Talk:CiteULike

message: *  This article (and the service) would benefit from a reference regarding the longevity and free accessibility of the service. I guess, that's a major worry for potential users: will my data be accessible in the long term?
** temporarily resolved; revenue models are being explored (see below) but authors assured site will remain free.
* Reference and details for the company. I couldn't find anything searching the web for Oversity limited.
* When uploading the logo, I was unable to find out which license it is under, if any. So, it currently stands as fair use which means it cannot be put on the central image repository: http://commons.wikimedia.org/
* The article would benefit from a recent changes section with some description of how the service is changing.
* Also some current user numbers would give an impression of how big the service currently is. There's some of that in the external links.
Jakob Suckale 10:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for improvement

message: I wrote to CiteULike regarding the future free status of the website. They assured me that the service will remain free. The reason you won't currently find anything related on the web site, is that the group is currently exploring revenue models from companies, libraries, and research institutions to support the service. Placing a statement along the lines "forever gratis" may complicate future legal agreements, they said. Jakob Suckale 12:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can think of no proper way to word this in WP, besides a statement that it is currently free. personal communications are not considered a Reliable source. DGG (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Communication from one of the authors Kevin Emamy

message: As suggested in the news release box recently inserted (December 2007) above the page, I have tried to rewrite this article from a more neutral point of view to be less promotional.
The names of the creators and developers were removed from the page to avoid a blatant advertising compromising the survival self of this useful page. The same for the financial aspects: it is presently free and independent. In my personal opinion, it does not make sense to develop this point in the main page, but it could be discussed here if considered necessary. 
Shinkolobwe (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes made to decrease the impression of news release

message: :Image:Screenshot-HotTags-citeulike.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Screenshot-HotTags-citeulike.png

message: Is bibsonomy created or administered by the same people as CiteULike, or is it just a competing service? If the latter, why is it included in the links? 97.81.77.48 (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibsonomy

message: A large portion of the paragraph I will post below is copied directly from "Defrosting the Digital Library: Bibliographic Tools for the next Generation Web." This should be re-written and the article cited.
CiteULike normalizes bookmarks before adding them to its
database, which means it calculates whether each URI bookmarked
identifies an identical publication added by another user, with an
equivalent URI. This is important for social tagging applications,
because part of their value is the ability to see how many people (and
who) have bookmarked a given publication. CiteULike also
captures another important bibliometric, viz how many users have
potentially read a publication, not just cited it. It seems likely that the
number of readers considerably exceeds the number of citers
[84,150], and this can be valuable information. Time lags matter,
too. This is particularly the case with Open Access, where the
‘‘most-accessed’’ Journal of Biology paper of 2007 [154] had in June
2008 been accessed in excess of 12,000 times, but has been cited just
nine times (note that early access statistics can provide good
predictors for later citations [155])  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.28.64 (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is licensed as CC-BY, so only attribution is needed.  The passage was added by User:Johnbibby, who was blocked for copyvio. --Karnesky (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism Problem 

message: What the heck is a "liberal privacy policy"? So far as I can see, that could mean anything ranging from they make completely free with your data to they are very mindful of your privacy rights. It would be nice if someone who actually knows about their privacy policies and practices could replace this with an expression that is actually meaningful. Treharne (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberal privacy policy?