Talk:Webtrends/Archive 2

Controversy Section

Please do not remove Controversy section, it is well cited and topical. WebTrends pissed a lot of people in portland off with their marketing stunt, and the controversy section is NPOV and relevant to the article. The "Metafluence" user is an employee of WebTrends and is blatantly whitewashing this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.6.140 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Citations to blogs are generally not acceptable, especially in areas of controversy. Please seek out alternate sources from recognized news outlets as per WP:RS. -Pete (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Note an Oregonian blog is cited- the rest are self-published blogs, but that one can stand as a RS. The rest of the paragraph needs work, though. tedder (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

BikePortland is an established and renowned biking blog and is frequently cited by local news media as well as local and state governance. They also produce quite a bit of their own journalism, in addition to opinion. I guess I am unclear on where the lines are for journalism vs. "self-published"? I will work on cleaning up the paragraph regardless.

"Established and renowned" and being cited by local media are not sufficient for WP:RS. As a general explanation, an advocacy organization typically does not have the kind of transparent editorial structure of a traditional news organization, and their reputation is not as heavily dependent on adherence to fact. Personally, I am probably a bit more lenient about using blogs as RS than many other editors, as I interpret the guideline to be very heavily dependent on context. But for a section on controversy, it's essential to have reports from a relatively neutral third parties (i.e. news outlets) to frame the story, as opposed to outlets that have a stake in the controversy itself. I believe this was a big enough event that it should be possible to find coverage from the Oregonian, the Portland Tribune, the Mercury, KGW, OPB, or the like. Glad to hear you're putting some effort into it -- and feel free to ask questions! -Pete (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As a cyclist and Wikipedian, a devotee of BikePortland, and cynic when it comes to fair reporting about cycling issues in the mainstream media, I'd tend to agree with Pete that BikePortland probably isn't the most reliable source for this issue. Let's see what else we can turn up. Katr67 (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(moving left) It's been written about in the Oregonian a few times. One of the sources is used, the others aren't (AFAIK).

• http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/07/new_max_ad_should_cyclists_pay.html
• http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/07/new_question_should_motorists.html
• http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/07/webtrends_ready_for_the_next_q.html
• http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/dave_chappelles_surprise_show.html

These articles at least acknowledge the controversy with the bicycling community. tedder (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's ample enough coverage in reliable sources to merit a mention. But being familiar with this company and the goals behind the issue, I think it's important to remember something... This was a marketing campaign designed from the get-go to generate discussion and controversy in order test the products that Webtrends sells (online analytics). Let me say that again, more bluntly: this was an openly fake marketing campaign to get attention and then measure that attention. The more we dwell on it in the article, the more we're playing in to the hands of the company. Clearly it deserves some explanation, but let's stay on our toes with this one. Steven Walling (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well said Steven, that's about what I was thinking, but was not coming up with the words. -Pete (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. New media is tricky! How do you all feel about keeping the BikePortland cite for this sentence? "This was seen by many in Portland's large cycling community... ". BikePortland *does* represent a significant portion of the Portland cycling community, and many of the comments on the linked editorial agree (the reader may find other cycling community opinions in the comments by following the cite, as well)

Understood, but please also keep in mind that the employee behind the campaign nuked the entire Controversy section. If you can't take the heat... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.216.186.68 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I identified myself and gave reasoning, which is that Wikipedia is not a source for breaking news. The campaign is ongoing. You are making anonymous edits and it is clearly vandalism. --Metafluence (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Pete and Steven, it isn't really our place to judge the intent. Yes, it was done for cynical reasons, but it had a response in the community and was written about in reliable sources. Right? tedder (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, I think there's a very fine line here. You are absolutely correct that the intent should not play a role in whether/how we cover the issue. (I'll note, however, that I don't think there's any policy that disallows me from feeling icky about playing a role in this trumped-up story.)

However, I believe there is an important editorial decision about whether to include the event. A good encyclopedia article is not merely a collection or list of every fact available in a reliable source; there must be some judgment exercised (based on the reading of those reliable sources) of what needs to be included, how to weight different issues, etc.

In this case, I think it should probably be included. It seems like it's being covered as an illustration of how the company interacts with its market and its audience, making it more than merely an isolated event.

75.216: no, I don't think bikeportland.org is a reliable source for that statement. Your judgment that bikeportland.org *does* represent a significant portion of the Portland cycling community is something that would need to be cited and attributed. I happen to believe it's true, but that's just my personal belief -- and that isn't sufficient. If we had an additional source, I think we could say "This was reported on Bikeportland.org, which represents a significant portion of the Portland bicycling community,{{cn}} as blah blah blah[and cite bikeportland.org post here].

I think that's the only way a bikeportland.org post could work as a RS in this context. (And that's coming rather close to WP:SYNTH too.) -Pete (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that, Pete. In other words, it should be included, but it doesn't necessarily have to be presented exactly how it was in the media. In other words, we can start by indicating it was a marketing-driven "bad news is still news" type event, as long as we keep within what was already stated, rather than synth our own feelings on it. In any case, we are discussing its inclusion in the controversy section because it is a controversy. tedder (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, I didn't in any way mean that we should directly talk about what I was mentioning in the article. That would be original research. But I do think it's important to be aware of just how relevant the incident is to an encyclopedic overview of the company. If it was a staged marketing stunt and not a real controversy, then not so much in my mind. However, several of the sources make clear that this was an intentional program by Webtrends, not an accidental debate. Steven Walling (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of merit, the content had opinion in it. While we debate whether or not the section applies, I made the following edits: From the first sentence I removed "questioning the legitimacy of cyclists in Portland using public roads without paying an additional tax" as that is an opinion and not a majority one (majority claim is based on the published conversation data from the campaign). Changed "The question was viewed by many" to "The question was viewed by some" to be more accurate. Changed "In actuality, roads in the United Sates are funded primarily by federal and state income taxes and local property taxes." to "Critics of the question cited a study by the Federal Highway Administration that stated 92% of funding for roads in the United Sates come from federal and state income taxes and local property taxes." This change provides factual description of the funding source and connects the thought to why people criticized the ad (previously it read like an argument in an opinion piece vs. Encyclopedic). I again changed "many" to "some" to improve accuracy. I also added "although no evidence to support that fear ever emerged.", which feels inline with accurate reporting used in this sentence " The website linked to in the ad encouraged people to comment using Twitter, and promised that the results would be tabulated, although no methodology was proposed" I also removed "The history of other such attempts by the Oregonian[13] and local radio DJs inciting violence against cyclists[14] resulted in a large backlash from the cycling community." because "The history of other such attempts by the Oregonian" makes it sound like there is a connection when there is not. I considered changing that portion to simply report that cyclists have lashed out before, but it felt too off topic for this entry. It was also an incomplete history as cyclists in Portland have also lashed out at legislators for the mandatory bike registration bill. Full disclosure, it was pointed out in the history that I am an employee of Webtrends, but my edits should reflect that I'm acting in accordance with the TOS. metafluence (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.169.240 (talk)

Reverted your edit. You can't put a shine on this debacle using your own company's research as a basis for marginalizing the cycling community's reaction. "many" to "some"? Come on! Can't have. Not yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.6.140 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore this isn't an article about cycling in portland, or cyclists. This is an article about your employer, WebTrends, and the controversy stemming from the ad campaign which you personally ran.

This is a blatant attempt to vandalize our company page by the very people upset with our ad, which do not represent the majority of cyclists as they baselessly claim. The "edits" are made by anonymous contributors and are riddled with opinion. I do not hide that I am an employee of Webtrends, which is why I took the time to provide sound reasoning for my edits. Making the article factual is not "putting a shine" on things. Look at the emotional language used and tell me that is Encyclopedic contributions. Look at my reasoning provided in point by point explanation and tell me the edits aren't making the article more factual. Saying "many" is an attempt to make the criticizing group larger than it was. Our data is all of the comments pulled from all of the sources involved in the discussion. It is open data that is available to critique. It clearly shows that critics of the ad are far outweighed by participants in our campaign. Don't take my word for it, Google the topic and pull the data yourself. Additionally, how are we going to allow things like "The history of other such attempts by the Oregonian" (what "such attempts"? sounds like conspiracy theory language.) or "questioning the legitimacy of cyclists in Portland using public roads without paying an additional tax" (the ad doesn't mention usage at all) which are clearly opinion and speculation? Not sure why the vandals are being allowed to do this. I maintain my original edit that this is still unfolding news. Our campaign isn't over and has over 14 weeks more run time. This is too soon for this edit and that's why there is disagreement over how to journal it on Wikipedia. --Metafluence (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Since apparently we will be mincing, slicing and dicing words here, it is important to note that most of the BikePortland readers, its editor, and the Wiki editors here have called your "ad campaign" what it is: a stunt to generate controversy and garner publicity - and have boycotted participation in it for that reason alone. Again, citing your own statistics as a basis for marginalizing those opposed to it is seriously fallacious, since those who disagreed most with your company's stunt refused to participate! 98.246.6.140 (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't mistake a content dispute for vandalism. Katr67 (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Article protected

I have protected the article from edits by non-administrators pending a reasonable resolution of the current debate concerning the "controversy" section. I would advise participants in this discussion to create and log into their Wikipedia accounts; to put their energy into finding reliable sources to inform the discussion; and above all, to propose changes here on the discussion page, along with explanations why the changes are appropriate. We will only reach resolution of this issue through respectful communication.

You may want to use the {{edit protected}} tag to draw attention to edits you're pretty sure are ready to go into the article (that is, uncontroversial changes, and changes that have been met with some consensus here in the discussion). -Pete (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will soon be leaving on vacation until the middle of September, and will be happy to pick up the discussion regard the Controversy section as you suggested when I return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.6.140 (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, an anonymous contributor that is stalling to maintain vandalism. Pete, you're not honestly going to say we have to wait for this person's vacation?! That is blog post worthy! --Metafluence (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, can we revert back to the version before the disputed content while we work this out? There were other edits made outside of that section, so it might be most appropriate to pull the "Controversy" section or at least acknowledge that the content is being contested. I have no problem with a factual entry about our ad campaign nor do I dispute what the critique is, however, the current version is editorialized. --71.237.197.56 (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:WRONGVERSION. Katr67 (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Metafluence, I didn't say anything of the sort, but since you suggest it...sure. Really, however long it takes somebody -- anybody, including you, to make a reasonable suggestion about how to improve the text, that is based in Wikipedia's content guidelines, as opposed to being based in the minutia of some dispute that matters very little to the rest of us.

Make a suggestion, make it polite, slap that tag on the page as I suggested above...and see what happens. You might just be pleasantly surprised. -Pete (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism was removing the entire section without bothering to work out the details with the myself and rest of the editors on the discussion page. I'm sorry it doesn't suit your ego or your corporate masters, but I will be participating in the discussion on the topic fully, *after* I return from my vacation. In the meantime perhaps you could add a page to your SEO marketbabble under "backlash" and work on some edits that may stand a chance of reaching consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.6.140 (talk) 03:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)