Talk:Emporis

message: who deleted all that information on the basis it was incorrect? it was not. this entire article as it stands has been written entirely by an emporis PR. emporis works exactly like gracenote. refer to that article please. emporis was built on voluntary submissions and then sold by its owners to themselves in order to extend ownership over the content within. the article was written by mikebull which is a username for michael wutzke who as it happens owns emporis. either the entire article is scrubbed as a lump of incorrect p.r bull or all the controversy be reverted because it IS correct.
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:_vyMuIViTMIJ:forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D89522+emporis+unpaid+photographers&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1
here's a nice skyscraperpage thread on it.
: Please consult a Wikipedia moderator if you see fit. You are using Wikipedia as a platform to display contentious and unverifiable information with a clear point of view to it. The tone of your language also gives you away. Montalto 21:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but your source is unreliable because it is nothing more than a series of unconnected statements and opinions which do not even agree with each other. I insist that the group of people who are suddenly forcing this controversy onto the Wikipedia page are using this site as a platform for their opinions, and the emotion is evident from both the content of the changes and the talk on this page. Any further changes will result in a request for mediation. Montalto 22:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I see that I am being "outvoted" because a band of people is acting in collusion on the same purpose. Why else would 5 people have made changes today after a long period of inactivity? I have already referred this to mediation and will help anyone concerned to refute the claims you are making. It would be fine to write about a controversy if there were any basis for it. Emporis is like Wikipedia in many ways, except that editors must apply for access and maintain a consistent record of quality in their contributions. And yes, some data is hidden from the public to support server costs. CTBUH members do not pay for access to the data, and you will be unable to provide evidence that they do. The page was not written by a business owner, I wrote the original article and others have contributed to it; and I certainly do not own Emporis! Any issue between its volunteers and its management needs better documentation than what you are providing. And you have not provided any examples of nonexistent buildings on Emporis, but I do not believe they would willingly allow them as it defeats the whole purpose of the database; nevertheless, as on Wikipedia, errors do creep in. Montalto 22:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Hello. I stumbled across this on WP:Mediation Cabal. As a neutral third party, I just want to say that the Controversy section seems to constitute original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Citations are needed for the entire section. The sources for the current sentences are not reputable ("Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources."). Moreover, the following sentence violates WP:NPOV: "Emporis also has a bad reputation for having failed to pay photographers having reportedly sold dozens of photographs without having compensated the authors of the work." That said, the entire article also needs citations, not just stuff in the controversy section. Gzkn 01:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually no any OR. Happened facts. Just more references may be needed. However I enough of current... Elk Salmon 01:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Well, actually no any OR" <-- Unless more references to reliable sources are provided, the section currently constitutes original research. It may indeed be true that Emporis is violating copyright, but there needs to be verifiable sources backing up this claim. And no, those forum postings currently cited don't count as reliable sources. Gzkn 01:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Right, that's why I said above "the entire article also needs citations, not just stuff in the controversy section." And yes, I'm saying that forum posts are, in general, not reputable sources. See WP:SOURCE. In particular, see the section Using questionable or self-published sources: "Personal websites and messages on USENET and Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published...self-published material is largely not acceptable." If there's a news article on this matter, or if you're able to link to legal documents if there's an ongoing legal dispute, then that's perfectly fine. If Skyscraperpage or Emporis issue press releases about that matter, those would probably be OK too, although third party sources might be better IMO. Gzkn 05:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to add my support to Gzkn here. Ideally the whole article would have citations, but for any controversial or possibly defamatory material they are essential. Forums do not qualify as a reliable source and cannot be used. Unless you can verify the information, then it must be removed. Trebor 14:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outsider's Point of View 

message: To de-escalate this issue, I would highly recommend that users stop the revert war. I have warned all involved parties on your talk pages about the 3 revert rule. Gzkn 01:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:3RR|Violation of the 3 Revert Rule]] 

message: Montalto has requested informal mediation regarding the Emporis "Controversy" section and has identified Gothicform, MatthieuN, UnitedPakistan, Elk Salmon, and 86.6.160.50 as involved parties.  
I've tried to summarize the dispute on the  mediation page.  If you are interested in mediation, please let me know either on the mediation page or here -- I have some ideas that I think may be helpful to resolve the dispute constructively.
Thanks -- I'm looking forward to working with you all. TheronJ 15:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation request regarding "controversy" section 

message: Am I the only one that notices this? Almost no African or Central American cities are represented on Emporis. The pages of most of these cities are bare with no pics and little or no description. I have already sent them an email inquiring about this. If you want to contact them, their general inquiry address is: info@emporis.com  Blaze33541 (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias?

message: It often has entries for buildings such as the Hartford Marriott: http://www.emporis.com/application/?lng=3&nav=building&id=171290 which is 22 stories and at least 60 meters, but in the list of buildings in hartford http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/?id=101328 (from tallest) it lists 25 buildings and goes down to 37 meters but does not include the Marriott. The building was built in 2005, so in at least five years the list has not been updated.
Also almost all the information greatly contrasts skyscraperpage.com.
Daniel Christensen (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Emporis not updated?

message: Is Emporis reliable? Specifically, does it pass the standard for WP:Reliable Sources? I notice it is referenced by other Wikipedia articles, but this article contains no third party endorsement of Emporis' reliability. And a building I'm looking at has changed its height in Emporis between 2017 (341 feet ) and now (99.5 m = 326 feet ). Adpete (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Adpete! According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 43 and the section that was written by Djflem below, Emporis is considered as a reliable source, although it is also described as a user generated source. The reason is that it has several restrictions to add data to the website, which needed to be reviewed (assessed) by the experienced team (professionals) that working in their fields, just like the CTBUH's website, The Skyscraper Center, which even has the higher restrictions, but this website is not the same as IMDb, which may contain advertisements, user comments, lower assessments, or controversial contents. It is also cited by numerous notable, reliable sources (such as Insider, Reuters, The Guardian, etc.) and regarded by CTBUH as a reliable source. However, if any, reliable secondary source exists, it is better to use them as a reference (especially for the facts section of the building data in the website) as our guidelines required. Per your statement above, it seems that the building data is unchanged (still at 341 feet). By the way, I am sorry for this very late response. Kind regards, Samuelsp15 (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable or not?