Talk:42 Entertainment

message: http://www.straight.com/article-145642/digital-stars-converge-city-vidfest - some discussion regarding year zero arg and upcoming projects. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Interview with 42 Entertainment execs Susan Bonds and Alex Lieu

message: It seems fairly clear to me that Judefrancis is determined to harmonize this article with 42 Entertainment's current website.  Unfortunately, this is an encyclopedia that collects verifiable facts (some of which are historical), and its goals are not the same as a corporate website designed for (current) marketing purposes.  I suggest that Judefrancis is anything but impartial here, and should recuse his or her self from editing this article in the future, avoiding any further revisions to verifiable facts just because they don't help sell product today.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Br0930 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Corporate Shill Regularly Editing This Article

message: After a lengthy conversation I had with the folks in the #wikipedia-en-help IRC chat room, I have been encouraged to attempt to engage Judefrancis in a dialogue regarding the information contained within this article.  It's apparent that Judefrancis does not want certain historical information to be published on this page, and I am curious as to why that might be.  In an attempt to compile the most complete and unbiased article for this company, I spent a good deal of time this week gathering facts and references, most of which Judefrancis feels should be left out of the article.  I believe that Judefrancis continues to have a conflict of interest (WP:COI) in regards to this company's Wikipedia article, and I urge him/her to comment on why they have made the edits to this page that they have. Argguy (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Judefrancis

message: Pursuant to the previous section on Judefrancis, I would like to open discussion on the inclusion of the names of former employees of this company.  Those names are part of the public record and I can cite numerous references which support their historical relevance to this cpompany.  Because this is an encyclopedic article and not a profile of the current state of affairs at the company, I believe that the historical content (including the names of former employees) is more than relevant to this article.  I cite the Wikipedia entry for Bungie as an example of how historical information has been used in an article about a particular company.  I'm curious to hear others' thoughts on this. Argguy (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of names of former employees

message: Please note that due to recent edits by a person at IP 71.249.244.191, the basis of which removed verifiable historical content, I have sent a notice about a possible Conflict of Interest (COI) to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard Argguy (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unilaterally removing relevant well-verified information from an article is considered vandalism and someone doing it should be warned and reported.  See:WP:VANDAL. Drawn Some (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of Interest Notice

message: It appears that several employees who have left 42 Entertainment have attempted to hi-jack this page for personal gain.  Referencing recent articles and talks researched in the past 12 months, such as Maxim, Wired, MIT Sloan appearance, Lynx Dubai, GameBeat, LA Times, NIN.com and USA Today, it is clear that 42 Entertainment is an established company with many employees who pull off amazing things.  Reference Maxim's article, which has an interview with Jordan Weisman himself about the current leadership of 42.  Having the article focus on old founding history (since when has that been relevant 6 years later?) and employees who have left to do other things seems self serving and promotional for ones who have left.  ARGguy specifically seems to have an agenda that is very selective of information that is included on 42's page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ARGgirl (talk • contribs) 14:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it appears as though a PR company is trying to change the page to make it seem as though the company is older than it sources suggest. I've therefore reverted your changes. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion with regards to the COI here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Whitewashing_on_42_Entertainment. Smartse (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

text: There are a few things that are a bit askew with ARGgirl's logic in the preceding comment:  1)  The notion that the only people who have an interest in maintaining an article such that it continues to contain verified encyclopedic content are former employees is fallacious.  2)  History is in fact relevant in an encyclopedia.  This is Wikipedia, not a company-controlled marketing asset, and removing the history of 42e from the article because it doesn't help to highlight the company's current capabilities is entirely inappropriate.  3)  The idea that including the aforementioned verified encyclopedic represents a focus on that content is pretty subjective, whereas removing from the article entirely is objectively against the goals of Wikipedia, and arguably vandalism as mentioned above.  4)  I have not seen any evidence of ARGguy removing content from the article.  The suggestion that by restoring verified encyclopedic content, ARGguy is limiting what is included in the article is just plain wrong (i.e. there is a big difference between including and excluding material).  Finally, here is a partial response to the (misplaced) accusation, since I am one of those editors who finds the removal of the history of this company to be inappropriate:  I have never been employed by 42 Entertainment.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Br0930 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I am not, not have I ever been, an employee of 42 Entertainment. I do have a vested interest in alternate reality gaming and find it inappropriate that this article has been vandalized so often by editors (for whatever purpose) who think it unnecessary to include the names of those that started the company, for one.  I did an extensive rewrite of the article last month in an attempt to bring it up to date, and those edits were summarily discounted and re-edited by Judefrancis.  The only information I have removed from the article were PR-speak, clearly a COI concern.  The article is not of encyclopedic value unless it contains all relevant facts, and there's no cause for removal of this content as I have done my best to find references for all facts contained within.  Argguy (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the comments above - as ARGgirl has so far not produced any evidence to suggest COI on Argguy's part I've reverted the removal of history from the article again. Please discuss these changes if you wish to make them instead of removing referenced material. The fact that the information is from an old web page is not a reason to remove it - as Br0930 has pointed out this is an encyclopedia and history is an important part of this. If sources are required please add  by using the template  at the end of a claim. Thanks Smartse (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: It would be nice to have some better sources than just archived web sites. A quick search turned up some possibles, including  and . As secondary sources these would be preferable to corporate web sites. Someone who cares could go through and re-write the history from this. Until that is done I don't think it would be appropriate to remove any part of the history section that is there now. Rees11 (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: It appears that people are focusing on early history of a private company without any direct knowledge.  Only someone with access to legal documents can know who was an original founder or in management at 42.  Unless this is presented, this history section should focus on work and published, verifiable facts. ARGgirl (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It also appears that you're deleting massive amounts of verifiable sourced information, and your basc argument boils down to "I don't like it" - sorry, that's not good enough - your deletions have been reverted. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of Interest by Former Employees

message: Please note the following investigation that involved editing of this article: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Judefrancis/Archive Smartse (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppet investigation

message: I'm a new user with an interest in and an extensive knowledge of marketing, entertainment, and media in general, including but by no means limited to ARGs. I've just made a relatively small edit—my first on Wikipedia—expanding the Year Zero portion of this article. I'm aware that this article has a contentious history, and I'd like to state straight away that I am neither an employee nor an owner of 42 Entertainment nor of any company affiliated with it. I was disturbed to find this article listed in the Talk section as a stub, and with the community's support I would like to continue to expand it in ways that hopefully will not run afoul of any of the issues addressed below. (In particular, I will not be deleting any names.) As an outside observer, I consider 42 Entertainment an innovative company whose impact on entertainment and marketing far exceeds its size, and I would like to see this article reflect that. I also plan to make contributions to several other, non-ARG-related topics. Stuyvesant Street (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Edit