Talk:Yahoo! Voices

message: I see that what little was worthwhile in the article -- and I mean "little" as anything approaching anything substantive other than the advertisement for Associated Content that this is has been removed -- is no longer there (the riff on the Russian proleterian theme). WHAT POSSIBLY GOOD DOES IT DO TO PARSE THIS ARTICLE DOWN TO NOTHING BUT AN AD, OTHER THAN IT SERVING AS AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR ASSOCIATED CONENT? 
This is one of the more shameful episodes on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Whoever has responsibility or this page should be removed. Potbelly & Ruth (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, chill out. Did you look at the revision history? It was 6 times more of an advertisement until someone came along and cut the crud and cruft out. "Associated Content (AC) is an online publisher and distributor of user generated content. Associated Content enables anyone with Internet access to publish their content on any topic and then distributes that content through its website and content partners." - sounds pretty encyclopedic to me. Kopf1988 (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is editing this page and do they work for Associated Content???

message: The article reads as an advertisement for the firm and the writing reads very similarly to what I read upon the firm's Web site. However, with so many folks engaged with the firm and its site in various ways I believe the firm should remain upon Wikipedia.68.13.191.153 18:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, although I write for them, so my opinion is very biased. It does read a little like an advert, but probably nothing I won't be able to fix... after I finish the few articles I'm working on *deep sigh* Kopf1988 03:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this article extremely helpful, even in its current state.  The few articles I just tripped over on that site were extremely shillatory.  Having read about the payment model, I now understand why.  It's the old saw that the guy owning the newspaper doesn't tell the editor what to write (media independence), but if the editor doesn't figure it out for him/her-self the editor is soon replaced by someone else less enthusiastic about spending more time with their family. MaxEnt 03:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  One wouldn't want original research in an encyclopedia. WP:NOR There really also shouldn't be any opinion shown in the argument, and can be shown by many recent reverts. Things have been reverted like "Associated Content is highly realistic... CPs are dedicated to producing quality work to high personal standards." All point of view, advertising for the website. Kopf1988 (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not there because no reputable news story has written about it. Even though it's very true, it's still original research. Oh, and by the way, they've made MANY corrections for me in the past. And yes, AC is all about the Adsense, but still, so is pretty much everything new on Web 2.0. Have you seen MySpace lately? Kopf1988 (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ad/copyvio?

message: Is the payment of 3$ for real? Is it really per article? What keeps a person from spending a Saturday earning 24$ by just writing articles? Gautam Discuss 17:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's $3 for real, but not for just -anything-. Op/Ed articles, for example, can get declined, or other topics that have very short life span. Most stuff gets approved... if you're 10th grade language teacher would give you a C on a full-page(450ish words) paper, odds are AC would give you about $3-$5 for it. Kopf1988 03:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Payment? 

message: Unfortunately I have reverted a large portion of the recent changes made, due to information that very clearly needs to be attributed, is original research, or has some sort of general opinion overall. "CPs take it upon themselves to produce high quality work and behave ethically" is one such example, which is clearly not a neutral point of view. Information about the front page articles being short and complains about CMs also are in need of sourcing, etc. I didn't just use a tag because the information does not yet have a credible source - I've looked into it. Articles from the site can't be used as such. Kopf1988 (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The changes I unchanged were reverted by this user. If anyone has comments, or wants to find sources/remove the hype parts please do for me. Like this paragraph: "The community of Content Producers is very active and lively, and offers CPs new and old a great deal of support, including tips and feedback. Despite the focus on money, CPs are dedicated to producing quality work to high personal standards. Plagiarism is not tolerated by the site, which naturally has the support of the CP community as they are writers of original content, and a feeling of camraderie is encouraged." Nothing but good things about the website, with no reliable sources of any kind. And to be honest I write for, and like to write for AC, but I like my wikipedia articles to have a neutral viewpoint ^_^. Kopf1988 (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken a bit of a knife to the article - as well as the hype there were unsubstantiated criticisms.  It seems that the site has very little in terms of reliable sources to build anything off.  I doubt the article ought to get much larger unless we can find some better independent sources.  With current sources it's not possible to produce anything much beyond its current state that would fit within our guidelines and policies.  -- SiobhanHansa 17:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good work, although I would say it is notable. Kopf1988 (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't throw the notability tag on.  It seems a bit like blogger.com to me - the company is notable because it is used by so many people, but the individual content not so much.  I expect a few refs from less small town press sources will satisfy User:Bearian.  I'll see what I can drum up. -- SiobhanHansa 00:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added in a couple and removed the notability tag.  I'm not 100% on how valid the criticism regarding Tim Armstrong is - to be honest the article reads like the negative comments are just from a bunch of SEO's whining because it's not them.  But it did get coverage in USAToday. -- SiobhanHansa 01:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Changes 12/11/07 

message: AC recently revamped their whole website and have a new look. I believe a new screenshot is needed on this article. Zoodly (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Picture? 

message: I have caught a little bit of criticism of the site in odd places, but didn't pay too much attention to it.  And after publishing four articles with upfront payment, the first for $5.41 and each later one for less than the previous ones, I'm curious to know if there's info that I should know about this site (e.g., do they pay over $5 to hook you and then pay less and less until you're accepting $2 per article?).  So I came here.  But I find no criticism, no links to any criticism... and three of the six sources cited are AC FAQ pages, and a fourth is an interview with their founder.
So I have to question... is this article simply not developed enough to include a rounded view of the site?  Or has the negative stuff been deleted?  Are there any reputable sources out there that are critical of AC, and if so, why aren't they cited here?  Wikipedia is known for citing criticisms where they exist, and I would certainly like to know if it's out there... or must I go elsewhere to find this out? Kilyle (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Please? 

message: Since voices.yahoo.com is longer around, tons of Wikipedia articles which used it as a reference have dead links. Is there any way to automate marking the dead links? Gmporr (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any way to automate marking dead links?