AnimeMusicVideos.org Wikipedia's entry.

Org Profile · Post by **Phade** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:01 pm

Hey,

My point is the use of the word "revealed" which implies that the information was not public until action was taken by ANN. This is at minimum highly misleading. If that were not the case, the article could just have easily said, "My web site revealed today that..." which although may be technically true, is very misleading.

(Example: Indian Jones revealed the location of The Ark. Belloq revealed the location of The Ark. Both persons did tell someone else the location of the Ark, thus technically "revealing" the information at some time. But the second statement is misleading since Jones in the one who actually revealed the location while Belloq just used and passed the information along.)

At any rate, the information is not among the most important aspects of AnimeMusicVideos.org, thus not relevant at this time given the total lack of content of greater relevance in the article.

Phade.

FPPain · Post by **FPPain** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:55 am

Why did you concentrate so much on the legal issue, which is the most delicate and less relevant/interesting part of the article itself?

If a website like digg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digg
has a long page dedicated, with just a few thousands users and, let me say, the quality of the messages is quite poor too.

Why souldn't we have a nice and interesting page on wiki?

Half a million users, thousands of hours of work, a real subculture on the internet. It definitely deserves a wikipedia entry, more than many other websites.

Org Profile · Post by **Phade** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:02 pm

Hey,

When I saw the article, there were exactly three sentences in it, of which two were either misleading or false. I simply removed that information since I don't have time to create such an article myself (I concentrate on stuff that needs to be done on this site).

I am not opposed to a well-written, factual (hopefully even positive) Wikipedia article about the Org. But if one is to exist, it should have useful and relevant information about the Org for people who have never heard of the Org before. Such information would be when it was founded, why it was founded, what the AMV community was like before it was founded, how the site has changed the community, how the site has grown from its original incarnation, and so on and so forth. However, I will not tolerate false or misleading information.

Phade.

FPPain · Post by **FPPain** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:13 am

Hi,

that is indeed reasonable, in fact, I never expected YOU to write the article, I was asking the community.

And just for the record, when you went there, the misleading information was not written by me, I just inserted a few sentences about the content of the website and a few figures about the members and number of videos, hoping that people would expand it.

badmartialarts · Post by **badmartialarts** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:08 pm

Delete.thorblitzer is one of the few people I would even deem an 'expert' on a-m-v.org, given her work about the community in her research, and her work would probably fall under the 'original research' clause of Wikipedia. I don't see why an encyclopedia would have an article about a website at all.
~~~badmartialarts, 02 Feb 2006, 19:09:17

Prodigi · Post by **Prodigi** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:56 am

Phade wrote:When I saw the article, there were exactly three sentences in it, of which two were either misleading or false. I simply removed that information since I don't have time to create such an article myself (I concentrate on stuff that needs to be done on this site).

the words of a true leader