Talk:Patch Media

Deletion?

I am trying to evolve this article, just created it minutes ago --Seejohnrun (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This article should be kept, despite its earlier incompleteness. --Seejohnrun (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've declined the speedy deletion as context has now been established. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Real value right now

I live in Connecticut where the Patch site for my town has been extremely valuable in letting me know exactly what is happening in my community with the post-Irene cleanup and power restoration. Even local newspapers, TV, and radio don't say exactly where streets near me are closed due to fallen trees, which businesses and public services are still closed for lack of power, etc. Nobody in the next town cares exactly what's closed in my town and I don't care exactly what's closed in the next town, but each of us needs to know what's closed in our towns. Nothing else that I can find gives me as much detail and specificity as Patch at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.128.193 (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Please somebody update!

I can't because I'm a Patch employee kindly obeying WP policies, but the Patch page here needs some work. History, purpose, how it works, criticism, anything. C'mon guys!173.124.145.51 (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutral POV ?

I spent a great deal of time last week making a "criticism" section of the article. It's just as long as the "patch philosophy" section. That's typically the way that one judges that an article is balanced on Wikipedia. Also, in the interest of balance, I put in Patch's responses to that criticism. I'll ask it this way, how can the article be made more balanced? --Mblumber (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think having the "criticism" section is great, but it seems weighted in favor of Patch (and its parent company, AOL Inc.). For example, critiques of Patch are not necessarily also critiques of the "hyper-local news business model;" Patch is owned by a giant corporation, whereas other hyper-local news sites may be owned by actual local communities. See the "local doesn't scale" campaign begun in 2011 by a collective of small news publications. Also, the defensive quote from Farnham should be balanced by other quotes from different points of view.

As for the "Patch philosophy" section: Any commercial enterprise can claim to operate by a "philosophy," but the reality may be otherwise. AOL's stated goal for Patch is wonderful, but observers are reporting variances between the ideal and the actuality.

The following sentences contain several repetitions of words like "community" and "local," which begs the fact that every Patch site is a commercial undertaking by AOL Inc.: "The concept behind Patch is "hyperlocal journalism," with local community news editors filing stories and updating community-specific websites on local news from within the communities they serve. As of December 9, 2010, Patch had established hyperlocal sites in more than 500 communities across the United States." Wikipedia readers would be better served with more objective language that did not mirror public-relations-speak. -- M2545 (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, however if you look at most articles about a topic on wikipedia, they generally have a mildly positive stance toward the subject. I don't think there's any doubt that AOL is trying to make money, and that Patch is a commercial venture. However, the language that you inserted was much more cynical and negative. There's no need to say, "patch claims to be a hyper-local publication but is in-fact a commercial venture by AOL that accepts advertising and uses it to pay for the site." That's true about any business. I'll continue to try and find alternative viewpoints, but in my opinion the article is fairly balanced at this point. --Mblumber (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)