Talk:Badoo: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:01, 1 May 2014 editCorporateM (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers40,012 edits →Lede ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:18, 30 May 2014 edit undoUnforgettableid (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,729 editsm →Lede: Formatting.Next edit →
Line 48:		Line 48:
	I'm not sure we need to lead with the "deceptive practice" bit. After all, when I signed up for LinkedIn they pulled the same contact-scraping stuff, tricking me, an experienced computer programmer, into emailing my entire gmail address book. This sort of deception is not an uncommon thing. ] (]) 16:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)		I'm not sure we need to lead with the "deceptive practice" bit. After all, when I signed up for LinkedIn they pulled the same contact-scraping stuff, tricking me, an experienced computer programmer, into emailing my entire gmail address book. This sort of deception is not an uncommon thing. ] (]) 16:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

	I would like to second the concerns raised by Gigs. Before I do, I'd like to explain why I'm not editing the article directly myself. I follow the "Bright Line" practice of not directly editing articles where I may be perceived to have a conflict of interest. In this case, I know Andrey Andreev socially sufficiently well that I wouldn't want to be perceived as acting inappropriately on behalf of a friend.		:I would like to second the concerns raised by Gigs. Before I do, I'd like to explain why I'm not editing the article directly myself. I follow the "Bright Line" practice of not directly editing articles where I may be perceived to have a conflict of interest. In this case, I know Andrey Andreev socially sufficiently well that I wouldn't want to be perceived as acting inappropriately on behalf of a friend.

	The current "controversial tactics" bit has two sources, neither of which strike me as sufficient to even include this claim, much less raise it to the level of the opening sentence. I think it is a disgrace that it used to say (for a sadly long time) 'deceptive practice' - a clearly non-neutral claim. But even toned down, I think it is badly mistaken.		:The current "controversial tactics" bit has two sources, neither of which strike me as sufficient to even include this claim, much less raise it to the level of the opening sentence. I think it is a disgrace that it used to say (for a sadly long time) 'deceptive practice' - a clearly non-neutral claim. But even toned down, I think it is badly mistaken.

	First, one of the sources is said to be (in the footnote) a '''comment''' on the Motherboard story! That's bad enough, but in fact, when I scroll to the bottom of the article, the comment seems to not exist at all. I would imagine this is a no-brainer to remove.		:First, one of the sources is said to be (in the footnote) a '''comment''' on the Motherboard story! That's bad enough, but in fact, when I scroll to the bottom of the article, the comment seems to not exist at all. I would imagine this is a no-brainer to remove.

	Second, the Motherboard article is not a straight news piece by any means. It's a humorous commentary about the author's experience signing up for the service, written in a contentious style. For example, "The deluge of real life Badoo spam on subway cars and giant billboards doesn’t just offer some indication of the company’s desperation: it hints of what happens on the Internet version too." The word 'spam' is not normally applied to advertising in subway cars and billboards, at least not in a factual sense. (It is applied that way in a condemnatory way, I suppose.) And as the dramatic financial success of the company is explained later in the piece, there's nothing factual in the article to support the notion that the company is experiencing 'desperation'. My point here is that we can't treat this article as a news report - it's commentary.		:Second, the Motherboard article is not a straight news piece by any means. It's a humorous commentary about the author's experience signing up for the service, written in a contentious style. For example, "The deluge of real life Badoo spam on subway cars and giant billboards doesn’t just offer some indication of the company’s desperation: it hints of what happens on the Internet version too." The word 'spam' is not normally applied to advertising in subway cars and billboards, at least not in a factual sense. (It is applied that way in a condemnatory way, I suppose.) And as the dramatic financial success of the company is explained later in the piece, there's nothing factual in the article to support the notion that the company is experiencing 'desperation'. My point here is that we can't treat this article as a news report - it's commentary.

	Having said that, the actual allegations in the article certainly don't support the adjective 'deceptive' nor do they support the idea that there is 'controversy'. It seems like the site asks you to link your Facebook, Google, Yahoo accounts (a standard practice these days) and that they ask to contact your friends (or do they really ask? - a factual story about that would to my mind justify the use of the word 'controversial'). The Motherboard piece does not seem to justify it, because the author cheerfully admits that he agreed to it. In order to really justify discussing things, we'd need a better source - and we'd need a much better source or set of sources to justify elevating this to the lede. (Facebook, MySpace, and many others sites have received complaints about viral marketing methods, but we don't put that into the lede for any of those.)--] (]) 15:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)		:Having said that, the actual allegations in the article certainly don't support the adjective 'deceptive' nor do they support the idea that there is 'controversy'. It seems like the site asks you to link your Facebook, Google, Yahoo accounts (a standard practice these days) and that they ask to contact your friends (or do they really ask? - a factual story about that would to my mind justify the use of the word 'controversial'). The Motherboard piece does not seem to justify it, because the author cheerfully admits that he agreed to it. In order to really justify discussing things, we'd need a better source - and we'd need a much better source or set of sources to justify elevating this to the lede. (Facebook, MySpace, and many others sites have received complaints about viral marketing methods, but we don't put that into the lede for any of those.) --] (]) 15:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

	:I gave the article a once-over removing a lot of poorly sourced controversy, as well as some redundancy, general copy-editing, slight promotion, etc. In the process I removed from The Economist that may have good information in it, but was poorly used to add quoted commentary. I find quotes are often used to add anecdotes and editorialized language from the source that would otherwise be seen as un-acceptable and un-encyclopedic.		::I gave the article a once-over removing a lot of poorly sourced controversy, as well as some redundancy, general copy-editing, slight promotion, etc. In the process I removed from The Economist that may have good information in it, but was poorly used to add quoted commentary. I find quotes are often used to add anecdotes and editorialized language from the source that would otherwise be seen as un-acceptable and un-encyclopedic.

	:I need to run (to a dentist appointment as it were) but one thing Jimbo mentions above I did not look into is the Motherboard story . The author is called a "contributor" and on his Twitter he calls himself a "reporter" for Motherboard. If he is a professional reporter, he should be a reliable source. However, I have not read the whole article (it is a long read) or evaluated exactly how it is used on this page. ] (]) 19:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)		::I need to run (to a dentist appointment as it were) but one thing Jimbo mentions above I did not look into is the Motherboard story . The author is called a "contributor" and on his Twitter he calls himself a "reporter" for Motherboard. If he is a professional reporter, he should be a reliable source. However, I have not read the whole article (it is a long read) or evaluated exactly how it is used on this page. ] (]) 19:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:18, 30 May 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Badoo article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Russia: Technology & engineering / Economy / Mass media Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the economy of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the mass media in Russia task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Websites: Computing

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Automatic IP blocking of users trying to delete profiles

The Badoo staff is clever: first the whole "someone sent you a message", using a profile made of information illegally (and I know my consumer and privacy law) harvested on other social networks and then used on their website, and when you follow that link (I had to, because the concerned person recently started suffering from social isolation and could end up in depression) it creates a "profile" automatically. Hopefully, I only gave them fake info and a fake picture.

This is where it gets really funny: you "can" delete a profile, but for that you need your password. To get your password, you need to request it first. When you request it, after going in the account deletion menu, they immediately flag your account as "suspicious" and block your IP from the entire website.

I just tried it with junk email addresses and other Internet lines (= so different IPs) here, and am able to reproduce it. Same with proxies. It's not the cache nor the cookies (tried clearing the cache, using other browsers, other devices on the same fixed-IP line).

 --88.177.158.231 (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

There have been various edits to revert the page to reflect some strong feelings about Badoo. These edits are not in line with WP:NPOV which must be considered when editing.

Many of the sources used as citations for these views are old personal blogs or dated consumer complaints.

Badoo has faced criticism, that is indisputable, but it must be presented from a neutral point of view and weight given in accordance with the reliability of the source materials. Please see WP:RS.

Lucspook (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw the edits you made today. I reverted them: please see the edit summary I provided. Good point about the blogs and whatnot, though. I therefore subsequently edited the page to remove some personal blogs and other apparent non-RSes and the article text which they were used to back. If you feel that the article still cites any non-RSes, please say so and send me a {{talkback}} template. If I correctly understand the WP:OR policy, your point cited to the Data Protection Commissioner website is OR and forbidden on Misplaced Pages. If you believe I incorrectly understand the policy, please say so. Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to address the Data Protection website reference for now, I have studied WP:NOR and the reference to the UK Data Protection Commission and this reference is not in breach. It is a primary source - that is true - and so should be treated with caution, without interpretation or analysis.

The UK Data Protection Commission is highly relevant in this context as they are the national data protection regulator and therefore regulates Badoo's data practice. There is no interpretation of the source, just a statement of fact.

"There have been no recorded complaints to the UK Data Protection Commissioner."

I will refer back to you on the other issues in due course.

Lucspook (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Lede

I'm not sure we need to lead with the "deceptive practice" bit. After all, when I signed up for LinkedIn they pulled the same contact-scraping stuff, tricking me, an experienced computer programmer, into emailing my entire gmail address book. This sort of deception is not an uncommon thing. Gigs (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to second the concerns raised by Gigs. Before I do, I'd like to explain why I'm not editing the article directly myself. I follow the "Bright Line" practice of not directly editing articles where I may be perceived to have a conflict of interest. In this case, I know Andrey Andreev socially sufficiently well that I wouldn't want to be perceived as acting inappropriately on behalf of a friend.

The current "controversial tactics" bit has two sources, neither of which strike me as sufficient to even include this claim, much less raise it to the level of the opening sentence. I think it is a disgrace that it used to say (for a sadly long time) 'deceptive practice' - a clearly non-neutral claim. But even toned down, I think it is badly mistaken.

First, one of the sources is said to be (in the footnote) a comment on the Motherboard story! That's bad enough, but in fact, when I scroll to the bottom of the article, the comment seems to not exist at all. I would imagine this is a no-brainer to remove.

Second, the Motherboard article is not a straight news piece by any means. It's a humorous commentary about the author's experience signing up for the service, written in a contentious style. For example, "The deluge of real life Badoo spam on subway cars and giant billboards doesn’t just offer some indication of the company’s desperation: it hints of what happens on the Internet version too." The word 'spam' is not normally applied to advertising in subway cars and billboards, at least not in a factual sense. (It is applied that way in a condemnatory way, I suppose.) And as the dramatic financial success of the company is explained later in the piece, there's nothing factual in the article to support the notion that the company is experiencing 'desperation'. My point here is that we can't treat this article as a news report - it's commentary.

Having said that, the actual allegations in the article certainly don't support the adjective 'deceptive' nor do they support the idea that there is 'controversy'. It seems like the site asks you to link your Facebook, Google, Yahoo accounts (a standard practice these days) and that they ask to contact your friends (or do they really ask? - a factual story about that *would* to my mind justify the use of the word 'controversial'). The Motherboard piece does not seem to justify it, because the author cheerfully admits that he agreed to it. In order to really justify discussing things, we'd need a better source - and we'd need a much better source or set of sources to justify elevating this to the lede. (Facebook, MySpace, and many others sites have received complaints about viral marketing methods, but we don't put that into the lede for any of those.) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I gave the article a once-over removing a lot of poorly sourced controversy, as well as some redundancy, general copy-editing, slight promotion, etc. In the process I removed a source from The Economist that may have good information in it, but was poorly used to add quoted commentary. I find quotes are often used to add anecdotes and editorialized language from the source that would otherwise be seen as un-acceptable and un-encyclopedic.

I need to run (to a dentist appointment as it were) but one thing Jimbo mentions above I did not look into is the Motherboard story here. The author is called a "contributor" and on his Twitter he calls himself a "reporter" for Motherboard. If he is a professional reporter, he should be a reliable source. However, I have not read the whole article (it is a long read) or evaluated exactly how it is used on this page. CorporateM (Talk) 19:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Categories: