Talk:About.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

i think someone should comething about the fact that about.com is using "wikipedia: the free encyclopedia" in their metatags. so if i search "bear wikipedia" on google the about.com link comes up

There should be a link indicating that this topic is actually a word in english and that it is defined in wiktionary. 24.201.116.26 04:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 New interface 2 was something removed or not get saved properly? 3 contents copied? 4 NPOV? 5 Free Content? 6 Needs Some Refs 7 Fair use rationale for Image:Homepage with edit special promotion.png

[edit] New interface

The about.com website seems to have recently undergone a "facelift." The new cluttered look reminds me more of a websquatter than anything else, especially with the irrelevant links on the side and the little toolbar that follows you around everywhere. _{This person did not include their signature when posting this. They should be listed as 80.223.180.139.}

It seems that one of my anti-spyware programs list About.com as spyware of some sort. It's either Spybot or SpySweeper. Kind of makes me suspicious. Luffy 00:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] was something removed or not get saved properly?

The stuff about Convalescence was removed. What if you had a government wikipedia, like Convalenscence proposes.. where you couldn't remove anything?

24.196.90.128 10:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] contents copied?

How come the same articles can be found in both, wikipedia and experts.about.com? collaboration or wiki-piratism (wiratism?)?

Yes, it is wiki-piratism, and I have personally complained to About.com and the NYT about this practice--especially the act of putting "Copyright 2006 About.com" on the page. They do give a tiny "reference" at the very bottom of the screen. I think this is an unconscionable practice.129.93.17.223 15:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Proyster 15:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Using our content is explicitly allowed under the GFDL. It's legit. phoebe 20:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

They are allowed to use it but they cannot claim it as their copyright, they also have to reference clearly where they got it.71.74.70.152 02:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

From the article: "About.com has had many complaints about how much it sucks." This is neither encyclopedic or NPOV; there are no explanations or counter-arguments.
"The website is disliked by many due to its false information and inabillity to speak about topics in a simple, understandable way." Again, no explanations or counter-arguments.
72.43.26.83 15:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Noticed this too. I don't have much experience with about.com, so I'm not in the position to correct this myself. But at any rate, these parts should be confirmed, justified and rephrased --134.109.148.26 07:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free Content?

What does Free Content mean? The content is all copyrighted, so how is it free?

Free as in beer, not speech - see Gratis versus Libre :) - Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 12:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs Some Refs

Nice page, but needs references to back up some claims (e.g. they check all medical info) Scottedwards2000 21:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Homepage with edit special promotion.png

Image:Homepage with edit special promotion.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)