Talk:WordPress.com

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WordPress.com 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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Websites: Computing 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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Blogging (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles

Internet culture Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Start

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Time period[edit]

How long are WordPress.com free blogs kept online? What actions are needed, how often, to keep the blog name reserved and online? It seems that google policy is to keep blogspot blog names reserved "forever", and keep the content online "forever", without requiring any further action. There is controversy about this, and agitation to at least be able to recover blog names that are not being used, to let someone else use them.-69.87.202.28 13:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blogspot has the policy of not letting a blog URL be re-used, even if it is not being used, and has not been used for a long time -- it is not available until the previous owner chooses to release it, which they never have to do. WordPress has the even stranger policy that a blog URL may never ever be re-used, once it is deleted, by anyone, not even by the person who deleted it, even if they did it by mistake.[1] The only exception is that in a few cases internal staff may be allowed to re-use a name.[2][3] [4] (A blog URL can be transferred between owners, with care.) "The bit about Automattic staff being allowed to recycle names wasn’t in there 24 hours ago when I linked to it. It’s in there now though. No mention that it had been edited or changed."[5]

"Livejournal gets a lot of people demanding dormant usernames because, with 13 million accounts, their namespace is unbelievably crowded. They do recycle deleted names now for this very reason (and they make a bit of pocket money by charging people to rename their existing journals), but everyone knows that handing over somebody else’s account because they don’t post in it right now is something you don’t do."[6]

It would be good if WP had an article comparing such key attributes of hosted blogs.-69.87.199.11 13:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Photomatt, COI as owner of WordPress[edit]

Matt Mullenweg has edited this article before under his ID Photomatt, for example here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WordPress.com&oldid=223969961.

Are founders of companies allowed to edit their Wikipedia entries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicaruma (talk • contribs) 20:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you review the history logs, you'll also note an anonymous edit made from an IP address with the same location and date as their company bi-annual get together. --Drmike (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that other employees of Automattic have also edited this page. This includes Lloyd (I can never remember his last name) under the foolswisdom account. --Drmike (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COI:

Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers...
COI editing is strongly discouraged... Editors with a COI ... are expected to disclose it [Ed: their COI re the page] whenever they seek to change an affected article's content ... COI editors should not edit affected articles directly, but should...

When investigating COI editing, do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes... To report COI editing...

ToolmakerSteve (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ToolmakerSteve: Hello. This is a response to a comment from over ten years ago. If anyone thinks COI is an ongoing concern, I would suggest starting a new section at the bottom of the talk page which explains specifics, otherwise this is far too likely to be overlooked or ignored. Grayfell (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original features are free issue[edit]

Since some folks take offense to what I write here, I'll politely point out that the statement that "All the basic and original features (current as of May 2006) of the site are free-to-use." is incorrect. When Private blogs were first introduced, they had no limit. This was changed to only permit 35 users to be able to access private blogs. A fee was changed if you wanted additional users to have access. --Drmike (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for Wordpress.com running on proprietary code[edit]

There is talk of wordpress.com running on proprietary code but without any citation. Can somebody put up a citation for the same? Shirishag75 (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Vulnerabilities" Section[edit]

How is being susceptible to a DDoS a vulnerability? Nearly any website on the Internet, including Wikipedia, is susceptible to a DDoS. Viper007Bond (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan[edit]

As of 12 June 2011 wordpress.com is blocked in Kazakhstan. Please, spread this. --95.56.106.149 (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks by WordPress[edit]

For around a month, WordPress appeared to be blocking Nicaraguan IP addresses. Complaints were made publically on Google+ and LiveJournal and someone tried to blame the blocks on Claro or the Nicaraguan government. Nicaraguan IPs are fairly frequently blocked by small geek-run sites for being associated with spamming, and have been blocked by other services, most notably LiveJournal, when LJ was under DOS attack. The block was lifted on 2/20/2012 after early morning failures to reach a WordPress.com blog. One Nicaraguan user had a WordPress blog and had suspected Claro's 3G service but attempts to contact other WorldPress blogs or the Wordpress.com site itself over a period of a month, at different times and with different signal strengths and types all failed. As of 2/20/2012, three different testers said that the main site and others were available again. This seemed to be uniquely a block by WordPress as Claro allowed connections to Pirate Bay during that time and the Nicaraguan government does not appear to block sites, including ones hostile to it. MizOre (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of adult blogs?[edit]

Apparently WordPress.com deleted a number of adult blogs around July 2013, according to this post. Unless we can find more sources, this doesn't belong in the article, but I thought it worth mentioning here. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Advertising section is extremely inapprorpiate[edit]

The subject matter - the level of third part advertising in free WordPress sites - is legitimate, but in the version of 25 August 2015, the content is extremely inappropriate on several counts:

It is written in part as an argumentative dialogue (probably because it was).
It addresses the reader (of this Wikipedia article) in the second person ("you") when actually referring to the creator of a WordPress.com web site, and in a very un-encyclopaedic informal (and subjective) tone.
It offers advice and a preference on an advertising choice for WordPress.com customer administrators.
It is written in conjunction phrases rather than sentences. And so is this example.
It cites a reference that doesn't contain the target text.
...

I did not modify the section, as I am not familiar with the subject matter. If it doesn't get completely re-written by someone familiar with the subject matter and the Wikipedia guidelines, then I would suggest complete removal of this section. Here is the permanent link to the version I am referring to.

With thanks from ChrisJBenson (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wordpress.org[edit]

This article should explain how it relates to the open source project. It's very confusing otherwise. Come on people! 202.154.147.97 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory blog sources[edit]

Regarding this revert. The blog post being cited is a random blog which fails WP:UGC and WP:SPS. The apparent claim is that the blog was taken down, and this may or may not be because "They Disapproved of the Content". This, in turn, may or may not be censorship, since we don't have a reliable source mentioning this or attempting to find out why they "disapproved". WordPress likely takes down countless pages in any given day, for various reasons. Without a reliable source, which would necessarily be an independent source, this doesn't belong on the article. If this has received independent coverage, we would use that to contextualize what happened, and why it was significant. Grayfell (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]