registration is free to all, and invitations are not required for users in the U.S.A., or at least as best as I can determine. I think the current wording in the Misplaced Pages article is accurate, at this point in time. --FeralOink (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Facebook version of Quora

Facebook version of Quora: facebook.com/pages/FaceAnswers/121984454540490 or FaceAnswers.com (redirected)

better domain names for Quora to increase the number of users and visits: FaceQuora.com and SocialQuora.com

.

I have noticed this feature, too, but I am not sure I would call it Quora exactly. NCSS (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Flags

This article needs to be rewritten to sound less like a sales promotional tool for Quora. My suspicion is that people related to the company are editing this page as flags are continually taken down with no real improvements. Please do not remove the flags until some significant improvement has been made. NCSS (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The tags are being removed repeatedly by User:Pmsyyz. I do not know if that person has a WP:COI problem or if he or she just does not like tags pointing out problems in an article. I agree that the tags cannot be removed without actual improvement to the article. Since multiple editors have added those tags and only one has removed them, I hope that Pmsyyz will respect WP:CONSENSUS. DreamGuy (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this article is written ok, except maybe for that quote in History. I just don't agree with the flags at the top of the article. Can you tell me why the article might need to reorganized or be rewritten entirely? If you don't provide suggestions or explanations for your assertions, don't be surprised if I remove the flags. --Pmsyyz (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Flags should be removed once improvements have been made or consensus has been reached. Do you have any COI issues to share with us Pmsyyz? This article needs to be rewritten to adhere to Misplaced Pages style guidelines. NCSS (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I just don't like ugly templates on Misplaced Pages articles if they aren't pointing out real problems. Flags should be removed if there is no evidence that flag suggested improvements are needed. Can you tell us any problem with the organization of this article? If not, I will remove that template. It appears to comply with Misplaced Pages:Layout that the template links to.--Pmsyyz (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

There are real problems, as pointed out by multiple editors. Do not remove the template until the article is fixed. See WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT for why your behavior is unacceptable. DreamGuy (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Where has anyone pointed out anything about the layout? --Pmsyyz (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad NCSS looked at the facts and removed the template, unlike DreamGuy. DreamGuy, please look at the article in the future instead of attacking others. --Pmsyyz (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops…

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: obsolete; the page is back at Quora. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Quora (websitite) → Quora (website)

• — Title is a spelling mistake accidentally made by me, when trying to turn Quora back into a dab page. Ian Spackman (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Someone already redirected the moved article back to Quora but unfortunately did a copy and paste of the text instead of moving the article. Original move was done without consensus. Between these two mistakes we have a right mess currently. DreamGuy (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• At 02:25, 5 April 2011 User:Parsecboy history-merged Quora (websitite) to Quora. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

So what needs to be done now? Can I help out somehow? NCSS (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rewrite needed?

Does anyone think the article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Misplaced Pages's quality standards? I do not. --Pmsyyz (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• It certainly needs to be rewritten--it's pretty bad. The Reception section is nothing but a list. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That section could be cleaned up, and is marked as such. But not the whole article, so I'm removing the template at the top that says the whole article might need to be rewritten. --Pmsyyz (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Help a newbie

Howdy,

I am a heavy Quora user and made a number of changes to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Quora&diff=prev&oldid=433226091 - give me feedback. Also tell me why Misplaced Pages has flagged the Quora links as 'self-published sources' - if this is truly policy (and your Verifiability policy does say that "personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources") and Quora is not an acceptable source, I expect Misplaced Pages will be irrelevant within 10 years.

Best, Mariuskempe (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, as much as I like the idea of Quora, much more I like the idea of Misplaced Pages. Therefore I must say that I expect that your stated opinion about your expectation will be irrelevant in matter of hours if not even less. Thanks for the contributions to the article. All the best, --biblbroks (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Very funny. The reason that Misplaced Pages is trusted by so many is verification. For a source to meet the standard it needs to have editorial oversight. Quora does not have that type of oversight. NCSS (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Reception section

The reception section seems very superfluous and self-serving. While it has references, the formatting and content are highly suspect. NCSS (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Quora Screen Capture - Summer 2011.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Quora Screen Capture - Summer 2011.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Misplaced Pages. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Flag

I think this article has been edited by people from Quora, because it seems like an ad. The article has vague phrasing about "growth" and only seems to cover positive topics. A thorough review of sourcing should also be done. NCSS (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. As of March 2015 the article is being edited with all recent unfavorable press links taken out.

Regarding the "See Also"

In the see also section, currently there are only item Askville, I guess maybe we can also add some other related entries such as Stackoverflow, Yahoo_Answer. Hfevers (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No need. There is a whole list in "Question and answer website", wikilinked from main text. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

On of my first actions would be to add a See Also section, as it is one of the best NPOV measures without edits, in my experience. G. Robert Shiplett 18:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Problems editing and with page rendering

On this date there were serious problems at the quora.com site including server errors and edit update errors with both IE and Firefox ; I can try later with Safari ; a Chrome user may wish to try. The tiny HV3 browser seems to do better rendering their pages.

I will see if I can add some balance if not NPOV to this article

G. Robert Shiplett 18:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section?

Article seriously needs a criticism section. Lot of privacy concerns on the web about Quora, and much discussion of how it represents a kind of privatisation of information, or knowledge vault merely for the initiated... Article reads like PR release for Quora. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.26.74 (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The article appears to be systematically censored by Quora-friendly or -paid parties. for instance, many recent edits were all systematically undone one at a time, seemingly by a bot. The article bears close watching for POV as it was badly out of date.

It is being kept out of date by edits with vague or no objections. Please review this version for neutrality, as it is an attempt to balance a seemingly entirely negative view of Quora in the press 2013-15, with claims by Marc Bodnick of Quora itself that claim the site is "5x to 15x" more used than public measurements suggest. It seems there is an active attempt to control this article to maintain a pretense that Quora is a major media property despite evidence it has failed to meet any of the hyped expectations of 2010-11 such as a "multibillion dollar" valuation.

Actually there is a privacy concern section. Could you be more specific on what you feel the article needs? NCSS (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Privacy concern section updated with recent EU regulation concerns, and contrasting versus features Facebook etc. have.

This section despite being heavily referenced is also being censored. There is seemingly no stated press release nor policy by Quora on how to respond to the EU legislation on right to be forgotten. Facebook etc are facing major problems in this regard so it is clearly an issue facing social media sites.

Link

Is http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Why-Quora-Is-Misplaced Pages-s-Worst-Nightmare-3817912.php relevant to this article? Toccata quarta (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Not especially relevant, I don't think. Jimmy Wales is an investor in Quora per his statements on Quora website content. Quora is HARDLY even close to Misplaced Pages, regardless of whether or not Jimmy Wales has any association with Quora. Also, that article was written in late August 2012. Since then, one of the Quora founders has departed, and there have been other changes. Now the new TechCrunch rumor du jour is that Quora is a Twitter competitor. It is no more a Twitter competitor than a Misplaced Pages competitor! That is not merely my personal opinion. Thank you for the URL though. I enjoyed looking at the photos, and reading the article, as I had not seen it before! --FeralOink (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed 100% NCSS (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Walled garden

Quora appears to be a kind of locked strongroom for information. In a sense it's the opposite of the egalitarian and free Misplaced Pages. Recently on the web, a user's personal details have become a kind of currency. Subsequently Quora will only allow one to view "answers" (which are often incorrect anyway) if one is prepared to hand over one's details: in a sense, "pay" for the information with one's email address / personal attributes. If this were untrue, then why is it a prerequisite for one to be logged in in order to use the site? To many, Quora represents a walled garden of data. There has been much criticism of this aspect of the website, yet the article (which is like an advertisement for Quora) don't seem to address this in any way. 86.161.178.132 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Religious Affiliation

Bearing in mind the large numbers of questions on Quora which appear to emanate from certain American cults, and also taking into account the censorship policies in use by the moderators which seem to favour these cults, would it not be appropriate in any account of the site to indicate whether or not its owners or censors admit to a religious affiliation?

I ask because it seems that criticism of world wide major religions is permitted without question on Quora, but any comment on some of the cults is instantly redacted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg40 (talk • contribs)

This is a common criticism. The persons responsible for content moderation on Quora are very opinionated on some topics they moderate, and seem uninhibited about using that power.

Even major decisions like 3-month blocks, have absolutely no advertised appeals method, and no way to tell who complained or made the decision. It is not even possible to message those who made the decision anonymously, though Quora does have anonymous facilities for this.

So yes given all this, it is perfectly appropriate to delve into Marc Bodnick and Adam D'Angelo's views in particular, though not to excess. If they are widely reported to be involved in some political or social project, and views unfavorable to that project were to be censored, then that could deserve a mention. but it would be hard to source such a claim as no one covers Quora now.

Yet another trolling site

Quora is just a glorified Yahoo Answers, that's all. 177.148.162.192 (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

article being kept in a 2010-11 promotional state

is an account created simply to hide an IP, and may be a systematic attempt to censor critical updates to the article, keeping it out of date but favorable to Quora. The fact that a number of edits were all undone one at a time, and by an entirely new account seemingly created for this purpose, suggests a bot. The edits removed many references. Those edits are now consolidated and compressed somewhat with many new references, e.g. in privacy section, and the overall article refactored (so "reception" no longer exists with out of date references from 2010 without date markings). It is up to date as of this version of March 2.

This article was already on watch for being patrolled by conflicted or paid editors, who are clearly warned on top of this page not to censor it. Quora is notable for unverifiable claims like Quora traffic being "5x to 15x" what public measurement services can measure. That is now reflected explicitly in this article version , along with the balancing fact that there is no independent auditing or technique involved in such claims.

Lack of press coverage in 2014-15 except for one unfavorable article, use of terms like "underachieve", "plateau", "failing", "near-unicorn", etc., all strongly suggest Quora is not the financial darling it once was.

I hope the above satisfies ] or other Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Private_Equity editor. There is no financial motive on my part to devalue Quora, and it would be helpful if others could disclos clearly if they have any reason to detract or promote it.

User:Wikidemon also reverted the article to a prior outdated pro-Quora POV without an attempt to retain even clearly relevant links, I have attempted to engage him on this and refocus effort constructively on sourcing criticisms in version that seem to have sources only in Quora itself. Most of the article, on financials etc. is already well sourced.

Please don't accuse editors of censorship. I'm not a "private equity" investor, I just put my name down a long time ago on that page hoping it would be a way to explore some editing opportunities. As it turns out, most projects on Misplaced Pages are all rather moribund, it turns out not to be a popular way for editors to organize around topics. If you'd like to propose some changes to the article could you please do so one at a time, preferably here, so we can discuss? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, look, sorry, that obvious bot edit by Conaissance99 made me pretty suspicious, and it's not your fault.

I have vetted everything I could say was an opinion, though of course some things that seem obvious to any Quora user may not be to a non-user, etc., so please, go ahead and moderate any language you think remains that is a problem. I removed all the criticisms of the content that have sources only on Quora threads into a section below so we can debate what is adequate sourcing for each.

The article was in such sad shape there is really no way to fix it without a general refactor. If you wish to totally rewrite it from all the same 2013-15 sources that I used, retaining the critical tone of those sources in some context that fairly balances the 2010-11 hype and the valuations that no one seems to believe ("near-unicorn"?), go ahead. But the structure of the article was untenable, with "reception" listing stuff from 2010-11, "operations" including social media and content features, and so on. Someone has to refactor it from the new sources, if not me then you go ahead. But I'm addressing every concern that you raised, including with my pointed talk comments.~

The material you added is mostly not usable because it does not meet Misplaced Pages standards for weight, sourcing, tone, etc. Would you please revert it so we can go through changes one by one? There's probably enough there in the stable status quo version of the article, outdated though it may be, to bring things current. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert or edit because I work for the company, but several statements are totally unverified and/or not written in accordance with NPOV. For instance...

• No source: 'As of 2015 the overwhelming majority of reviews of Quora come from Quora itself. Promotion from New York and Silicon Valley press seemed to have ceased in 2012-13. There was little external coverage even from India (which attracts more Quora users than any other country) nor in the US 2014-15 except one Fortune article (see below).' This is definitely untrue. See my links below which are just two examples.
• Biased descriptions and speculation: 'Furthermore, outlandish claims such as "5x to 15x" more users than public measurement services reflect, have been made by Marc Bodnick to investors. These claims are seemingly unverified; no company auditor has commented on the basis for them.' This is pretty nonsensical when many sites are relied on as the source about the size of their own userbase. There are no third party sources for things like Facebook user numbers. The additional flourish of language like "outlandish" is particularly not neutral. The NPOV way of saying this is to say, "In X year, representatives of the company claimed..." etc.
• Factually incorrect: 'Notably direct editorial supervision and control of all moderation being handed to Marc Bodnick, an investor and private equity venture capitalist, described as the site's "grown up"' See How does Quora moderation work, How are moderation and policy decisions made on Quora for examples. We shouldn't cite these in the article since they're primary sources, but they show how inaccurate the statement in the article is.
• More editorializing and a BLP violation: 'Bodnick has been prone to make odd unverifiable claims about the company, notably that public measurement services “significantly underestimate” Quora, and “are off by a factor of 5X to 15X" as of early 2014.' This is cited to TechCrunch, which does not call out the claims as odd, unverifiable or any other qualifier.
• More uncited editorializing: 'The validity of this valuation is hotly debated.' Uncited. Hotly debated by whom? This should be stated as speculation by the press. It's also a little odd, since basically all large valuations of private Internet companies are hotly debated.
• Unreliable sources used for critical content: 'Quora's unusual model has marked it out as unattractive to promoters' cited to a single blog post from 2011.
• More editorializing and factual incorrectness: 'seems to contain marginally notable people who do not, for instance, merit their own articles on Misplaced Pages' uncited and 'Most criticism and reviews of Quora are on Quora itself, as it appears few outside critics bothered to review it after 2011.' uncited as well. It's pretty funny too, since the author cites reviews of Quora from 2014 in his own edits. More examples of recent pieces and more in Google News if you look.

I think some of this material, like Quora being criticized for not publishing data on usage statistics like other companies, is pretty well-cited and NPOV. But a lot more of this reads like a hit piece, rather than a review based on a reasonable survey of source material. Ping @Tom Morris: as uninvolved admin who knows the subject matter. Steven Walling • talk 03:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Steven Walling: Am I uninvolved? I'm very active on Quora (on topics I'm interested in) and have been given Top Writer awards on there, which I've received gifts from Quora for. I don't work for them, but I'm probably more involved than your average admin. That said, involvement issues aside, while I haven't looked into all the points you make, I've looked at a few of the points and they do seem problematic. (Sadly, between a busy work and personal life, I haven't got much time to look into the details, but I'd encourage uninvolved editors and admins to take the issues StevenW raises seriously.) —Tom Morris (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Given all this, and my own observations, I really think we need to revert all of the additions again, and if the newly arrived editor or anyone else wants to update the article they're free to follow more conventional BRD editing process, and trying to establish consensus (and more pertinently, propose relevant, properly sourced material of due weight and NPOV). They really don't seem to know the ropes here about article sourcing and composition, although they seem to be making a good faith attempt to listen and learn. With respect to content, I do think we need to avoid adding too much detail sourced to tech blogs and their ilk that grouses about privacy, features, indexing, funding valuations, etc. All that Silicon Valley navel gazing stuff isn't terribly edifying to the wider public, and it applies equally to almost any consumer tech site. If we filled each online company's article with complaints about how they implement moderation, we'd be overwhelming what actually makes each company notable and differentiates them from each other. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's clearly consensus view to revert almost all of this. The part that I think is fair to retain is "Growth since 2011 has been extremely hard to determine as registrations are no longer revealed. Questions about readership on Quora itself go systematically and officially unanswered as of early 2015." cited to sources 20-22. The other part that is fair is "Technical press has also been criticial of forcing users to sign up to read, forcing them to download the mobile app from its earliest buggiest versions even to read or answer online, led to criticism in the technical press that it was "alienating key users"" cited to GigaOm. Other than that I think it should be removed, though I'm still not going to edit directly because of my COI. Steven Walling • talk 00:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(Personal attacks and legal claims removed - Wikidemon (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC))

POV tag

The article is still in this "promotional state" due to the removal of almost all criticisms, and still badly out of date. After almost a month, no one has bothered to actually address the issues raised by the initial editor who made seemingly several good-faith attempts to moderate language, dull pointed claims, reflect the actual language used in the press, and so on. He or she certainly has not been met with same.

Several problems with the above debate and decisions that came from it, which seems strongly influenced by a person who has admitted being an employee of Quora. But not (yet) admitted who created the one-use account that was initially used to remove exactly the above criticisms he details his objections to above.

1. Employees should be minimally or not involved in these debates, and certainly not creating one-shot accounts to do reversions without even adequate edit summary.

2. Some of these objections are specious or absurd. For instance, an executive of a company claiming that the company really gets ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE USERS than the standard industry measures say it does, is indeed objectively unprecedented, outlandish, absurd and not standard industry practice. The adjectives used to describe Quora's valuation in the press ("near-unicorn") clearly reflect that absurdity and utter lack of belief in the management's claims.

It seems quite fair to say that a valuation that gets called "near-unicorn" by a major financial news outlet is being "hotly debated". Pick a different phrase if you want but that language isn't used about your average tech company.

Worse, a Quora employee has a direct financial incentive to suppress such critical perspective. Thus the POV notice.

3. Quora clearly and objectively failed to meet the predicted valuation targets that analysts or promoters had for it in 2010-11 when it was heavily hyped. It is not original research to point that out, even from a weak source. It's just arithmetic.

4. While the same Quora employee is demanding the removal of the best sources available (app reviews users publish under their own name at Google or Apple store, for instance), he is pushing Quora links himself as evidence for his claim that moderation is objectively run, and these are somehow acceptable. How does Quora moderation work, How are moderation and policy decisions made on Quora are CLAIMS made about policy by Marc Bodnick primarily. All over the web you find people specifically saying these policies are either not followed, not followed consistently, out of date or otherwise misleading.

Quora's own executives in a thread they control is not a valid source on what Quora's policies are in practice. Blogs and App stores would certainly be better, but frankly no one believes Quora's claims to an objective process, with phrases like "Quora downvote cabal" so prevalent on the net they probably need an article of their own.

5. "There was little external coverage even from India (which attracts more Quora users than any other country) nor in the US 2014-15 except one Fortune article (see below).' This is definitely untrue. See my links below which are just two examples. " The links provided are puff pieces, interviews with the company's executives from buzzfeed and recode only - not journalists, and not from an objective point of view.

The original point stands: A couple of interviews from friendly journalists is simply not "coverage" of the service.

6. Prior to this discussion on the Talk page, when the initial editor was persistent and seemingly (read the talk page exchanges) diligent in following up and editing the material that the Quora employee objects to, there was this series of bot edits from one-tie account "Connaissance99" which is most likely a bot used by Steven Walling the Quora employee, or someone else at the company who reverts edits with bots:

• (cur | prev) 08:18, 2 March 2015‎ Connaissance99 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,735 bytes) (-450)‎ . . (Undid revision 649399637 by 76.11.94.94 (talk)) (undo | thank)
• 12 more like this in between
• (cur | prev) 08:07, 2 March 2015‎ Connaissance99 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,723 bytes) (-1,302)‎ . . (→‎History) (undo | thank)

So, now, this illegal practice is being rewarded by doing more or less exactly the same censorship that this bot was first to attempt.

This should be escalated and Walling's activities closely investigated, and reported to Quora itself.

This article may be about to get a paragraph explaining the manipulations by the company to preserve its "near-unicorn" valuation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erantan (talk • contribs) 18:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

content criticisms and reviews

Omitted because Quora and Apple Store and Google Play, none of which are really valid sources,

ADWEEK is not a valid source? AdWeek? that's a POV claim. "the only list of criticisms"? Not exactly, the web is rife with complaints about Quora, but AdWeek not valid? This is beyond POV and COI, it is just censorship. Likely by Quora's own employees.

are the only list of criticisms current as of March 2015. This list was in prior versions of the article User:Wikidemon objected to:

Some general criticisms include:

• lack of non-English-speaking users
• crude, personality-not-policy-based, moderation, with lack of formal appeals or short term "cooling off" blocks like Misplaced Pages's
• lack of dialogue between multiple competent scholars
  • no requirement to provide verifiable sources in answers, many heavily upvoted answers are just widely shared views
• lack of any neutral board or other oversight to ensure systemic biases do not affect quality or diversity of answers
  • specifically, lack of any oversight over overt political censorship by key editorial personnel

Most of these appear to be scale problems. Misplaced Pages, for instance, only evolved an appeals and arbitration process, and scholarly participation at a much larger size than Quora has achieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.94 (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

"On Quora, a core of insiders often decides what is considered wit, correct language use and currency of knowledge for the rest of the community. They implement their biases by using several tactics, one of which is collapsing answers—even those with a very high number of upvotes." - AdWeek

Quora question: "Why is it so hard to give feedback to Quora?"

How widely used is Quora by famous people?

Here's the list from Quora's own list of most famous. The list includes some obviously using ghostwriters such as politicians, and is clearly not of the same depth as say the users of Twitter or facebook or LinkedIn.

• Ashton Kutcher who was actually an initial investor

JJ Abrams (movie director & writer) Jason Segel Felicia Day Actress & creator of "The Guild" Stephen Fry(Actor) Mark Rowswell, a.k.a. Da Shan 大山　 Tim Matheson (actor and director)　 Janet Hsieh (TV show host (Discovery TLC), actress, violinist, author) Michael Bublé (singer/songwriter) Ravish Kumar (Host of Ravish Ki Report and Prime Time on NDTV India ) Ethan Hawke (actor, writer, director) Cat Cora (Iron Chef, Food Network) Juan Pablo Galavis (The Bachelor) Jason Bateman (director/actor/producer) Travis Barker (Musician, Songwriter, Producer, Blink 182) Ian Somerhalder (Actor on The Vampire Diaries) Wesley Schultz (Lead vocalist of the Lumineers) Irrfan Khan(Actor in Life of Pi, Slumdog Millionaire, Lunchbox, Paan Singh Tomar) Danielle Panabaker (Actress in The Flash)

Authors Amy Chua (the Tiger Mom) Nicholas Kristof (NY Times Columnist)

Business & Entrepreneurial Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Case, Mark Cuban, Jimmy Wales - an investor in Quora, Marc Andreessen, Dustin Moskovitz - an investor in Quora, Tim Westergren, Reed Hastings - an investor in Quora, Sheryl Sandberg - Quora CFO's Marc Bodnick's sister in law

Comedian Scott Aukerman, Host of Comedy Bang! Bang!

Composers Nathan McCree, Hans Zimmer

Film Alfonso Cuarón. Francis Lawrence

Politics Cory Booker, mayor of Newark, NJ. Larry Summers, economist Sid Espinosa, mayor of Palo Alto, CA. Barack Obama, president of the United States Ron Paul, former Texas congressman and presidential candidate. John McCain

Screenwriters Sean Hood, John August

Sports Jeremy Lin, Point Guard for the Houston Rockets, Pat Cash, Tennis player, Tiki Barber, former NY Giants Running Back

This is all WP:OR, and therefore not usable - Wikidemon (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• C-Class Websites articles
• High-importance Websites articles
• C-Class Websites articles of High-importance
• C-Class Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Websites articles
• C-Class company articles
• Low-importance company articles
• WikiProject Companies articles
• Company articles needing attention