Talk:Worldchanging

message: I think this whole article needs restructuring. Clearly it's an important site and deserves real discussion and explanation, but perhaps we need more information, more clearly broken down in sections? And maybe their book ought to be its own page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.124.184.13 (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Does their book need its own page?

message: I have removed the following paragraph:
:Finally, "Worldchanging" as a word is now also used as an adjective to describe efforts or plans which combine innovation, collaboration and sustainability, or even as a descriptor of cutting-edge alternative products, groups or people.
The implicit statement here is that the website and/or the book have become so well-known, admired and influential that their name has entered the English language as an idiom. But of course the words "world" and "changing" already existed before the creation of worldchanging.com, and have also been used in connection before.
The statement had been unsourced all the time. Now 71.35.107.237 has tried to provide a reference for it, but the cited source actually indicates sort of the opposite - from http://www.saatchi.com/worldchanging (the page linked there under "To find out more, visit  ...") one learns that this "The Saatchi & Saatchi Award For World Changing Ideas" has been given out since 1998 (and a Google News archive search confirms that they had already been using the term "world-changing" for it back then).
This proves without a doubt that the term has been used for describing innovative ideas, products or people before, and if someone seriously doubts that this is just because it's an obvious descriptive choice in the English language, they would be led to the conclusion that Alex Steffen and Jamais Cascio were copying the Saatchi & Saatchi advertising agency when they picked the name of their web site five years later.
Regards, High on a tree (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To any reader who knows the meaning of the words "world" and "change", the meaning is obvious. Thus there is no need to explain  "the web site's usage". Instead, as already said, the statement gives the wrong impression that the usage of this expression is due to worldchanging.com. Dumping Google hits for the expression as "references" into the article doesn't address this issue. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Again, the claim that you keep adding to the article ("Worldchanging" as a word is now also used as an adjective...) implies that worldchanging.com coined this usage, and the given reference actually disproves it. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim of word coinage 

message: I'm actually a big fan of Worldchanging, but I find it a little problematic that there isn't much in the way of criticism in this entry. As it stands, it kind of reads like gushing praise disguised with the restrained tone of an encyclopedia entry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ourchair (talk • contribs) 12:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not neutral enough?

message: *Why We Need Government-Run, Universal, Socialized, (whatever you want to call it) Health Insurance (4 stars on YouTube with over 250,000 views) from Andy Lubershane at Worldchanging
OK, what's controversial about showing a well-reviewed, highly popular example of their work, also highly consistent with the .org's POV? -MBHiii (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's a) not well-reviewed and b) not popular. How many views does that have compared to, say, Britney Spears being stoned? I've seen plenty of material against health care reform on YouTube and other unreliable places for information. It won't fly because it's not reliable in any sense. It's not notable either. The Squicks (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: a) 4 out of 5 stars with b) over 250,000 views. If a 4*,250K video by Worldchanging of Britney Spears stoned had anything to do with the purposes of this organization, a link to it'd be appropriate, too. (But, of course, you know that, so stop teabagging i.e. wasting people's time with irrelevant objections.) -MBHiii (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete your previous comment insulting me. Do it right now. Do it or I will report you. The Squicks (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I've explained the precise meaning of "teabagging" I intend. Your objections a)&b) are irrelevant, because the reasons I cite appear already above your objections. "Britney Spears stoned" needs nothing more. -MBHiii (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never had another man place his testicles into my face. I don't know why you are obsessed with that activity and I don't care. I demand that you delete your allegation. The Squicks (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't care that you (Mbhiii_ were referring to the "political" definition of teabagging; that comment was wholly uncalled for, out of place and most certainly not constructive in the least.  Do not do it again. Shereth 17:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my intention, as it is of others who use the term politically, to point out that people who mail teabags to politicians ("teabagging" they call it), and symbolically throw teabags at TV cameras, are muddying public debate with irrelevancies. -MBHiii (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The road to hell is paved with good intentions, Mbhiii, and I do not give a damn what yours are.  The results are unhelpful.  Just stop doing it. Shereth 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ...so is the road to heaven, Shereth. If a result of all this is more clarity, please consider that. -MBHiii (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The one thing that has indeed become more clear with your responses is that you are becoming more and more difficult to cooperate with.  Are you even listening to what anyone is telling you? Shereth 17:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be responding if I weren't. WP is a wonder of democracy, but, like other democratic institutions, it can create a blizzard of rules and regs. One advance it shows over US jurisprudence, say, IMHO, is not rigidly enforcing "Ignorance of (or for that matter 'not fully understanding') the law is no excuse," since doing so would interfere with the ultimate goal of making as much reference information readily available, in the least time possible. -MBHiii (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

text: There's no doubt the folks at Wordchanging see health care as a pressing issue. The fact that much of what they post is related to the US and Canada may be from living here or that they see the political battle here as being world-changing. I expect both. -MBHiii (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial(?) external link

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Worldchanging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080610045054/http://www.hnabooks.com:80/category/show/169 to http://www.hnabooks.com/category/show/169
*Removed this link as web archive doesn't like it (causes an internal server error). That means the statement was unsupported so I removed that as well. Feel free to re-add if a valid link is found, although I think it a fairly minor point.Arfisk (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 10:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: So whatever happened to it?
Also, the refs are mostly primary. Notability needs to be more clearly established - David Gerard (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details of closure? 

message: A more detailed discussion of how the book was critically received would be useful. Will work on a draft section here. Arfisk (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book Reception 

message: * Now included in article. Arfisk (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: * Should add reception notes for this (was not nearly as widely received, probably because WC had shuttered prior to release?). Arfisk (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised Edition 

message: * Worthwhile adding mention of formative influences (Whole Earth Catalog. Viridian Design) here? Arfisk (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content 

message: * The content might assist notability claims but, to the reader, there is now too much emphasis on the reception (awards etc.) Why were they given? What was the impact of this site? Arfisk (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical reception, audience and impact