Talk:EPIC 2014/Archive 1

Proposed Merger

Discussion on this topic has been closed. Consensus was not reached. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Should this be merged with EPIC 2014? It seems a little silly to have an entry for a fictional company. For instance, The Ministry of Peace redirects to 1984. However things like Oceania and Goldstein's book get their own page. Is there an official policy that can help us here? If we decide to keep the entry, I think it should be cleaned up. It is my understanding that Googlezon is a fictional company, not an entire dystopian future as claimed in the article. If it is in fact a dystopian future, can somebody cite sources to that effect? With such sources it should be possible to flesh out a better article including the nature of this fictional future.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by W0lfie (talk • contribs) 16:53, 12 April 2006.

• Against merger, but Googlezon does needs more prominent inclusion in this article. The term as coined by EPIC 2014 has taken on a life of its own. See this blog post. In just less then a year since then, it's grown from about 17,400 results on Google to about 345,000. I myself sometimes use the term to refer generally to present-day instances of the combination of Google-like and Amazon-like technology, though this may not be widespread. The fact that Google and Amazon formally joined forces in A9.com right around the time that EPIC 2014 was released is worth noting. heqs 08:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I didn't understand it quite like that. --W0lfie 18:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment after reading your rationale: In the context of EPIC 2014, it's true that Googlezon is merely a fictional company, however, the term seems to have gained rather widespread usage to more generally refer to the scenario (or type of scenario) depicted in the movie. Specific sources that document this usage are needed. heqs 09:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

first off, sorry for not signing the original message.  :-) secondly, i hadn't heard the word in any other reference. Maybe you could add something about the other uses to the article? I think that would give it some depth and context to make it a better article. Looking through the Google hits, it seems like most of them are in direct relation to EPIC, but by about page 3 or 4, I start to see essays about the general notion of Googlezon in the sense you mention. Also, I think the mention of A9 is definitely a good idea. --W0lfie 18:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a quick rewrite of the article. Basically just tried to summarize the movie (may have over-quoted it a bit), give a bit of background, and some examples of its evolved usage. I'll see if I can enhance the EPIC 2014 article a bit. heqs 14:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting to note: Lorcan Dempsey (bio here) claims to have coined the term "Amazoogle" [1] somewhere around mid-2004. Looks like that term is in pretty widespread use to describe the same thing. heqs 16:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the rework. Clearly sets Googlezon apart as a separate notion. thanks. --W0lfie 15:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just further to what I said before: the concept of "Googlezon" seems to have stuck with viewers moreso than the concept of "EPIC". For instance, if you do a search like +googlezon -epic you get tons of hits about the movie, along with many that make no mention of the movie. heqs 09:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Against merger or deletion yet another very popular Internet video, that is widely referenced online, being tagged for deletion because it doesn't meet criteria that contradicts the Wikipedia effort. Hope it will stay. --Leighblackall 00:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Against merger or deletion If something is online, with a permissive / free copyright, it should be noteworthy in the sense of having objective references. What better reference for something than itself? Anyone can see it and judge for himself. Waterpie 10:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Against merger or deletion Full disclosure: I'm one of the creators (Matt Thompson), so whatever perspective I can offer is hopelessly compromised, but I'll make a plug for Robin and my little thought experiment. Possibly the best evidence I could provide for EPIC's notability might be its international appeal: it's been translated into nine languages besides English, including Basque, Turkish and Chinese. Robin and I have seen imitations from organizations in Australia (including a smashing take -- not available online -- from a collective of Australian medical professionals). Another testament to EPIC's "notability" comes from Aline van Duyn in the Financial Times, whose about EPIC includes these lines: "Yet, for all its speculation, the film's core message has started looking less fantastical since it began capturing the imagination of figures in the media world. Not least of these is Rupert Murdoch - who recently warned that he and his fellow newspaper proprietors risked being 'relegated to the status of also-rans' if they did not overhaul their internet strategies. Mr Murdoch is understood to have seen the film and taken notice." As well as the FT, EPIC has merited mentions in the New York Times, the Guardian, USA Today, and on MSNBC, among other places. When Michael Hirschorn about EPIC in The Atlantic Monthly, he likened it to a "Zapruder film" for the 21st century news business. "It would be fair to say," said Hirschorn, "that it rocked the world of the MSM mandarins." As futurism, I will be the first to deride EPIC as being negligible. But I'd say that perhaps as a popular chronicle of a moment in media, it may merit our remembrance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.242.163 (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge This article should be merged, per nom. It is a very obscure reference from a very obscure and not-very-well-known flash movie (not even a major motion picture). There's also no mainstream media reference citations in the article (and only a single semi-reputable source in the EPIC 2014 article). Also, citing google hits for a term that's based on google itself doesn't seem to meet WP:RS. The entire contents of this article can be summed up in about 2-3 sentences, tops, and moved into the EPIC 2014 article. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)