Talk:Web Sheriff

POV

I think this article reads like Web Sheriff propaganda and really needs some POV work. The majority of the article seems to be promoting the company rather than informing about it. Also, what is supposed to be the difference between "Notable Client Issues" and "Notable Client Successes"? Both sections present the same kind of material. Blokatoh (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

All information is sourced from abundant and very reliable sources and does serve to explain the premise and operations of the company. There is of course, occasionally a negative fan reaction as mentioned in the article itself, that is sometimes responsible for vandalism to the article and to be expected somewhat by the nature of the company's activities and which I took into account when I independently expanded the article. I will check the article for dead urls and replace and consolidate the Issues and successes into one section for better clarity. Agadant (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, an article can be well-cited and well-researched, yet still not be NPOV. I agree that this article is definitely well-cited (thanks to your continued efforts), but can not agree that the entire article serves to explain the premise and operations of the company. The introduction and first two sections are great, but clients section is more than half of the entire article, and does not appear to add much to the explanation of the premise and operations of the company. For example, the clients section begins with an impressive list of 48 people and other entities that have been represented by the company. Though I do not contest that the size of the list speaks to the, say, repute of the company, I would argue that it is not necessarily imperative to include the entire list; at least, not in the main article. A few examples of the entities previously represented by the company given together with a phrase or two indicating the company's wide-spread use, maybe with the more comprehensive list used as reference, would likely be more effective and less likely to be interpreted as non-NPOV or an attempt at using the article as an advertisement. In addition, the remainder of the clients section includes at least six detailed descriptions of cases the company has pursued as well as an impressive and extensive discourse on the reputed benefits of the company. Though examples of the company's work do help to expand upon the premise and operations of the company, the length and extensiveness of the section appear to only serve to promote a subjective view of the company's performance. A reduced version of the current section would likely similarly be more effective and less likely to be perceived as non-NPOV. Blokatoh (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see that you have taken a lot of interest in this article: even counting the number of clients listed. I actually had not done that myself. You seem to believe that you have problems with how the article is written and cite what you think are examples of how a Wikipedia article should be written to not be interpreted as non-NPOV. And yet, as of today, the only contributions you have made as a Wiki editor: these 4 edits are to label this article as POV and take considerable time and effort to write a well-thought out argument for your reasoning behind why you think it's this article that has the subjective viewpoint. This company deserves as good a representation on Wiki as any other corporation and certainly should be as thoroughly represented as the BitTorrent websites and other copyright infringing ones. I don't know how it can be said to be an attempt to use the article as an advertisement. I don't work for them. BTW, have you ever thought of using your writing talents contributing to Wikipedia articles. There are many that are urgently in need of editing help. All the best, Agadant (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm with the person who says it looks like propaganda. It's completely unbalanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.41.143.72 (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is compiled from information gathered from WP: RS such as: Rolling Stone, Esquire, The Independent, The Guardian, BBC, etc., etc.. The comments about it looking like propaganda are by two people who have made no other contributions to Wikipedia but on this talk page: that speaks for itself but it's not unexpected due to the nature of the company's field of operation. Agadant (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Advert?

Propaganda.Luísarfs (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC):

Per your contributions your only editing is contributions for a competing organization. Agadant (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever arguments you try to present it does not change the FACT that this page is written like an advertisement. Also, the fact that you are trying to delete this talk page seams rather suspicious. I see you also deleted some specific comments on this talk page. What are your intentions exactly? Luísarfs (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

My intentions are to prevent vandalism and trolling on an article that is written on a company whose line of work is copyright enforcement and sometimes upsets fans on the internet with the removal of videos or downloaded songs. The talk page comments have only been made by editors who have no other contributions but contentious one to this article and talk page. That is one way to make a judgment of the intent of the editors involved. And the other editors did not have anything further to say when they were replied to. Your very few edits on the English language Wikipedia [1] are mostly limited to entries about Associação Fonográfica Portuguesa which seems to be a competitor in copyright enfringement enforcement. You have stated on your edit summary that the article needs work from someone not affiliated Web Sheriff implying that I am. I've been an editor here for over four years and have edited this one because it was often vandalized and was a very unfair representation of an important company in this field. You do not have a consensus to tag this article as an advertisement. All information is backed up by very good reliable sources. Agadant (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just seen that you turned this in as a dispute asking for a third opinion an hour before I made the reply above or challenged you on your reverting me. Not exactly a willingness to present any debate on your opinion of why the article should be tagged. [2] Agadant (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The comment I removed previously was a completely inaccurate and unfounded opinion on the company and disproved by reliable sources in the article. As such it equated to vandalism and should be removed from the talk page per the talk page rules. [3]. This article, of necessity, because of the company's line of work has to be closely watched and protected or it would be taken over by disgruntled fans acting out their dissatisfaction with vandalism to the article. Not the same as claiming ownership but being the editor who has put in numerous hours of work doing research, collecting and updating reliable sources for references and formating the article, I've had to assign myself to do that job or see my work all for naught. Agadant (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Clients' charting and awards" section tries to imply that web sheriff clients success, awards and album sales are closely related to the company actions when that would be arguable. This is a common strategy used in advertising. Other POV problems and arguments have already been addressed on previous comments, including the one you deleted which i consider valid and is not fit for removing according to WP:TPO guidelines. As to why you deleted this talk page is beyond me since being a casual contributor does not invalidate participation in discussion. Luísarfs (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It "tries to imply"? that is certainly a subjective remark and along the lines of your stating that I was affiliated with Web Sheriff. The section only lists charting and awards as is commonly done in musician's articles, as an example. Those are not said to be POV, if they are factual. Those chartings and awards and success are by the company's clients and as such are successes for the company's work. This could be seen as a subjective observation and objection from an editor who is putting information into articles about a competing organization in copyright protection.

The comment I removed was not valid as the company has been in business for ten years and not just getting started and the only instance of pro bono work was for the Bob Dylan Christmas album. A casual contributor is one thing but when the only contributions are on one topic - Web Sheriff - and how this one article in the whole of wikipedia is biased or written as an advertisement, it does tend to raise flags.

I decided it would be best under the circumstances to remove the POV section and comments by the one-time only editors, as it was acting as a magnet for more of them and distracting from any serious or well-intentioned discussions. Agadant (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO guidelines: "Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." And "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." Agadant (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion: Aside from the Clients section being a total mess, this article isn't really an advertisement. It's well sourced and doesn't have any particularly poor text. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Luísarfs (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, thank you for your opinion and your time concerning this matter and for all of the important work you do for Wikipedia. Agadant (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC).

again:NPOV?

I find this article very biased (do I really have to say towards which side it's leaning?). And yes, I have taken into consideration the argument above that it's well sourced. It probably is. But then again, it isn't enough to source well what you're saying. A good article should as well be a representation of what sources say about the articles subject, i.e. you can't just omit what doesn't fit your way of seeing things or wanting them to be seen. So, an Article can be well sourced and non-neutral. To me this one seems to be very much so. Just as an example, take source 20 ("Off the Record: Web Sheriff is watching you", Evening Standard) [4], in and of itself quite a balanced if short piece on the mechanisms of Web Sheriff. The Evening Standard piece is used to source the following statements in the 'Fans Reactions' paragraph of the Wiki article:

1:Fans sometimes interpret this as Web Sheriff saying, "I've got my eye on you."

2:Grizzly Bear band member Ed Droste complied and apologized stating "The Web Sheriff is just doing his job, and we're all aware of the damage internet file sharing is doing to album sales.

Now, how convenient is that?! We better quote this in the Wiki Article verbatim! - But no reference is being made to the Evening Standards description of how compliance is achieved:

"Getting on his bad side is no fun, as Edward Droste, blogger and member of the band Grizzly Bear, revealed when he published the letter he received after sharing what he thought was a freely available Animal Collective track: “This is no laughing matter and should you refuse or otherwise fail to comply with the above request [to remove the shared track from his blog and publish an apology], we would ask you to simply provide us with the details of the US attorneys, UK solicitors, French and German avocats whom you would instruct in relation to the service of such multi-jurisdictional proceedings as shall ensue.”

I.e. Web Sheriff achieve compliance by threatening legal consequences on an international scale. Which, again, is fine with me, after all they're in the business of protecting their client's interests. But IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED in the article! For instance in the paragraphe 'Services and Operating Methods'. But it isn't. Instead we get this:

"Jason Burger of Crowdbands wrote: "Web Sheriff police the internet, no question. But instead of seeking to punish fans, they come up with constructive ways to fix the situations that benefit both the artists and fans involved. They are consultants, in a way. Call them agreeable and 'friendly' internet patrollers, somewhere between the LAPD and those cops in Superbad."

By selecting and omitting quotes someone is trying to paint a picture of Web Sheriff as a kind of Robin Hood who is fighting for both artists and bloggers/fans. This is wrong (not what Web Sheriff is doing, that is, but the way it is represented in this article). One last example for NPOV: I find the use of the verb 'respect' in the following statement quite odd, maybe even a tad weasely for an encyclopaedic article (again paragraph 'fans reactions'):

A:Eventually most of the fans tend to respect the wishes of their favored artists by cooperating.

However, the statement in the Evening Standard piece this is presumably sourced on reads:

B:In reality, the only voices the fans seem to respect are those of the musicians themselves.

While sentence A (Wiki-Article) constructs a causal relation between respect and cooperating (while -as we've seen above- omitting all reference to other causes for cooperation), sentence B (source!) says Web Sheriff in and of itself is not respected. I won't change anything in the article as I'm not a native english speaker; the article is probably being policed by someone close to Web Sheriff anyway. And judging from above reactions to NPOV-intervention requests someone will do a thorough research on me and find out that I haven't edited Wikipedia in ages and am therefore not entitled to do so;-)Nouly (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As I am the main editor who has researched and edited the article, it always falls to me to defend my editing. So be it, this is how Wikipedia works. On the first comment that "no reference is being made to how compliance is achieved", the article does in fact address that issue twice "In dealing with the pre-release leaking of albums and movies, if an MP3 pirated track shows up on a tracking site or BitTorrent, fan blog or website, the copyright offending sites are asked politely to take down the postings. Only upon non-compliance is the ISP notified to forcibly remove the content or close down the website." And here: "Bit Torrent file sharers are much more resistant to a friendly approach and may be sent letters threatening the consequences of non-compliance with civil or criminal charges being instigated." The Ed Droste incident was widely reported and blown-up (which is not in the best interests of Wiki to further), so therefore it was only briefly mentioned in the article. Ed Droste admitted that he did not respond to the request at first and then made a joke of it: [5] so he received a letter threatening legal action upon noncompliance as described. As far as the quote "Eventually most of the fans tend to respect the wishes of their favoured artists by cooperating": a typical Web Sheriff post contains a request for the fans to comply as a gesture of respect to the band: "Thank you for respecting the artist's wishes and, if you / your readers want good quality, non-pirated, preview tracks, then a full length, high quality version of..." [6] It would be considered synthesis [7] and POV to jump to the conclusion that the Evening Standard article says that Web Sheriff is not respected and their posts don't indicate that they expect compliance based on anything other than reapect for the artist and label.. Thanks, Agadant (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift reply, Agadant. I respect your work, and there's no need to 'defend' anything. I voiced my concerns with the general tone of this Article, and I stand by these concerns as I've learned over the years to trust my perception. The article suppresses some voices, emphasizes/pushes others.

Don't you see a pattern emerging on this talk page? I am not the first one to express concerns, and it's not the first time it is left to you to defend the article in its current form.

I was not suggesting putting what I've written into the article but was describing selective quoting, and was in the process synthesising, so I don't think wiki:synthesis [8] is in any form applicable as it is a guideline on how to select and present content for an article, not how to talk about content on the discussion page - but thank you for the link anyway.

Why not take serious the concerns others voice (serious like in ...hmmm, if so many people think there is an NPOV issue with this article, then there probably is)? Why not start by changing the "respect"-sentence I mentioned above (which is synthesis anyway) and continue by maybe deleting the Jason-Burger-quote which is very POV-pushing. As for the original research you're providing in your reply to support your view of the Droste incident, well, it's just that: original research (original research as in using a primary source). That's all, Thanks. Nouly (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I knew when I first edited the article that because of the nature of the company's work, there would be frequent vandalism and accusations on the talk page. In the process of putting together this article, I've seen the angry and unwarranted and sometimes hugely nasty comments on blogs by some fans who have lost their freebies due to the Web Sheriff's protection of copyrights for various artists and labels. So, if I wasn't clear enough for you that's what I meant by having to defend the article. Yes, there are accusations of POV here but all are comments by anonymous IPs, non-contributing editors with an agenda, etc. The issue has been ruled on already with an independent third opinion editor saying it was not an advert or POV. This editor has 30,000 edits and I have almost 11,000 giving some measure of authority to the article's contents. I have addressed issues several times when they had relevance but your wanting the article changed and certain quotes deleted does not inspire my confidence in you being NPOV.

Although you are wrong about Droste's article being Original Research (and as a matter of fact I only used the source here), here's another reliable source: [9]. The Jason Berger quote is very useful to explain how this company has a different approach to dealing with copyright infringement on the internet and is not POV pushing, unless you're wanting to see it that way. I would be perfectly willing to address your issues if I thought they had merit but Wikipedia editors should take the ruling of HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} much more seriously. Thanks for your respectful comments and your valuable time. Agadant (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} ruling addressed my complaint on this article being written like an advertisement. POV is a different issue. Luísarfs (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)