Talk:37signals/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

So, what does the name mean?

See the article's lead section:

The company is named for the 37 radio telescope signals identified by astronomer Paul Horowitz as potential messages from extraterrestrial intelligence.

--J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 10:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirects & separate articles for individual products

The link to Writeboard ends up in a redirect to this page. If this needs a page (and therefore link) of its own then that should be created and the redirect removed. Otherwise, the link should be removed. Kickstart70 23:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. I've changed the Writeboard, and Ta-Da List links to Writeboard (software) and Ta-Da List (software) respectively. These are just small apps, so I don't think they are notable for article but I agree it seems silly to be redirecting the page you're already. I do not agree with deleting the redirects however. --Jatkins 17:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The individual apps, Basecamp excepted, barely qualify per WP:N (and I expect that an AFD would vote delete or at best merge). I've removed the redlinks for these two applications, as well as a few others that didn't need to be there like their 37express service or Jeff Bezos's investment company. No need to go around inviting people to create G11-deletable articles. -- Dhartung | Talk 19:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I take your point. I made the Backpack and Campfire articles and contributed to Highrise. Do you think they should be merged? After all, they are good but simple apps. --Jatkins 16:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

All three of those articles rely solely on self-published sources and have no assertion of notability. As of now, any administrator would be in his right to speedy delete each of them. They would need to be sourced properly and convincingly assert separate notability; otherwise they should be merged with this article. -- Dhartung | Talk 18:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

By that I assume you mean that information is directly from 37signals instead of independent blogs or news site (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.). If you feel it necessary, add Template:Db-reason or Template:Prod-nn (not notable) and/or merge the articles with 37signals. You've got a good point and unless/untill the apps get much, much more popular, then I agree with you. --Jatkins 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a big 37s fan and just getting started on WP but after reading a few of the policies I tend to agree. WP:N (organizations and companies) says:
"If it is not notable, it should not be broken out into its own article but should have whatever verifiable information about it that exists presented within an article that has a broader scope, such as an article that deals with all of the company's products and services."
So sounds like a 37signals' Products page and perhaps a more detailed 'Backpack page is in order? Blckdmnd99 02:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. Place the information in this article, which is not a large one, until it becomes necessary and obvious that an encyclopedic treatment requires a subarticle. Backpack has the most attention in the press because Campfire and Highrise are more targeted applications, but it's actually simpler than either of them by a mile. It's the only one of the three I can see enough third-party coverage for a full article, but it's also the one that requires one the least. --Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That works too. As per WP:N:
"information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." Blckdmnd99 11:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a "Products" section, and added information about all of their six products (Basecamp, Ta-Da List, Backpack, Writeboard, Campfire and Highrise). I've redirected/merged Campfire (software) with the 37signals#Products section. I've also uploaded the Highrise logo and placed the 125px-wide logos of all their paid products on the right of the section titles. If you want to, redirect Backpack (software) as well, although you appear to be saying this just needs improving, and that Basecamp (software) should also stay. Because the Highrise (software) article includes pre-launch publicity information such as the trademark name change I thought that should stay put. Its up to you. --Jatkins 14:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

One issue that came up during the AfD linked above was the people who don't like 37signals and/or their approach. There's certainly room for that to be brought into the article and it would balance out the "press release" sound it now has (after adding things to justify the company's notability). --Dhartung | Talk 05:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• no real controvery here outside the fact that you keep inserting marketing language that should not be present in the article. fine if you a fan, but this is not the place for you to promote them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.72.31.25 (talk • contribs).

The question raised in the AfD was one of notability. Pointing out that they have been successful is not "marketing language", it's asserting notability. (I'm open to other suggestions on how to do so with NPOV.) That said, the article having survived deletion, I don't feel the need to get every last detail of their success in there (I thought it was sufficient before the AfD, but apparently others did not). In the future, it would be helpful and appreciated if you would assume good faith rather than suggesting that someone who disagrees with you about wording is a "fan" or "promoter".

For example, it seems notable to me that they sold 5000+ books with no promotion other than their blog, or that they regularly sell out their seminars. Sometimes the success is part of the story. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that User:66.72.31.25 appears to be the only objector, and has not responded here after one week, I am restoring the removed material, which are sourced statements about the company which conform to WP:CITE. Given that they come from sources outside Wikipedia and not the opinion of an editor, there should be no reason not to include them. --Dhartung | Talk 07:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• sorry, but marketing language will not be tolerated. the previous version has been restored. for the record, i did not call you fan, but simply said it's fine if you are one. from your contributions, i do not believe you to be an objective contributor to this article and i will monitor your edits. do not insert inappropriate marketing language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.108.208.226 (talk • contribs).

This really isn't personal, and here, again, you are labeling my contributions, without assuming good faith. I have not labeled your reverts or your comments here; why do you feel the need to do so? Given that you have ordered me not to "insert inappropriate marketing language", I ask why cited facts should not be included in the article (specifically, book sales, opinions of the company in Salon.com and InformationWeek, the name of their corporate philosophy, and exchanges with other tech CEOs about that philosophy). These facts gauge the importance, notability, and influence of the company. I am open to other wording, but you have not suggested any. I believe that revert wars are harmful to Wikipedia so I will not revert you at this time, but allow you an opportunity to suggest other ways to incorporate information which comes from outside sources per verifiability policy. --Dhartung | Talk 22:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• there is nothing wrong with facts, but you are cherry picking them and creating nothing more than a fluff piece. one need only review your previous contributions to see you are editing the article in such a way that it makes it read more like a promotional piece -- and i am not the only one to notice. you were told this before by other users within the deletion process discussion forum. one poster commented that "the article reads like a company press release or the back of a book cover" which is not appropriate. 66.73.162.105 14:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, this little article doesn't deserve this drama, so spare me. I have to assume you're taking such a heavy-handed (and un-Wikipedian) approach because at heart you, too, want the article better. I would like to continue to add things, but I really don't relish writing and getting blanked again. Let's cooperate instead; you tell me what you think is appropriate, beforehand. Here are some of the areas that were in my mind: a separate section on the SvN blog; individual sections on the applications; the APIs and third-party add-ons such as the browser for Campfire; a discussion of the Google Web Accelerator tiff. If criticism is what you want, there were kerfuffles over turning off comments at SvN (because of too many flames, basically), the GWA business (an esoteric web programming standards issue), and the underwhelming response to Writeboard, which arrived at the same time as competitor Writely. If there's anything else about the company you think should be there, but don't feel competent to write yourself, bring it up here and I'll take a crack. --Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section about the blog and products. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 09:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Signal vs. Noise

I think this is a good section to add, I'm just wondering about WP:NOR. Shouldn't statements like the one below be attirbutable to something published? I agree that the statement is accurate and true, but as I understand it this should be published somewhere else and then cited here. No?

One of the company's main assets has been their popular web log, Signal vs. Noise, launched in 2000.

-DjD- 18:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's still in the Technorati Top 100, although it's been ranked higher than 91st (present position). Saying "main asset" is POV. I believe the old language I had (see dispute with anon above) was more NPOV, along the lines of using the blog to promote their products. --Dhartung | Talk 18:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I take your point but I think Signal vs. Noise is a pretty integral part of 37signals, although your probably right from removing "popular" from the statement. Despite this the current statement does sound better, I agree. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The first reference of the year of launch (1999/2000) which I added was the first time the address http://www.37signals.com/svn had been archived (obviously this is not 100% reliable as a source; it could have not been archived for some time) at Archive.org, but this was changed to the first entry of http://www.37signals.com which did include so-called "signals" (37signals/contributed 'philosophy' snippets of text) but I wouldn't personally consider that a blog (certainly couldn't find a mention of it, and not in blog form). --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 17:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: 1999/2000. Interesting points and I can see how you could argue both sides. Here's my line of thinking on why 1999.

• 37s's own tagline states "Established 1999." when referring to the blog.
• The Archive.org data is interesting (I didn't know about them before), but I'm not sure it's conclusive as you point out, it may not have been archived right away. The first archived page has references to the "SVN Archive:" and other similar statements that suggest they had been around a while before the first page got archived.
• Even though the 37 'signals' they published in 1999 might not be a Blog by today's standards, the content and musings are not dissimilar from what SvN is all about today. While the format may have changed since then, saying that these posts were the beginning seems reasonable.

-DjD- 22:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• For reference, the signals as of November 1999. Because I was among them, I can say that in 1999 there was not yet a recognizable blog format -- Blogger.com was just becoming popular, before which everyone had to either post by hand or roll their own software, and a lot of people resisted the standard approach for various reasons. I have no problem with calling the "signals" an early version of the blog. I'm not sure what goal would be served by nitpicking the definition of a blog. (I think that means we all agree.) --Dhartung | Talk 04:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like we're on the same page to me. Thanks. -DjD- 11:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Then should the reference be changed to a permalink with the header saying "established 1999" (I had also notice this; but wasn't sure whether it was referring to 37signals' company launch, or the blog). I guess we can assume the latter. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 14:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I get what you're saying but not quite sure. Just go ahead and make the change and if someone has an issue we can always fix it. :) -DjD- 19:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems

This article is full of "references" to the company's own blog; not a reliable source, to say the least. In addition, it's full of ad-like descriptions of each and every product they market. It needs a cleanup pretty badly. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree in some respects, and truthfully a lot of this is probably my fault. I'm going through now to change the references to external sites. --J. Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 16:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an unambiguous promotional piece intent on pushing the company. I don't see why it hasn't been deleted yet? What did the company do that entitles it to be considered notable? Better and much more supported articles have been deleted after like 5 minutes, and this one, with it's blatant ad like style still lingers (Hulego (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC))

A cursory Google search turned up reliable sources, including Time magazine. What the article still needs is a removal of primary sources and the addition of inline reliable refs. JNW (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Why is this company so notable that it belongs on Wikipedia? I'm a business owner, can I add my company too? This sounds too much like advertising *and* because it's in Wikipedia people are going to feel like it's more credible than it actually is. I vote for this article's deletion. 64.203.7.201 (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if it's notable. Has it been featured in TIME, Newsweek, BusinessWeek (BusinessWeek again), Adobe.com? Has it published a New York Times bestseller? These aren't mandatory criteria for notability (though a certain amount of external coverage is), but a company with the sort of profile 37signals has is clearly notable. As for it reading too much in favor of 37signals, or reading like an advertisement, be bold! --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 11:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." - I have replaced the deleted links, but added a {{Primary sources}} tag. I'll try to do some more minor cleanup. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)