Talk:Ning (website)

message: The following sentence is a clear violation of neutral point-of-view:
"There is a great value in the model of Ning's framework since it creates an environment where applications can be cloned, customized, and arranged."
Otherwise the article is generally factual in tone, although it does lack citations for its most specific statements of information, for example the difference between a paying account and a free account.
I do get the impression that it is somebody associated with the Ning organization who is primarily writing and editing this article. I suppose that's fine as long as it adheres to wikipedia policy, though I'm no expert on the finer points of that policy.
Jupitermenace 15:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy Problems 

message: I Was Reading On PCworld about Ning & Nexo. Here's The Link: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,130604/article.html if anyone wants to add content relating to the article.
67.86.247.138 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PaidContent reported on additional funding here: http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-white-labl-social-network-kickapps-gets-20-million-secon-round-funding/ .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowanda (talk • contribs) 00:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scripps Interactive is also using Ning for its FineLiving community, and there are probably other corporate clients as well. The only source I could find on it (other than the links from the websites themselves) were findarticles.com press releases that I couldn't source back to Scripps (or anyone). I can help dig up a news/PR source if that info should be addded to the article. Flowanda | Talk 21:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Resource.... 

message: If we're actually going to keep this page (amazing considering the lack of content and attempts to explain its notability after all these months), let's try and make it decent.  I've started by removing a bunch of cruft, hopefully someone else can go from there. Newtman (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added detail to the FEATURES section regarding the use of content by Network Creators.  This FEATURES section really needs much more detail from the terms of service - instead of just marketing/PR from Ning.  Let's get these important details into the  article. ¬¬¬¬  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotsocial (talk • contribs) 16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a data point, I've encountered references to Ning and found this article helpful in understanding what it is. Very surprised, however, to find it "locked down" due to controversy! Alan.A.Mick (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: "are built in standard PHP"
Is there a non-standard kind?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.175.5 (talk • contribs) 19 April 2008
: Well, this is completely irrelevant now that they shut down all development except stupid plug-in toys : (  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.100.214 (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard? 

message: The IP 199.89.80.16 has made three unsourced POV edits, reverted each time, trying to get links to some blog called "Charting Stocks." Recommend banning this IP after these clear repeated Wikipedia terms violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.17.128 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated unsourced POV edits by 199.89.80.16

message: Is this article from the blog Charting Stocks a reliable source for the article Ning?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Demoxenos (talk • contribs) 30 April 2009
:Also see the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here  21:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Charting Stocks provides stock market news and insight.  Recently, the following major media organizations have quoted or referenced the ChartingStocks.net news site:  Wall Street Journal, Schaeffers Research, Dow Jones News Wire, and I.N.N. World Report.Muggzzi  —Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How can a low traffic and otherwise unremarkable blog about the stock market be a reliable source in this case since this discussion isn't related to stocks in any way?  Even if it has been "quoted or referenced" by "major media organizations?"  (Citations would always be helpful here). My impression is that the blog is actually owned by the user Muggzzi, and that this link is being included in the article in order to improve the pagerank of the blog.Speckssommer (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As discussed previously, ChartingStocks.net reports on a wide range of corporate, stock market and media news and insights.  The online social network tools are very much part of this focus area.  I'm sorry Speckssommer jumps to unsubstantiated conclusions about my personal ownership of domains, blogs, etc. - as this assertions are not true.  Please keep focused to real, tangible discussions instead of wild eyed accusations.Muggzzi  —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can assure you that my eyes are not wild.  I also note that you haven't provided citations for the claims you have made above.  I have read much of the back-catalog of the chartingstocks blog and can assure you that the Ning related articles are quite out of character with the rest of the site.  In addition, the referenced article itself is very much an opinion piece rather than factual reporting; it makes numerous unsubstantiated claims.  I fail to see how it can be considered to be authoritative or even relevant in this matter.  If you disagree, please provide some evidence of this "controversy" outside of this blog post.  If there was such a controversy, it should be quite evident across numerous reputable sources. Speckssommer (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Speckssommer:  I ave again reverted your POV changes which seek to remove factual references to the many Ning controversies.  Removing well referenced details and linking to one of Ning's own GetSatisfaction thread is simply expressing a POV that wishes to not have references to the many controversies Ning has experienced.  The review from a reliable source also mentions these controversies - hence providing further documentation of the wide spread discussions, reports on the many Ning controversies.  These controversies are very important as they are at the heart of the ever evolving social network landscape.  Adult networks, third-party providers, member ownership, etc. -- very vital topics and controversies in the social network realm.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muggzzi (talk • contribs) 01:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Muggzzi: unfortunately for you, characterizing my own changes as POV doesn't make it true, and any impartial observer will see that my edits are much more POV neutral than yours.  Your references are not factual; if they were then they wouldn't be the subject of debate on this page.  The controversies which you continue to highlight are not in any way "at the heart of the ever evolving social network landscape." Speckssommer (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now obvious meatpuppet/sockpuppet behavior evident with user Muggzzi.  See contribs for Gotsocial and 97.101.82.76 which both make edits to the same articles as Muggzzi. Speckssommer (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Gotsocial / Muggzzi: the purpose of wikipedia is not to air your grievances or further your personal agenda; it is to provide factual information that is from a neutral point of view.  Your point of view is not neutral.  It is clear from your editing history and the comment above that you favor a competitor to Ning, and your editing efforts on this article are organized around attempts to highlight unfounded criticisms of the company.  Please refrain from trying to use Wikipedia in this manner. You may find the article on NPOV helpful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speckssommer (talk • contribs) 01:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Speckssommer:  the purpose of wikipedia is not to troll for a company and remove postings about historical information, and information you don't like for some person POV.  Factual -- I noticed you did not like the factual "features" as detailed in Ning's own terms and conditions entered by either mayself of the user Gotsocial.  Is there something non-factual about these features of Ning?  Or "non-neutral?"  It is clear from your editing history that you are not interested in providing detail, history, or information about Ning - simply acting as some sort of guard against the posting of well referenced, documented information -- remarkably not even personally approving of features represented by Ning.  And then you write to me about reading the article on NPOV.  I guess humor is the best I can hope for from your POV-ridden comments.  Please refrain from deciding what is history -- because you don't own history.  And, please refrain from deciding which features you believe to be acceptable for placement in Wikipedia.  Features are features.  Facts are facts.  None of which are POV.  The only POV here is your desire to have a Ning marketing page instead of a Ning Wikipedia page.Muggzzi (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Speckssommer/Ningipedia/GogoDodo:  I had to post here again - as I chuckle to myself.  I've just looked through some of these postings from you.  You certainly have humor in your lives - and an interesting view of things.  Let me follow -- posting of exact features from this Ning groups terms and conditions is POV?  Adding things in history (and widely discussed with socialnetwork experts) is POV.  And I am somehow a meatpuppet/sockpuppet of this Muggzzi?  Sounds like you watch conspiracy movies very much. The "reality" is that these features provided are extraordinarily important in detailing this Nings platform.  And, these controversial activities are very much part of Ning.  Something that is fact - real, is neither POV or NPOV -- simply fact.  I'm sorry these realities are so hard for you.  To change them, you will need a very large eraser -- because false tauntings about POV just make you seem like you must get some paycheck from Ning?  More concerned with that than simply having an informative article for Wikipedia.Gotsocial (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Including slabs of text copied verbatim from a company's terms of use is not factual or informative, and that's why I removed them.  If there is some important context for discussing them, then by all means link to it.  The edits that I have made to the controversies section have consistently removed one entry that is duplicated from the Features section above and one entry that quotes an unreliable source.  Speckssommer (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting material, rather than simply editing to meet your need to control the Ning listing at Wikipedia is the way with you.  You don't like it - you delete it -- regardless of the relevance.  Let's see - is it not a very important feature of the Ning Networks that, "Ning retains the right to display Network Creator content after a Network Creator terminates their Network Member account."  Or, "Network Creators grant Ning a worldwide, perpetual license to reproduce and display Network Member Data through the Ning Platform in all current and future media in which the Ning platform may be distributed."  These are incredibly important features of Ning - and very a distinguishable difference between Ning and many social network providers.  Of course, they aren't the marketing materials that you want to place on this Ning advertising page.  Specksommer -- personal controller of the Ning listing -- will you also try to block this content?  Does it not meet your personal POV for this page?Muggzzi (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite sure that I could find similar terms in the legalize of other online service providers, so no, these are not features in the sense that most people would understand them and they don't belong in the features section on their own.  They may well fit under the controversies section if they are the subject of genuine controversy.  Also, you are referring to the contributions made by the user GotSocial rather than your own, so it would seem clearer now that you are controlling both accounts in order to make it seem like you have some external support for your edits. Speckssommer (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Charting Stocks article a reliable source? 

message: Under the heading "Features", it reads "The unique feature of Ning is that anyone can create their own social network for a particular topic or need, catering to specific membership bases." In fact, this feature is in no way unique to Ning. There are dozens of customizable DiY social network sites that share this market with Ning, and some of them (such as WebScribble) *predate* Ning. Any suggestions as to how best to rewrite this sentence? Bricology (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "The central feature"? -Royanee (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I've changed it thus. Bricology (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unique feature"? 

message: Here's a forum post from John McDonald, the VP of Advocary: http://creators.ning.com/forum/topics/ning-update
Here's the associated TechCrunch article: http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/15/nings-bubble-bursts-no-more-free-networks-cuts-40-of-staff/
People are scrambling to figure out what their options are - to get their content off Ning (and where to go with it) or figure out how much "premium" will cost. -Royanee (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ning going premium only 

message: I thought The Ning was a social network for Nerdfighters. 
Benjamin (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nerdfighters 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Ning (website). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110730162457/http://about.ning.com/corporate/history/ to http://about.ning.com/corporate/history/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110626063713/http://www.scribbal.com/2011/06/ning-announces-ustream-integration-into-social-websites/ to http://www.scribbal.com/2011/06/ning-announces-ustream-integration-into-social-websites/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020094534/http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/07/ning-news-new-i.html to http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/07/ning-news-new-i.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129155521/http://blog.pmarca.com/2008/04/ning-news-serie.html to http://blog.pmarca.com/2008/04/ning-news-serie.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531135445/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_5394821,00.html to http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_5394821,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Just a note to say that I manually updated the Alexa rank on this page, because the bot that was assigned to update it monthly was clearly not working (the most recent update was several years ago).Magic1million (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexa Bot Apparently Not Updating