Talk:Utherverse Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Fair use rationale for Image:Utherverselogo.jpg 2 Remove the ridiculous 'Notability Guidelines' disclaimer ... and of course keep the article 3 The 'written like an advertisement' tag seems outdated too 4 Notability

The request for a speedy deletion was made about an hour after the page was created. This is clearly too quick to be putting this sort of judgement on a page. The advice found in the first paragraph of this page: WP:NPP#Patrolling_new_pages should be adhered too more closely.

The content placed on this article was intended as a starter and would be added to later on in the day. --Wikinatic 03:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am curious as to what is considered not an advertisement. I am trying to input actual information about a real company that exists, not just to toss it out there. Please inform me as to why this is considered an ad and what would change that outlook. --Wikinatic (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the spam tag and its accompanying hangon tag. I don't know how this article started, but my belief is that presently it's got balanced coverage of the topic (there is a section about criticism with citations) and notability has been both asserted and demonstrated by the references. If the person who tagged this article as spam has a different opinion, I am at his/her service for discussion; my mind remains open here. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think notability has been established. It requires that it be the subject of multiple non-trivial pieces coverage. An interview with the CEO about a different product isn't the same as an article devoted to the utherverse. Neither is the other source. Its simply mentioned in the context of the red light center for which there is already an article.--Crossmr (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, my mind remains open; I think you may be right. My understanding was that this was an article about the parent company, the umbrella under which the Red Light Center, Virtual Vancouver and various other worlds are sheltered, so I went looking for content that specifically mentioned the parent company. I must admit that one of the current cites that I thought was independent was actually a news release, my apologies. I found a number of citations that don't seem to add any content, merely coverage, such as [1], [2], [3] and [4], which last is interesting but is more about the Red Light Center's sponsorship of an online film festival. It's hard to tell whether it's possible to disentangle articles about the products from information about the company. What would you like to have happen? Would it be appropriate to delete this article, leave it as a stub with links to the products, or perhaps do something complicated that imports the articles about the products into this article and leaves their headings as redirects? I'll look forward to hearing your views. Accounting4Taste:talk 06:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this section sounds pretty "market-y".

The Utherverse concept is so compelling, that when people ‘get it’ they realize that it is an inevitable evolution of the internet. The effect is so profound that Utherverse has been able to attract a dream team staff with the best of the best at every level in the company. At the top levels of management, the team are also the owners and investors – having invested many millions in cash, and millions of dollars of value in the form of labor and support from companies they control.

Is there proof anyone can show of it being objectively "so compelling"? --FeldBum (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Those first two are simply blog postings which point to bigger articles that are already cited. The third again only notes utherverse in the context of red light center, and the last appears to be a reprinting of a press release. Press releases can't be used to establish notability, so the only usable link, the third, again demonstrated that utherverse isn't notable outside of red light center, and as pointed out this reads like a marketing piece.--Crossmr (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess the question I need to ask then is, what makes an article about a company go from being considered an advertisement to being more. I thought I was on the right track in regards to making this more informative, but apparently I wasn't. I'm not trying to argue or make a fuss, I'm just trying to figure out where exactly the problem lays and what's the best route to fixing it. I'm working to gather more info, but after today I'm not completely certain what to look for.

"As I said, my mind remains open; I think you may be right. My understanding was that this was an article about the parent company, the umbrella under which the Red Light Center, Virtual Vancouver and various other worlds are sheltered,... Accounting4Taste:talk 06:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)" Yes, this is exactly what I was going for on this. I intended for this topic to shed a little more light on the ideas behind the whole thing up to the company level. --Wikinatic (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is that the company has no notability of its own outside its product. No one has written articles as far as has been provided strictly about the utherverse and its corporate goings on. The only way to correct that is to wait for a reliable source to write about the subject. In this case multiple reliable sources in order to establish notability. The second issue is the language used in the article. The paragraph pointed out above reeks of self-serving marketing spin, and with the only citation being the website of the company in general. In fact I see its copied word for word from the main page of the site. Including these kinds of self serving quotations in articles is a clear road to getting the article shot down for being PoV or reading like an advert. The key thing to remember when creating an article is to use secondary sources, hence why notability is important. We try to steer clear of using primary sources, especially for descriptive things like that paragraph.--Crossmr (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Utherverselogo.jpg

Image:Utherverselogo.jpg 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 (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove the ridiculous 'Notability Guidelines' disclaimer ... and of course keep the article

"Utherverse" is a brilliantly named concept with a stated intention of unifying multitudes of online worlds. It is also a virtual reality infrastructure company which says others can use its software and developers to create their own independently owned and operated worlds (not just "stores"). It is also noteworthy for unabashedly embracing some of the more controversial possibilities of virtual interaction.

Just because some stuffy Wikipedians are committed to keeping a lot of the really interesting stuff from our eyes, by stomping on articles about companies with significant technologies that aren't quite mainstream yet ... doesn't mean we need to wait until everybody hears about the Utherverse before we can grudgingly make any mention of it.

Perhaps those editors should use their efforts for a diligent search before declaring something not notable. There appear to be numerous articles discussing the provocative aspects of this company and its web properties.

Our readers will expect to find an article about this entity which apparently understands present & future trends well enough to have helped initiate something of such long-term significance. This particular company, regardless of how long it survives, will always be historically notable because of its name, the "earlyness" of its shared infrastructure deployment effort, and its intriguing effort to openly promote much wider social freedoms online than are highlighted elsewhere.

The concept of a connected/unified virtual universe and everything that is being done to implement it is clearly something we will need to be documenting from now on. I suspect those who think we should not list "Utherverse" would once have objected to early mention of the term "Internet" or the company "Netscape".

You might manage to delete this article today but it will be back soon, just before the virtual tsunami washes most of the "it's Not significant! it's Not notable!" folks out to sea. Why waste the present trying to deny the future out of love for the boring ol' past? (Boring only by comparison of course!)

One would think editors who delete factual articles are worried that Wikipedia will run out of space, or that if there are too many volumes on the Wikipedia shelf their mom might not buy the encyclopedia for them. They really don't understand the impact of cyberspace, do they.

I'm not affiliated with Utherverse but it seems most of us are destined to use technology developed by them or others with similar ideas.

     Kurzweil was right -- long live virtuality!

(Until recently I dismissed his claim of just how important virtual reality will be for most people, and how soon. Even Wikipedians can learn, see?)

P.S. Why would Utherverse be undocumentable here, compared to Second Life? The unenlightened said Bluetooth was "dead" and "not noteworthy", compared to WIFI. Bluetooth was about unifying devices everywhere, right down to its cleverly chosen name. Utherverse is partly about unifying worlds everywhere, right down to its cleverly chosen name. (A pattern!) May those who declared BT dead be forevermore tangled in wires! May those who would crunch the Utherverse be always banned from its pleasures!

-- Parsiferon (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the article is notable, provide the required evidence per the guideline. Unfortunately the opinion of an editor is neither notable or reliable. You claim it is, I claim its not, the community has established a guideline so notability has to be established per that. Also see WP:NOT. We're not a soapbox, or publisher of original thought, or a place for Original research. Putting forth the theory that this is going to be some well known subject without the appropriate citations is just that.--Crossmr (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The 'written like an advertisement' tag seems outdated too

I (and others before) have cleaned up the article sufficiently that I think the tag can now be removed. If there are no objections I will remove it in a few days if I remember to return here.

Despite my prior rant, the 'noteability' tag before it has some value if it gets anyone to improve the article out of fear of deletion. I will leave it alone but hope YOU will show the courage to pull off that tag ASAP. Somebody needs to keep the 'pedia police from "tagging" so many articles with their official-looking graffiti.

--Parsiferon (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that sufficient changes have been made to the article to justify that.--Crossmr (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I am not a WP expert, quite the opposite. This may not be the place to discuss the following, if not, please direct me to the appropriate area.

I came across this article while researching Virtual Worlds. There aren't a lot of articles on the subject outside the mainstream (i.e. Second Life, World of Warcraft, Everquest, etc...) I was glad to find some lesser known properties listed here - thus I have a problem with the 'notability' arguement. It sounds like sometihng is considered notable only if several main-stream publications write articles about it. This puts media outlets in the position of deciding for us what is notable. If the big boys (Fox, ABC, CNN, etc...) don't deem it notable, but other outlets that are apparantly considered 'trivial' do, it looks like the big boys win by default. Wasn't the concept of the Wikipedia to democratize information? Doesn't this defeat that concept?

While I agree that WP isn't the place for advertisements, the line between information and advertisement isn't notability.

On a more direct comment - if Red Light District is notable enough for its own article, why wouldn't the larger container that holds it be notable? If North America has it's own article, the Earth is notable enough for its own...

Again, this could be the wrong place for my comments - please redirect me as needed.

66.41.0.174 (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT, wikipedia is not a democracy, web guide, web directory, compendium of all human knowledge, etc. The community decided that requiring reliable sources to provide significant coverage. Both the earth and north america have received significant coverage as required by the notability guides and isn't a good comparison. The product has received coverage but utherverse hasn't. For a better comparison have a look at Windows XP vs Microsoft. They have both received plenty of coverage independent of each other.--Crossmr (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)