Talk:Pinterest

Contested deletion

Hasty nomination. I'm a veteran editor and I have zero affiliation with the website. --Marcus Qwertyus 05:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because you are a veteran editor does not automatically waive rules. The article is a passing mention, and does not provide any cultural interest, other then to say "Hey! We have been featured in a magazine." Need to try a little harder then that. Phearson (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What part of "exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" don't you understand? Marcus Qwertyus 05:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Does not have to be overly promotional. But I see that you have added a better source, and thus I retract my request. Phearson (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Linking to competitor sites

I added some links with competitors cause i think this hole movement of photosharing is a relevant web-cultural event. Should I create an Artikel about photo-bookmarkservices or just insert a new Artikel named "Competitors"??? Sorry ist my first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debbieundflo (talk • contribs) 12:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:LINKSTOAVOID discourages links to "sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject". It wouldn't be very helpful to the reader if every article about a photosharing site ended with a link to every single other photosharing site.

You're quite right that photo sharing is a big subject, and there's already a full article (Photo sharing) which lists notable examples of online services. There's also a List of photo sharing websites. --McGeddon (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Photo sharing vs image bookmarking

I think the latter suits much better. Opinions? --Mastazi (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree its more akin to the inherent mission of the site and image bookmarking is mentioned later in the history section, but I think it's being currently used as more of a photo-sharing social network... Airelor (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Pinterest

This article could use an additional section that provides information about the technology used in making the website. It would also be nice to include a more detailed background on the people that founded the website and what the motivation behind it is. The infobox could also use an update to include information about the number of people working at the company. Finally, it would be nice to see a section on how the company plans to monetize the website to actually generate revenue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanilshah (talk • contribs) 00:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Do you have any links to articles that have such information? Those links would be helpful to editors looking to improve the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Too bad Pinterest isn't organized to gather data about trends of interests. If they could somehow harvest that marketing information, then they'd make some real money. Sorry this isn't signed, I never could figure out how to do that and long ago forgot my account name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.14.172 (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Pinterest's copyright concerns

Do we really need to split a paragraph about copyright issues out into its own section? After I merged two one-shot "controversy" sections into other parts of the article, an editor created a "Copyright violation concerns" section header for one of the paragraphs, with the rationale that "This is important and not to be buried in the body text." - I'm not sure it's any more important than other aspects of the website's "History", based on the sources we've got. We shouldn't give WP:UNDUE weight to aspects of a subject that we have strong personal feelings about, or which we think it's important that people should know - we're writing a neutral encyclopedia here, not an eyecatching, story-breaking newspaper.

What do other editors think about this? --McGeddon (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that the whole site is based around users pinning images that they have no image rights to, and being actively encouraged by Pinterest to do so, and also the fact the images themselves are copied from their original source and then stored on Pinterest servers where they then claim perpetual rights to make money from such images I say that there needs to be a section on it. Unless Pinterest change the way this website works there is going to be an ongoing issue. I am putting it back in. Tigershoot (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says that "articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views". I agree that their attitude to copyright seems like a big problem, but we should be echoing the strengths of available sources. We just need to pull up some stronger sources to show that the copyright concern is more than just a "minority view" of Pinterest. If those sources don't exist yet, we should wait until they do. --McGeddon (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding editors trying to sanitize copyright theft then imagine this scenario. A photographer or illustrator spends time and money and their artistic skill creating an image. They sell it via a stock site. Legitimate website designers pay for the image and the content creator gets their cut (which is often pitiful). The website is then published and along comes a Pinterest user who 'pins' the image they have found. The image is then illegally copied to Pinterest's servers and then Pinterest claims rights to make money from that image forever! I used the word "Violation" in the heading and this was watered down to a 'concern'. It is not a 'concern'. It is a blatant violation involving theft of someone else's work. It is a bizarre business that encourages users to pin anything they find of interest (yet claims users must only pin images that they have rights to). Then they make money from someone else's work and think that nobody should mind. Additionally they have a hopeless process for a rights-holder to try and get an image removed - imagine doing this dozens or hundreds of times a month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigershoot (talk • contribs) 22:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying I don't personally understand or feel concern about the copyright violations, just that we should be guided by the strengths of sources when assigning weight to particular paragraphs, rather than by how strongly we feel about them. WP:NPOV. --McGeddon (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there cause to add links to critical websites such as http://pinterest-out.blogspot.com or http://mansurovs.com/tag/pinterest? DrippingGoofball (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the March 2012 policy change to eliminate Pinterest's right to sell users' content, obviously to defuse the copyright liability of the company, does this affect the Copyright sectioning issue? Just thinking out aloud...Cephas Atheos (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"Copyright violation concerns" section

I've deleted the section titled "Copyright violation concerns".

Here is the section as it was before I removed it:

Copyright concerns have been raised over the fact that Pinterest’s business is "based almost entirely on using images without permission". Getty Images said that it was discussing copyright problems with Pinterest. Pinterest issued a statement in February 2012 saying that it was developing an improved method for copyright holders to report infringing content. It has also been noted that users are actively encouraged to post anything they find of interest and in so doing the images themselves are illegally copied without the image owners permission to Pinterest's servers.

— Old revision of Pinterest#Copyright violation concerns

---

This raises several concerns:

• There is only one source for the entire section.
• There is no citation for the claim that Getty Images is "discussing copyright problems" with Pinterest. The part about Getty Images comes from the paidContent article, which simply says: "A spokesperson for Getty Images, which licenses a wide variety of pictures, informed me that the company is 'aware of the issue and [is] discussing it with Pinterest.'" We need a better citation from a reliable source.
• The sentence "Pinterest issued a statement in February 2012 saying that it was developing an improved method for copyright holders to report infringing content." is sourced to the paidContent article, however their is no such information in the article.
• The last sentence starts with "It has been noted"—this is a huge problem just by itself. Noted by whom? Weasel words plain and simple.
• "in so doing the images themselves are illegally copied without the image owners permission to Pinterest's servers." Illegal according to what laws? Who says that no copyright owners give permission to reuse their images? Who says the images are even copied to Pinterest's servers at all? Who says that even if they are copied without permission that this is illegal? This is in desperate need of citations of reliable sources. —danhash (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point, this looks like quite a poor summary of the given source. I think it's reliable enough in itself, although I'm not sure whether its writer is enough of an authority that we should report his musings on "safe harbor" status. I'll edit the paragraph to match what's actually said in the article. --McGeddon (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Without touching on the sourced content, I certainly have no issue with the removal of unsourced content, per wp:CHALLENGED.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that instead of tagging the section as it has been tagged, other tags be used. It does appear to all be sourced now. If one wishes to question whether the source is a reliable source, the tag would seem more precise. If one wishes to question whether the information is in the ref, the tag would seem more applicable.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverted. Thanks for the input. Care to input on the title of the section? —danhash (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. As to the title, I think the change to the current title was appropriate, and an improvement. I haven't looked into the issue generally, but agree that we should make certain that any inflammatory claims are well-sourced, and carefully stated. It might be good to indicate who the journalist writes for, to provide some more context allowing the reader to weigh his statement appropriately.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Pinterest Clone

An IP address is adding a link to a clone of Pinterest on all wikis. I remove it every time, but is very annoying. Already in the Blacklist in this wiki, but in the other wikis, he keeps adding the link --Hcxangel (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, but this is a matter you should take up with those other wikis. This talk page is for discussing the Wikipedia article. --McGeddon (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Horrible Sexism

The intro section is stunningly non-objective and sexist in the way that it says that it is "speculated" that Pinterest is used more by women because the ability to share interests in fashion and food appeals more to women. It would be bad enough to see something like this on Wikipedia normally, but this ridiculous statement does not even have a citation, revealing the unaccpetable bias of the author. I have removed this line, as it adds nothing to the overall quality or informative value of the article, and because it is unneccesarily biased. I am not a woman, so this is not an emotional response arising from feeling insulted by this sexism. It is instead in the interest of maintaing a high-quality, un-biased and well cited article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.105.86.68 (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you're a female or an angry dude. I can link you to at least 20 peer-reviewed consumer advertising studies which will essentially state the fact that both fashion and food interest and the ability to share opinions and other articles about said interests are quite easily correlated with female advertising targets. There are reasons why frequent visitors to OMG and Womens' Health are targeted with advertisements for diet plans, menstrual products, and chocolate, and these reasons have nothing to do with sexism. Purchasing studies prove time and time again that female (and male) demographics are *very* easily isolated, to the point that some chains will send promotional offers to women they *think* may be pregnant based on their buying habits and online interests. What you're discussing sounds more like the need for a citation needed flag and less like the criteria for a heavy-handed deletion of what could very likely be valid content. Furthermore, the content you deleted could very well be an important part of the story here, and the fact that it upsets you is not reason enough for its removal. I've reverted your changes and I hope you will take a more objective view of things like this in the future. However, kudos for charging forward with what you felt was right. It's a touchy subject, but any marketing major would take great pleasure in expounding upon the merits and finer points of grossly sexist advertisement and marketing mechanisms.

-213.202.56.185 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

First, regardless if one find it sexism or not, the fact that remains is that any statement like "the website has proven especially popular among women" should be backup by facts! For this reason alone any unsubstantiated claim should be removed from this wikipedia article. For instance, This source pointed to back up a claim in section "3.Usage" has no hard data that confirms that this is a fact. Second, the logic presented above by user:213.202.56.185 is flawed. Even if "fashion and food interest" are "correlated with female advertising targets", it still does not follow as a verifiable fact that most Pinterest users are females. In sum, claims and sources with not reliable hard data should be removed from this wikipedia entry. Wikipedia is not the place to speculate. As of this writing, it seems that the only hard data we have confirming that women are the majority of Pinterest's users is this The Telegraph source -- which is cited in the wikipedia entry. Desmore13 (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I know I am late to this discussion, but these sites might help your debate [1] and this CNN article [2]Stewaj7 (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

History

Came across this article on Pinterest's history http://startupgrind.com/2012/04/the-evolution-of-pinterests-incubator-cold-brew-labs/#more-2123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.12.113 (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

And I find the History section to be in the way of the description of the service. WP form is to have History early, but can we find a way to bulk up the explanation of function before listing funding rounds and awards? Onanoff (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Advertorial?

This article reads very much like an advertisement for Pinterest. For example, there are many statements with no substance, such as the item about the iPhone app "bringing in more than the expected number of downloads". What's factual about that? It seems to imply that Pinterest was more popular than...something else, but doesn't add information that makes it relevant. If there were 20 downloads, instead of the expected 4, then that's a fact that is of interest to readers of the article, as it would be if there were 20 million downloads instead of 4!

I'm also surprised that most of the "Usage" section seems to be a description of how to use the site, rather than an overview of what the site allows, which is kinda already explained in the first section. In fact, the whole article reads like a fan page or marketing release. There doesn't seem to be any neutral point of view here, at least from my point of view as a 'casual reader' (no pun intended) and as someone who's viewed a couple of Pinterest boards.

Basically, I'm not sure if this qualifies for the neutral POV tag, or it's just me. I'd appreciate any comments from more experienced editors.

Thanks. Cephas Atheos (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)