Talk:Ruckus Network/Mediation

Mediation

Hello. Nroseszu requested mediation for this article. First, I'd like to remind everyone that the results of this case are non-binding, and that I am in no way operating in an official capacity for Wikipedia. Nor am I an administrator. I'm just another ordinary user, like you :)

Now, on to the matter at hand. I have reviewed the article, its edit history, and the discussions on Talk:Ruckus Network and User_talk:Plasticbadge.

Reminders

Before we proceed, I'd like to issue some reminders.

• Plasticbadge, please remain civil and refrain from making personal attacks. Comments such as "Irregardless" isn't a real word moron. will not help resolve this issue.
• Both editors should assume good faith. Plasticbadge, please be advised that, while being an employee of a corporation may make a user's contributions suspicious in your mind, no one user "owns" a Wikipedia article. Telling other users to "keep [their] nose out of the criticism section and the wording of the article" is generally frowned upon.
• Nroseszu, accusation of libel, as you leveled in the mediation page, is a serious matter indeed. If Ruckus Network truly feels libelous material is present on the page, please visit WP:LIBEL.
• Nroseszu, please do not delete items from your user talk page. Feel free to archive it if you feel it is getting too crowded.
• Both editors are strongly encouraged to follow the three revert rule, as violations of this rule may result in administrative action in the form of blocks. Discussion on talk pages is always preferable to blanket reverts and edit wars.
• To both editors: please sign all of your posts with four tildes (~~~~).

Questions

• There are a plethora of anonymous IP edits in the history page. Nroseszu, were you 216.143.51.66?

No, that was a college intern who took it upon himself to edit the Article page without my knowledge. I stepped in with my user account once I was informed he was trying to "update the Wiki page" -- I was attempting to provide accurate information as a knowledgeable Ruckus employee; however, as you can see, this was perceived as "corporate whitewashing" -- even though I was merely attempting to clarify points that were not accurate (our business model, user base, etc) and those points that were not properly cited/supported. -Nroseszu

Compromise

Because there are just too many reverts/edits to deal with individually, I feel we should just start at the beginning of the article and work our way through to the end in order to come up with a suitable compromise version for all parties involved. The article needs an overhaul anyway, as it does not conform to WP:LAYOUT and WP:Manual of Style (thus the {{wikify}} tag that I added). Also, please familiarize yourselves with WP:CITE before we move forward. Articles must be verfiable. Finally, take a look at some of the featured articles for inspiration.

First, is the name of the company Ruckus or Ruckus Network? If it's Ruckus, I propose we move the article to "Ruckus (online music service)" or something similar for clarity's sake. Thoughts?

The official name is Ruckus Network. The current location/name is fine. -Nroseszu 10:22, 9 November 2006 (EST)

OK, now onto the article itself. Since Ruckus is a company, take a look at the article on Microsoft for some inspiration, although obviously, this article won't be as long. Note how many inline citations there are. I propose an overhaul of the structure of this article, as so:

• Lead
• History
• Products and services
• Criticism and controversy - This would include the Facebook incident
• See also
• References and footnotes
• External links

This will allow us to convert those lists to prose. Thoughts? Gzkn 07:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help. This format would be wonderful. My main issue was that the Ruckus Article is not in line with Articles of other simliar companies. Whenever I attempted to format anything that was informative or factual about the company, I was quickly slapped with the phrase "adspeak."

From my perspective, anything that was posted that was not negative or critical of Ruckus' possible shortcomings was flagged as dubious marketing or adspeak. Simple statements and external links to relevant newspaper articles were removed by the same definition. This troubled me seeing as other company Wikipedia articles are clearly outlined with History, Products and Services, etc. -- whereas Ruckus was merely a brief blurb, Features and Restrictions (one line features, the rest restrictions), Criticism, and the Brody Ruckus incident. Seems pretty biased towards a negative Ruckus user's framework if you ask me. (PlasticBadge has admitted that he was a former user of the service)

Please be aware that throughout this entire process I have tried my best for active communication and collaboration. I am not doing this as a "work project" and am not part of some "evil corporate" agenda as PlasticBadge, has noted on several occassions. It just becomes very frustrating when it's a two person battle, so-to-speak, in which one user's knowledge of Wikipeda clearly gives them the advantage of the final edit -- regardless of what the truth may be.

As I said above, I have no problem with the format as set forth above -- in fact, I would greatly welcome it. It provides a fair and balanced compromise to the situation. I would only ask that you, Gzkn, help us through this entire process.

Finally, I do apologize for my lack of proper Wiki protocal -- but I'm a fast learner :) -Nroseszu 10:17, 9 November 2006 (EST)

I'd start off by saying that I stopped using the service but I harbor no ill will toward it. My use of the service led me to this article, but to my knowledge there are few other regular editors of this article. I'm sorry if that gives the impression that I am trying to "take ownership" of the piece. In fact, I have largely limited my actions to protective actions acainst what I felt were suspicious changes in wording that favored the company. In some cases IP users would delete the criticism section en masse. Needless to say I found such actions odd, so when Nroseszu finally admitted to being a company employee, alarm bells went off. He posted that he was staying overtime at the office to work on the Wiki with a graphic designer who was creating content just for the article. Instead of meaningful changes, though, (such as building a comprehensive history section), he resorted to petty changes to the wording of the criticism section and superfluous links. I understand that he is new to Wikipedia, but I had no choice to follow him into a revert war as he kept editing the article without discussing major changes in the talkpage beforehand. let's make this civil and discuss any changes on here before making them, shall we? - Plasticbadge 16:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I will ingore the attacks on my character as a corporate henchman. I'll just make this clear one last time -- there is no overtime in my profession -- I do not clock in and out at the office. I'm not a suit trying to use Wikipedia as a marketing or Advertising tool. I stayed late because I was trying to come to a resolution of truth on the article page. I was not satisfied with your attitude of benevolent ownership of the page and I intended to right the information that was inaccurate and false. (And the use of a graphic designer is not implication of evil-corporate changes -- If anything, it adds validity to the article and ensures the logo being used is correct.) Also, "superfluous links" -- this would imply you are using your own opinion as a benevolent single user as to what is allowed. The external links I posted were from reputable student newspapers about the Ruckus service. There is absolutely no reason not to include these as they are a direct user response to the company and it's services. It seems pretty ironic that you would remove these "superfluous links" given that you have contended that the Criticism section is based/cited from a student newspaper at Syracuse. As the Mediator has pointed out, no one user "owns" a Wikipedia article. As I have stated on numerous occasions, I am here to work within the rules, regulations and established precendents of the Wikipedia community. I am only asking for fair and just editorial changes that are in line with comparable company Wiki pages. With this being said, shall I go ahead and create the company History and Product and Services sections? I will need outside help to "Wikify" the article -- I'm reading up on this, but am probably not the best canidate to attempt this. -Nroseszu 12:20, 9 November 2006 (EST)

The link in the criticism section was a cited source, whereas the articles you posted were fluff cheer leading pieces that added little to the article. "Ruckus is coming to our school this is how it works" is not a compelling reason for a link. Links should tell a story not available in the body article and should provide meaningful further reading.

Again, I never claimed to "own" the article, but as the only active regular editor of this article I do take some pride in preventing vandalism from the corporate world. Before you make any changes, I ask that you post proposals here and we can discuss what does and does not fit in with the Wikipedia style. Please try to be as objective as possible, as I will certainly try to be. - Plasticbadge 17:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I will post my proposed changes here when they are complete and we can continue from there. I would ask that you attempt to disassociate your perceived "vandalism" with any forms of "dissenting information." - Nroseszu 14:33, 9 November 2006 (EST)

How can you not understand my uneasiness with having corporate involvement in in article that has such a history of vandalism? What other name would you use to describe the deletion of the criticism section? - Plasticbadge 21:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree; I would describe the deletion of entire content sections as "vandalism" -- as it has been used in reference to Wikipedia. However, I take issue when you state that you are "preventing vandalism from the corporate world." Let's not point fingers unless you are ready to support your claims against my company with valid evidence. I'm not to blame if you have dealt with this with other companies such as cDigix -- learn to differentiate. You are dealing with two separate companies/entities on two separate instances. - Nroseszu 16:53, 9 November 2006 (EST)

There have been some IP user edits I would describe as vandalism in the history of this article. I don;t know for sure that it was someone at your company, but in my experience that is the only logical answer. Acting rationally, only a Ruckus employee would want to see the criticism section deleted or heavily toned down. There is a chance I'm wrong, but it goes against rational choice theory and my well tuned gut instincts. I'll reserve judgment, but I still smell a rat. - Plasticbadge 22:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your quotes: "I don't know for sure" -- "The is a chance I'm wrong" -- "my well tuned gut instincts." Hmm, seemingly ironic given that Wikipedia is based of citations, factual information and proper notation. Last time I checked, personal opinion, circumstantial evidence and "gut instincts" aren't recognized as legitimate Wiki justification. You're only digging yourself a bigger hole my friend. Please just chill with all your anti-me, anti-corporate, anti-Ruckus sentiments and focus on the COLLABORATIVE work. - Nroseszu 17:08, 9 November 2006 (EST)

Hello all. Sorry I've been away (sleeping). It seems we operate on different timezones so I will not be able to respond as swiftly to your comments as you may wish. If you want, I can ask for another mediator to help out while I'm asleep (then it'd be a 24 hour operation! =]). Anyway on to the above discussion. You all made some good points. I agree with Plasticbadge's request that we discuss any proposals here. I see you two have already done so below in the Proposed Changes section. Thank you both for taking the initiative and working towards a compromise. Once again, however, I would like to ask Plasticbadge to assume good faith, whatever your history with other companies. Gzkn 00:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

For the History section:

Ruckus Network, based in Herndon, Virginia, is backed by venture capitalists Battery Ventures and Shelter Capital Partners. With its official launch in September of 2004 at Northern Illinois University, Ruckus became the first online music service focused exclusively on the colleges market. In January of 2006, Ruckus moved away from its subscription business model in favor of one that was ad-subsidized. This change eliminated the previous monthly fee required for site access and granted users cost-free entry to use the service. As of November, 2006, Ruckus has officially partnered with 80 colleges and universities and five state-wide network systems, which support an additional 200+ higher education institutions.

I have no problems with that, except for the direct links to external sites of the venture capitalists in the body. That is unusual in Wikipedia articles. The preferred method if footnotes, or links to Wikipedia articles on the subjects. - Plasticbadge 22:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Wasn't sure how to link to these -- thanks, I'll use footnotes.

Like Plasticbadge said, footnotes or Harvard citation style (see WP:CITE) are now preferable to external links. I see you have already incorporated footnotes into the actual page. Good! However, I was wondering if you could perhaps take a look at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles/Generic_citations. These templates allow for easy formatting of citations/footnotes to maintain consistency throughout the article. In particular, since most of our sources will probably be from the web, both of you should take a particular look at cite web. I took the liberty of converting one of the citations in "Brody Ruckus" incident section to cite web format, so take a look at that. Also, another friendly reminder to sign all your posts. :) Gzkn 00:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Took another look at the History section, and the current references you're using are just outside links. We'll need to provide citations that back up your sentences. For example, in the first sentence, we should not be linking to the websites of Battery Ventures and Shelter Capital. Instead, find a source that verifies the claim that Ruckus is backed by those two venture capitalists. Linking to a press release is probably fine here, if you can't find a neutral source, as we're not making any outrageous claims. With the second sentence, however, we'll need an outside source, as claims to being the "first" anything are often contentious. The next two sentences also need citations. However, if one source is able to cover both of the statements, it is fine just to put the citation at the end of the second sentence, so it isn't as unsightly. Finally, the last sentence also needs a citation. Also, how about "over 200" instead of "200+" if you don't know the exact number? Gzkn 01:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)