Talk:Tagged (website)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Puffery about Size

Over the history of this article there have been various attempts to introduce statements touting the size and popularity of tagged. Previous edits referred to it as the 3rd largest social networking site, or more vaguely as "one of the world's top social networking sites". Typically these statements

• select an isolated piece of data and present it out of context
• ignore contradictory information from other sources,
• remove any qualifiers (such as based on number of visits, or in a particular time period) to make the scope of the statement seem larger than it is
• Use the passive voice to make the source less obvious

The resulting statement gives the impression of a simple, uncontested fact.

"It consistently ranks in the top 150 global web sites" is the latest example. This statement is an interpretation by the editor of data from Alexa.com (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/tagged.com). Besides the obvious issue of original research, there is an issue with the source itself. Alexa's data comes solely from users that have installed the Alexa toolbar. This methodology is not a very good one since there is no attempt to use a random sample. More over, it is easily manipulated and some sites do just that. There are various javascripts available on the web designed to boost a sites ratings in Alexa.com

Quantifying the popularity of a website is tricky. Advertisers pay handsomely for data from objective companies with sound methodologies so they know how best to spend their marketing budgets. IMHO, we should avoid trying to interpret raw data and instead wait for analysis from experts in the field. Ucanlookitup (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ucan, there is no “Puffery” involved here – it is a fact by multiple and well respected 3rd party sources that Tagged is one of the top 150 Web Sites in the world and has been for several years. This fact and stating it in the beginning of the article is relevant and contextual as well as consistent with the descriptions of other large sites and social networks.

This is not an isolated piece of data – it is one of many data points that attest to Tagged’s size and scale. I am aware of no contradictory information or sources that state otherwise – so that is irrelevant and incorrect. The time periods are consistent. Over the last several years Tagged has ranked in the top 150 worldwide with many services. Alexa is a standard used and reference in many Wikipedia articles, including Facebook's (reference 125) and Alexa is used in the sidebar of social networking sites (Tagged, FB, Myspace).

Tagged is also ranked high in paid services however, that data is not all public and you have not allowed us to cite it due to that fact. However, on Facebook's wikipedia entry are countless references pointing to their blog, in fact many of the references cited on the FB wikipedia page are on their blog. Why is Tagged unable to reference our their blog, yet FB can?

You mention that it is in 'IMHO', which in many of your edits and reverts has shown a personal bias against Tagged. I have reinserted my edits verified by 3rd party sources. MarinaKSF (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)MarinaK

I'm still pondering the size issue, but in response to Marina's second-to-last paragraph, the difference between Tagged's blog and Facebook's blog is that Tagged Inc. has a documented history of telling outright lies. Thus Tagged Inc. cannot be considered a reliable source. More appropriate analogies would be with Zango or the Discovery Institute. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. I looked at the cited reference myself, and it doesn't show Tagged consistently being in the top 150 websites at all. I clicked the "Traffic Rank" button and selected "Max" from the drop-down menu to show Tagged's Alexa rating over time. The graph only begins in 2008, but it clearly shows that Tagged spent most of the first half of 2008 below 150, and approximately the first quarter outside of the top 200. Marina, am I missing something here? I've removed the claim. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tagged is a large site overall and consistently been in the top 150 web sites for well over a year as measured by Alexa as well as other services. This is a relevant and neutral point to the reader to help define Tagged and I have reinstated this fact, but have clarified the time frame. MarinaKSF (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)MarinaK.

Sidebar

I've tried adding the languages Tagged is available in, but while it is displaying in the edits, it's not publishing. Any idea what I'm doing wrong? Thanks. MarinaKSF (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)MarinaK

Those templates are fussy things. The parameter that displays "Available in" is actually called "language". It displays now but I don't know whether the formatting is correct. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The language names should be in English, ideally piped to the relevant articles (eg [[Spanish language|Spanish]] rather than Español). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've converted the languages to their English names (and added English itself). I think I lost some detail with Spanish dialects or something – feel free to replace them using their English names. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for assisting Adrian. MarinaKSF (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)MarinaK.

Phishing and Spamming references

After much consideration, I would like to remove reference number 5- the article by wowOwow, a contributor and friend based website. This article has been used as a reference for labelling Tagged as a 'phishing' site, when a close read of the article does not state that Tagged is a phishing site. In fact, it uses the term 'phishing' in response to scams claiming to be financial institutions- 'That includes "phishing" scams from entities claiming to be financial institutions like Bank of America, Citibank, the IRS, etc. These institutions stress that they would never ask for that information via e-mail.' It does not state that Tagged is a 'phishing' site and should be removed as a reference claiming that Tagged is a phishing site.

Another questionable reference used to regard Tagged as a phishing and spamming site is reference number 4- Blackweb2.0 There is no description in this article regarding Tagged as a phishing or spamming site. It suggests that Tagged's email marketing processes are aggressive and border on spam. However, the author does not say that Tagged is a spamming site. Actually, the conclusion of the article ends positively, in that Tagged is 'kind of addictive with a simple interface'. I'm confused why this article is used to support the claim that Tagged is a phishing and spamming site when it does not present any facts or data that would suggest it is.

Alleging that Tagged is a phishing and spamming site when two of the three references used to support this claim do not state this, is misleading to use in an introduction. I would like to propose that we move this sentence 'Tagged was the subject of numerous customer complaints for sending deceptive bulk mail[2] and is regarded as a phishing and spamming site and an "E-mail scam" by consumer anti-fraud advocates' to the History section and remove the references 4 and 5. MarinaKSF (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)MarinaKSF

Tagged Pets Game - Lucrative For Tagged and Some of the Players

Tagged's pet game has grown in popularity over the past year. It has actually become a lucrative 'side job' for those players who are 'trillionaires' on Tagged. These trillionaire players (their value and sizable pets cash and asset accounts) charge other players who would also like to be successful in the game real money, yes, real money, to raise their value. They require these wanna be trillionaires to pay them sizable amounts to PayPal accounts they have established. It is an 'on the side' deal that players make to get ahead in the game. Recently, a player paid $2000 to an individual on Tagged.com's personal PayPal account to progress in the game.

It is widely speculated that these individuals work for Tagged.com, or are unscrupulous individuals trying to make thousands of dollars off of people addicted to the Pets game on Tagged.

Why doesn't Tagged.com put an end to this behavior and require people to behave ethically? Well, they recently deleted two trillionaire accounts that were suspected of taking payments to further other players in the game, but mysteriously reinstated them days later.

While this high stakes 'taking payments' to further people in the game may not be illegal, it is certainly unethical and Tagged.com should address this and prevent it as well. For one thing, if Tagged.com employees are not behind this behavior, then Tagged.com itself is losing money as the traditional way to play the game is to acquire pets cash through buying fake gold from tagged, or completing a number of sponsor offers to get the gold.

It is similar to the many gambling spots on the internet, only in this case, 'unknown' individuals are collecting payments from Tagged Pets players, rather than a corporation.

Shame on you, Tagged!TaggedPetsGame (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a blog. Please don't post your personal opinions here. If you have verifiable sources covering this issue, you can add material to the article and provide citations. But you can't make Wikipedia a vehicle for your own personal opinions. Brettalan (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for Introduction

I would like to propose a change to the first paragraph of the Tagged article.

Tagged has reformed its email invitation process and the last complaints in the email/invite/registration process about the company are nearly a year old (June 2009). It has also settled all known legal cases resulting from the June incident. Recently – it has received high marks for its privacy, email and invitation practices compared to other social networks as evidenced by this article: http://www.gadgetell.com/tech/comment/shields-up-a-look-at-the-privacy-controls-at-the-major-social-networking-si/

Given these facts, I am proposing that the copy after the second sentence regarding customer complaints be moved from the introduction to the more appropriate controversy section of the article. As this is a significant change – I wanted to request input from the community before proceeding. MarinaKSF (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)MarinaK.

Hello MarinaK, Since the latest legal action by the San Francisco district attorney was settled just this month, I think it is premature to remove the mention of complaints and legal actions concerning tagged.com from the lead. Also, as the CEO has a long history of executive affiliation or control of companies that have engaged in controversial practices even after prior legal settlements, it's hard to make good faith assumptions about the current management. What are your thoughts on those points? Regards, Luitgard (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. The recent settlement with the SF DA was from the same incident from June 2009 – so while the settlement may be recent – the issue that prompted it is nearly a year old. In terms of the history of the company and Greg Tseng – I read the discussion from the Tseng article and have some concerns but that is a separate discussion. As I compare Tagged’s activity to a number of other social networks and how it is covered in Wikipedia – there are inconsistencies. For instance, Classmates.com has some much more controversial issues than Tagged – including fines significantly larger than Tagged, and those items are reviewed in the controversy section not the lead. This is just one of a number of examples.

And thank you for the response. As long as legal settlements with new terms are rolling in, I would be hesitant to call the matter resolved. And we have not heard yet from the California A.G.'s office. Have they contacted Tagged? Also, given the rather remarkable history of the Tagged CEO, I do feel his continued presence is a cause for concern, even if you would prefer not to discuss it. I cannot speak to the matter of classmates.com, but I do see the discrepancy between their lead and Tagged.com's. You seem polite and honest based on a cursory impression, so I will try and work with you as long as that impression endures . A cynical view would be that maybe more people are currently angry with tagged than with classmates, and so there is more effort put into portraying Tagged negatively by Wikipedia editors, but I can't really say. Let me ask around and research the matter. Consistency is a good thing in an encyclopedia, so let's see what can be done if we get consensus.Luitgard (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As I have mentioned in the past – the controversy over email invitations does not belong in the lead. I have acknowledged a few other contributors opinions for many months , however, that some passage of time should take place before the controversy was moved to the appropriate section. Now that Tagged has demonstrated the reforms – which have been validated by informed 3rd parties – it is an appropriate time to reorganize the article for consistence and accuracy.MarinaKSF (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)MarinaK.

Hello MarinaK, could you explain why the controversy does not belong in the lead? Given recent events on the Tseng page, it seems that someone associated with tagged.com is still up to old tricks, so I suspect many of us will be disinclined to allow the company's history of deception to be deemphasized. Best regards, Luitgard (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? It seems that way? Funny, when I said what your actions seemed like, I was tagged with accusations of being uncivil. And yet, I haven't been going around disparaging anything more than an anonymous internet handle, while you have a carried a vendetta against a quasi-famous individual all across the web. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello UWF, this page is for discussing issues relating to this article, like the credibility of it's CEO, but feel free to refer to my talk page if you would like to discuss me. Best regards! :) Luitgard (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

We've been through this before. As I've said previously, WP:LEAD explicitly states that notable controversies should be summarised in the lead. Discussion of Tagged in reliable sources, from TIME magazine to the New York Times to the Federal Trade Commission, overwhelmingly focuses on the spamming controversy. It's hardly ancient history. I see no credible case for its removal from the lead. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

ps. I'm not familiar with classmates.com, but at a glance the controversy certainly should be covered in the lead. It's a less developed article than Tagged, consistent with having roughly a quarter as many daily page views. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Big edit

I've made a fairly big edit so I thought I'd explain the changes:

• The new findings regarding child pornography and Tagged's responsiveness have received substantial media coverage and seem significant enough to describe in some detail. I've mostly cited the NY Attorney General Media Centre as it seems to be the source on which other news coverage is largely based.

• I've followed the recommendation of User:WhisperToMe and others to remove the "Controversy" section. Information about "Bulk email invitations" and "Child safety" is now in dedicated sections named accordingly. Tseng's history and the block in Qatar are covered in the history section which I've renamed "Company history", and I've moved information on Tagged's popularity out of that section and consolidated it all in "Popularity and user demographics".

• I've expanded and partly re-written the lead to try to cover the major points in each section of the article as succinctly and neutrally as I can. To summarise "Popularity and user demographics" I've picked the Quantcast figures on monthly visitors, which as far as I can tell give a reasonably objective measure of popularity without making problematic comparisons to other websites (see the #Popularity and #Puffery about size sections above).

• The article previously switched between the terms "Tagged" and "Tagged.com"; sources don't seem to use either term consistently. For consistency and simplicity I've changed to "Tagged" throughout, only leaving the first mention in the lead as "Tagged.com".

• I've changed the description of the Social Media Advertising Consortium from "a trade industry association focused on increasing engagement and standards within the association" to "a trade industry association that aims to increase advertising revenue and to facilitate collaboration between social networking sites, advertisers and marketing researchers" based on the cited source, which is at the Consortium website ([1]). Their description is almost impenetrable corporatese, but I've deciphered it as best as I can; revision is welcome.

• I've reassessed this article as B-class (not start-class) as it seems to meet the criteria.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done and long overdue. Thanks Adrian Ucanlookitup (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV flags

Hi there fellow editors. I see fairly heated discussion back and forth about the introduction of this article. I am surprised it wasn't flagged sooner. The topics at hand are clearly sensitive and should be handled with care. Also, I see use of weasel words and possibly been some tendentious editing at play. Until this dispute can be discussed / resolved, I think an outside POV check and flag is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anneaholaward (talk • contribs) 00:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this page has a contentious history - but are there specific statements you feel do not currently represent a NPOV? Ucanlookitup (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I re-read the article searching for weasel words, but the only problem I could see was "Tagged has been the subject of numerous customer complaints for sending deceptive bulk mail" in the intro, cited only to a blog. I've re-worded to "Tagged has been widely criticized for sending deceptive bulk mail" and cited Time, The New York Times and Symantec; there are more references in the relevant section. Are there any other weasel words? I'd have thought this article was very well cited. You allude to Righting Great Wrongs above but as far as I can see all the negative material is well sourced. As that same page says, "A balanced view does not need to be a sympathetic view". Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Anneaholaward- I see from your talk page that you are a web marketing consultant. Do you have a business relationship with Tagged.com or with any firm that does? Ucanlookitup (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Wowa there guys, why do I feel like i just stepped into something here? (like an ambush?)

Adrian - I am not a FT Wikipedian, but I will do my best to respond to you this week with my observations.

Ucanlookitup - This discussion page is not the place to discuss me or my career. :) So, I will kindly ask you to remove your comment and/or move discussion to my talk page.

Cheers and happy editing! Anneaholaward (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is the appropriate place to disclose any conflicts of interest you may have. Quoting from Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest:

Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests,
both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, 
particularly if those edits may be contested.

Ucanlookitup (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty confused. You are actually postulating whether or not I have COI issues for making two edits: placing the social media footer to group this page in its series (Tagged was mentioned in it) and then for requesting a neutrality check? Surely you can appreciate the irony of that?

Cheers! A. Ward (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I simply asked a question. Other editors of this page have shared that they been hired by Tagged to help with tag's image and I wondered if the same was true of you. It's a reasonable question and if you wish, you can decline to answer it. Ucanlookitup (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Anneaholaward – as described at Template:POV-check, Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes, and many other pages, anyone who adds these templates is supposed to clearly state their actionable objections at the talk page. It's been nearly a fortnight since you added the tags and it's still not clear what you want to see changed. Accordingly I've removed the tags. Please re-add either or both when you're ready to explain what could be done to resolve the issues you've perceived. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My initial observations are mentioned above. This article sticks out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of the social networking services pages I have been reviewing. In my opinion, the intro does not meet the standards outlined. Multiple perspectives are needed and should be encouraged..

I will work on a proposed rewrite this week. Thanks!A. Ward (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You've thrown a lot of vague accusations around here: weasel words, tendentious editing, not meeting standards, not having multiple perspectives. But you still haven't named a single specific complaint. If you're going to claim a NPOV violation, you need to be *specific*. Bear in mind that a lot of the specifics in the article have already been debated here, with a representative of the company having input. What, precisely, is your beef? Brettalan (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am a social media SME and have been looking at Tagged as one of a series. When researching for my book I started with Wikipedia, it is a highly trusted source and functions as a living, breathing encyclopedia. People all over the world look to Wikipedia for reliable information that is presented in a clear and neutral tone of voice. My intention is to give back by doing research and writing, to help unify this series of pages, in addition to the other projects I work on. After getting familiar with all of the pages in the social networking series, I think that this article doesn’t match up, the discussion page also seemed particularly heated. This is the first time in all my years of Wikipedia editing where there has been such intense ongoing discussion with no flags on the page to inform the reader. Regardless of whether Tagged is a good company or a bad one is not for us to decide, we should follow the news, not break it. What stuck out to me the most was the level of detail in the introduction with regard to scandal(s). All of the other social networking group pages cite basic statistics; information about when the company was founded, number of users, who bought them, etc. The lead should be able to stand alone and define the topic - the topic is social media services, not scandal.

Wiki guidelines tell us that the intro should create interest for the reader, inviting them to read more. Reading this introduction made me upset, as a woman and as an editor. I had zero desire to read further, nor would anybody else who sees the information presented as it is currently.

I would be happy to propose a rewrite of the introduction sometime in the next week. As editors we should make sure that all of the relevant information does get presented (good or bad), but that it is presented in a manner consistent with the rest of the pages in the series.

I will try my best to make the time since everyone seems to be in such a hurry...

Thanks and Happy Editing! A. Ward (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"The topic is social media services, not scandal"? What are you basing that on? That might be YOUR topic, but the topic here is Tagged. And what Tagged is most notable for is scandal. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but it's true. You say "follow the news, not break it"; well, the news about Tagged has mostly been about scandal. The most prominent coverage of the site--Time magazine, Snopes, newspapers--has been about its legal cases and its use of spam.

Of course you're correct that most other articles on social networking sites don't have such negative coverage in their leads, but that's because that's not what they're known for. If a Senator gets indicted, it's going to be in the lead of his article, even though the other Senators don't have that sort of thing in their leads.

And let's keep one thing in perspective: you note that there has been a lot of controversy here on the talk page, but that's almost entirely because the company itself hired someone to try to swing the article toward its favor. Her input has been considered and in many cases incorporated into the article. I don't have any problem with this strategy, but don't tell me it's a reason to flag the article. I still don't see any specific support for most of your allegations. What weasel words? What perspectives have been left out? All I see is that you seem to want the company to look good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettalan (talk • contribs) 23:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Anneaholaward - I am removing the npov tags. It has been more than two weeks since you've added them and three separate editors have asked you to justify your actions. You have failed to identify a specific statement that is biased or not properly cited. I understand that you intend to propose a new lead and when you do we will debate it on it's merits. In the mean time, however, your actions are not supportable. Ucanlookitup (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Brettalan and Ucanlookitup 100%. And for the umpteenth time, Wikipedia guidelines explicitly state that an article's lead should summarize notable controversies. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Tagged is ban happy

A few days ago a friend of mine asked me to join tagged.com so we could have fun and keep in touch.

No problem, I registered made a profile and had fun for 48hrs. Why only 48hrs? Well here it comes:

While I was messaging with my dear friend, I suddenly got interrupted. I was kicked to the login page and a message came up saying I had to log in or register in order to continue.

So I tried to log back in, but got the message that my account got closed and can not be used anymore. A few minutes later the same thing happened to a family member. I tried to contact them through their support, but never got the automatic response that the e-mail was received.

Neither I nor the family member ever got a warning prior to the banning let alone a reason.

This is a terrible site and smells like a scam. Don't do tagged, stay away. 84.134.111.163 (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

cant sign in

is anyone else haven problems signing in to tagged? if not, then can someone tell me why i cant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.183.150 (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Intro and Article flags

This whole article has been well sourced, so user Anneaholward was wrong to flag and arguments pretty vague, not properly explain the flag.

After looking at history, maybe some other editors not entirely right either. The intro is not complete info for reader so I agree that flag make sensse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian.Rainbow (talk • contribs) 21:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brian, and welcome to wikipedia. Unfortunately, you have not done any better at identifying a problem statement in the article. The history is not particularly relevant. A statement in the current article that is biased must be identified. Ucanlookitup (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you own article?

You don't revert due to no consensus. Trying to get an opinion here. The content of the intro has mention later in the article and needs rewrite. Last two sentences are biggg statements but not a good source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian.Rainbow (talk • contribs) 06:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Why does it need a rewrite? What inconsistency do you see between the intro and body? The last sentence is cited to the Office of the Attorney General, State of New York. Why do you suggest that's not a good source?

This isn't about anyone owning the article, it's about appropriate use of the {{POV-section}} template. As the template documentation states, if you place the template you need to explain your reasons on the article's talk page. I've read your comments but I can't discern what you want changed. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

While I am new, I agree that this intro not inviting to user and needs a rewrite. I read the guildelines on intros and it says the intro is a recap that summarises the information and makes ppl want to see more. The last two sentences are politician's content and do not make reader want to read, they make everyone think this a bad company. Why belong there? Also, I know many other services have issue to, why they not have it in the intros? ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian.Rainbow (talk • contribs) 20:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You're rehashing arguments that have already been addressed. Please read the #NPOV flags section above. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to argue that including notable controversy in the lead somehow makes people less likely to read the article. It's just the opposite, in fact. Not that it is at all relevant anyway. Trying to remove mention of a controversy is POV-pushing, which is forbidden here. DreamGuy (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In reviewing the discussion of Tagged, and in particular the recent activity and the debate over the lead of the article, I’d like to weigh in with my thoughts.

A. Ward is correct about the inconsistent manner in which Tagged’s lead contains overly detailed controversies and is unlike all of the other social network site leads.

Adrian Hunter contends that Tagged's past issues are notable enough to warrant being placed in the lead. This is a subjective matter and could easily be argued that - given the overall popularity of Tagged – their past controversies are not noteworthy enough to dominate the article lead. Tagged is hardly the only social networking service to experience controversy.

User Brettalan claims Tagged is scandalous and that A.Ward only wants the company to “look good” which does not seem to be the case.

And most recently DreamGuy claims removing a mention of controversy might be “POV pushing”. On the contrary, as I look at many other firms across Wikipedia the controversy with Tagged is no more significant than many and one could argue that the including the controversy is POV pushing itself. In fact when reading through the discussion – it is the subjective opinions of a few that seem to be “POV pushing” on this matter. Even my minor well sources edits have been reverted on Tagged but not other the other articles covering similar services and firms.

The proposal is to have a consistent lead that invites the reader to explore further, which is mentioned in wiki intro guidelines right along with notability. All of Tagged’s controversies should certainly remain in the article but the notability is questionable. None of us should be trying to make anything look good or bad period. I am happy to weigh in with a suggested edit too.NCSS (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

People keep repeating the same talking points, but no one is addressing the reasons you've been given. Most importantly, two simple facts:

Wikipedia guidelines specifically say that notable controversies should be covered in the leads of articles.

News coverage of Tagged has mostly focused on its controversies. Therefore, our sources show that this is what the company is most notable for.

Furthermore, no one has offered anything specific that is unfair or inadequately sourced. The sum of the argument seems to be that the lead doesn't make the company look good (which isn't our concern) and that it doesn't match the leads of articles for other companies (which isn't relevant--if other companies have notable controversies, then the leads of their articles should reflect that; if they don't, then we don't have to bury the ones here just to be "fair"). And given that you are making the same points, I do have to ask again: do any of you have a business relationship with Tagged, as Marina did? Brettalan (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

NCSS, you have indeed made well sourced edits, but they haven't been reverted. You've edited the article 5 times while logged in as NCSS, and all those edits are evident in the current version. Much content has been shuffled around (see #Big edit above) so the content might not be where you first added it. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Expert Needed

While I am very familiar with social media and many things web related, I am not really all that familiar with Tagged's service. Nobody else who is contributing to this article seems to be either. It seems like there has been two camps with radically different axes to grind. Perhaps someone else with actual expertise out there could help?

Also, "past discussion" is not reason enough to remove a flag. One of the coolest parts about Wiki is that it continues to change and grow. I would suggest taking a look at the consensus guideline page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CCC#Consensus_can_change

I cannot speak for others, but I was never looking to remove anything and never said that I was. My goal was to make this introduction more encompassing like the rest in the social media series. That shouldn't be such a big deal, should it? My apologies about not doing the rewrite yet, been so busy and other people are now offering to do it. Working on this page isn't so fun for me and it doesn't seem like new ideas are welcome here… :(

Cheers and happy editing!

A. Ward (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

All of the arguments so far propose deleting the controversies from the lead paragraph. Beyond, "it would make the reader want to read more", no one has offered a good argument for why the lead should not include the controversies when Wikipedia guidelines explicitly state that they should. Forgive us if we sound suspicious, but attempts to remove the controversies from the lead paragraph was first undertaken by Tagged employees editing anonymously. Those efforts were later continued by editors that acknowledged being hired by Tagged. And now the cause is taken up by a group of editors that would prefer not to disclose their relationship with Tagged (if any). Yes, Consensus can change, but whitewashing is still whitewashing. Ucanlookitup (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

One more point: both Anne and Brien have made the claim that the leads for other social networking sites don't mention controverseys. But this is in the lead of the Facebook article:

Facebook has met with some controversy. It has been blocked intermittently in several countries including Pakistan,[9] Syria,[10] the People's Republic of China,[11] Vietnam,[12] Iran,[13] Uzbekistan[14] and North Korea[citation needed]. It has also been banned at many places of work to discourage employees from wasting time using the service.[15] Facebook's privacy has also been an issue, and the safety of their users has been compromised several times. Facebook settled a lawsuit regarding claims over source code and intellectual property.[16]

That doesn't seem any different than what we have here. The claim is incorrect. Brettalan (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the two latest templates added by Anneaholaward/A. Ward:

{{Expert-verify}} – MarinaKSF (talk · contribs) already edits this article as a representative of Tagged ([2]). She has already added much info about Tagged's service but if you think there's more to add, I suggest you communicate with her.

{{Emphasis}} – You told us what you thought should be in the lead in this edit. It's all there already, just as it was all there when you made your suggestion. Since you state above you don't want the criticism removed, I've no idea what you want changed. Please also note the part of policy linked in that tag, WP:UNDUE, states "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

I've removed both tags. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Anneaholawerd - Your concerns raised are essentially the same concerns you raised previously which have been discussed. Your persistent attempts to flag this article while offering no constructive alternatives to current wording appears to me to be an attempt to soften the impact of the controversies mentioned in the article. I don't believe this is an appropriate use of these tags. Ucanlookitup (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So from what I see, we are all agreeing to disagree here...?! Great. Please have the courtesy to allow for some consensus building, which the flags are in place to do. Removing flags prior to discussion is not very helpful. Consensus can and will change on Wikipedia, again, please refer to the article. A. Ward (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, "prior to discussion"? The discussion has been had. You've been shown, repeatedly, that the content of the lead is consistent with Wikipedia policy, that it is adequately sourced, that input from the company has been incorporated into the article, and that contrary to your complaints it is consistant with how other social networking sites are covered. You've been repeatedly asked for specific complaints about the article, and you have provided none, nor have you responded in any substantive way to the points that we have made. For you to insist on restoring the flags without addressing these responses is unconstructive. For you to characterize the removal of the flags as "vandalism" is outrageous. If you have actual responses to what we've said, respond, and we'll give that proper consideration. Otherwise, you need to leave the article alone. Brettalan (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It is incorrect to claim all news and statistics on Tagged are controversial. I did a simple Google search and found lots of different coverage, here is an article by Tech Crunch – a very reputable source:

This one is old and during their spam controversy: http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/16/lets-not-put-tagged-in-the-deadpool-just-yet/

This one – a video interview - is more recent: http://www.techcrunch.tv/watch?id=FwZmZvMTqaeke-KKryzNBN7pJ0ZpRpCH#ooid=FwZmZvMTqaeke-KKryzNBN7pJ0ZpRpCH

I also saw the company also was recently named to the Inc. 500 Fastest Growing Private Companies list – that is fairly significant.

Tagged continues to draw a significant amount of traffic by all publicly available sources including Quantcast, Compete and Alexa.

Has there been past controversy? Yes, and it should be included in the appropriate section as with every other article on various social networks. Consistency is important. It would not make sense to add the controversies of Facebook, MySpace, Hi5 and all the others to their article leads. It is more logical to conform Tagged to the all the others.

After reading through the history and discussion more thoroughly there is little evidence of contributors trying to “make Tagged look good”. Past agents of the company openly disclosed who they were. Rather there appears to be a tendency of a few to be over bearing and critical of this firm and rigid with proposed edits and article improvements. In fact, many of the comments from these few individuals are condescending and even hostile. Not in the spirit of Wikipedia. The flags are warranted until consensus is reached and I will work on a re-write.NCSS (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi NCSS - Here is an example of a tagged employee persistently (and anonymously) removing negative information from the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/64.125.137.10. This editor and similar behavior from other editors led to the article being semi-protected.

I don't believe anyone is claiming that *all* press about tagged has been negative and the article does reflect positive information as well. But if you search tagged.com in Googles news section for 2010 and 2009, you will notice two things. First, most of the hits are negative and related to the controversies discussed in the article. Second, articles appearing in the mainstream press (Time, Washington Post, NY Times,etc) are almost exclusively negative. The positive press that you mention largely comes from the technology press. It is included in the article. Ucanlookitup (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

NCSS, just saying "consensus hasn't been reached" doesn't make it so. We've already addressed your points. For example, I've already shown you that the article about Facebook covers the controversies in its lead, yet you're still arguing that it's unfair to have controversies in the lead here because Facebook doesn't have controversies in its lead. If you perceive any of us as being hostile, perhaps it's because of that sort of thing.

You mention that Facebook has good Quantcast stats and that it was named one of the 500 fastest growing companies. Both of those things are in the article. The former is in the lead. So what is your point? If you would do us the courtesy of actually reading and responding to what we've said here, maybe we can get somewhere. But I'm tired of rehasing the same points. Brettalan (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been watching the recent activity with the Tagged article and discussion and wanted to offer my help if needed. I am still assisting Tagged with Wikipedia. If I can provide any other input or assistance please let me know. MarinaKSF (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)MarinaKSF

Thanks for the input Ucanlookitup and Brettalan. What the two of you have said, along with Adrian Hunter is that the past controversies about Tagged are notable enough to be in the article lead and others disagree and have placed notices and asked for additional input from the community. Then your small team of editors makes its own arbitrary and coordinated decision to revert this request to the community as if you own the article. As I read back through the history and discussion there seems to be a pattern of this behavior. Thank you for pointing out the Facebook controversies in its article lead ­ they should be in their own designated section rather than the beginning of that article and I have made that change. You claim that just “saying something” doesn’t make it so. Fair enough ­the same holds true for what you feel is notable about past controversies too. Just because you say they are notable doesn’t make it so. Consistency across the series of social media articles is what has been proposed ­and I will get to that edit ASAP.NCSS (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The decision was not at all arbitrary. AGAIN, we have clearly shown that the controversies have been a major focus of press coverage of the site (which is what shows that they are notable), and that Wikipedia policies favor putting controversies in the lead. I have no doubt that the same applies to Facebook. If you disagree, you need to provide REASONS why all of this coverage shouldn't be considered notable or why the cited policies do not apply. Brettalan (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

QUESTION?

GOOD DAY SIR,

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY MY TAGGED ACCOUNT WAS CANCEALED? MY TAGGED NAME WAS -------------, AND MY EMAIL ADD WAS ------------. PLEASE I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY YOU ALL CANCEALED MY PROFILE.--207.42.135.25 (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Go ask them. This is for discussing the page about Tagged on Wikipedia. You're in the wrong place. Brettalan (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverting edit

There was no consensus yet reached for the introduction. Please do not revert without discussion first.NCSS (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

NCSS- not having a consensus does not mean that you get to change the article the way you want it. It means you leave it alone until there is a consensusUcanlookitup (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ucanlookitup - good suggestion and following your advice here - let's leave the article alone and the dispute flag in place until consensus is reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goalloverhere (talk • contribs) 00:31, 25 November 2010

Goalloverhere – please familiarise yourself with past discussion, and if you have any arguments that have not already been addressed, share them with us. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there’s a lot to digest here Adrian, so it will take a little time. At a minimum I think the neutrality dispute tag is warranted and respectively request that it remains while I familiarize myself with the history here. Thank you.

I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall here.

Every complaint has been answered. We were told that the article was unfair, and we asked for specific examples, and were given none. We were told that putting the controversies in the lead violated Wikipedia's policies, and we showed where the policy explicitly calls for putting controversies in the lead, and there was no response to that. We were told that it wasn't fair to put controversies in the lead because other social networks didn't have controversies in their leads, and we showed that other social networks DID have controversies in their leads, and the only response was people trying to change those leads.

The bottom line is that the only thing that anyone seems to have a specific problem with--the controversies in the lead--is EXPLICITLY RECOMMENDED by Wikipedia Guidelines. People keep telling us that we need to flag this for POV, but no one has given us ONE valid reason to do so. And, again, no one is even bothering to respond to the substance of the points. You just restore the flag and post something vague about how there's been lots of dispute, so there ought to be a flag. That doesn't follow.

I'm not trying to be unreasonable here. Really. If you have a new argument as to why the controversies shouldn't be in the lead--one that addresses the relevant policy--I'm happy to listen. If you have an issue with the wording or the sourcing of any of the specific statements in the article, I'm happy to consider those issues. But just saying "there's no consensus" doesn't cut it. If people continue to add the dispute tags without providing reasons for doing so that haven't already been addressed, then I would have to consider reporting this to administrators as edit warring.

In short: explain why you're doing this, or stop. Brettalan (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed introduction

Hello:

I see there is still a dialogue going back and forth on the intro, had some time today to work on it so here goes:

Tagged is a social networking site based in San Francisco, California, United States. It allows members to browse people, play social games, share tags and virtual gifts, and suggests new people for members to meet based on shared interests. The target demographic for Tagged is slightly younger than competing social media services like Facebook or Hi5. Founded in 2004, Tagged is now visited by 6.8 million US users and 26 million users worldwide each month.

Tagged was criticized for sending deceptive bulk mail. In response to the criticism, Tagged has adopted privacy reforms and changed invitation processes. The Office of the former New York State Attorney General once criticized Tagged for its failure to respond promptly to complaints about inappropriate content.

Hopefully my intro will make both parties happy. This intro acknowledges there has been controversy while not spelling every detail out. Also, the Attorney General is now the Governor of NY.

I feel this introduction is more enticing for the reader. Thoughts?

Cheers! A. Ward (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What about it makes it more enticing, in your opinion? I'll reserve comment until I hear your reasoning, with the exception of saying that since adding "former" is confusing--it makes it sound like the criticism came from someone who was no longer AG at the time. Brettalan (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This introduction is ok, but it is not great. The controversy already has a detailed section, as does the history. The Tagged page still does not fit with the rest in the series. The Facebook page no longer mentions controversy in the introduction, because other editors agreed it didn't belong there. I fail to understand why this company is being singled out from the others.NCSS (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's no longer in the Facebook lead because you removed it, NCSS. One other editor also acted unilaterally while other editors thought it belonged in the lead. Tagged is being 'singled out' because they paid large fines to multiple states as a result of their behavior. While Facebook is known for many things, Tagged is known almost exclusively for controversial behavior. Ucanlookitup (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points about the proposed introduction. Simply saying that they were 'criticized' and adopted a new policy is softening it to the point of being misleading. Tagged agreed to pay 1.4 million in fines and to change their policy. The proposed lead makes it sound like they simply responded to user complaints. Similarly, saying the the 'former' AG criticized them for 'inappropriate content' makes it sound like he casually objected to racy content rather than he threatened to pursue legal action for child pornography. I'm also not in favor of the line about their 'target demographic'. All the user data I have seen says that they have more 50-54 year olds than other similar sites. It may be Tags latest strategy to return to a younger demographic, but it's not Wikipedia's goal to help them accomplish that. Ucanlookitup (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for the consideration and input. We have a considerable dialogue going on here about the introduction, so again, I do not understand why we don't have flags in place for the reader to be aware of this discussion? That's kind of odd to me.

The goal of a quality introduction is to engage the reader to continue to read more of the article while giving a concise overview of the topic. The objective is to cover major points (whether good or bad) by giving a taste of what the article will contain. Adding too much redundant information detracts from this objective and can mislead the reader, because that detail should be covered in the appropriate section(s) of the article. In fact, after further consideration of this, I have removed the figures from the lead. I also dropped the demographics, not too sure about them either. In response to 'softening' to the point of being misleading I completely disagree, however, I have added in some text that reflects this concern. It is not our job to LEAD anyone anywhere, (no pun intended) but rather to present the information in a factual way.

Please see: Opening paragraph guidelines

NCSS – While I appreciate your point, there seems to be a long-standing consensus that the controversy about the company is notable enough to be included in the lead of the article, so I want to be sensitive to that.

Ucanlookitup - While it's not a biggie to me, I do not understand why the amount of specific fines paid needs to be in the introduction? That seems like a detail the reader should be able to explore by reading the related section. Do you really think being cited by the AG for anything would sound casual to anyone? I sure don't. As a reader I see the 'inappropriate content' comment with a link right next to it referencing all of the details, which gives the full information for me to make my own opinions. You are getting half of the introduction dedicated to controversy - is that not what you wanted?

Based on the everyone's input, this is my attempt to compromise:

Tagged is a social networking site based in San Francisco, California, United States. It allows members to browse people, play social games, share tags and virtual gifts, and suggests new people for members to meet based on shared interests. Founded in 2004, Tagged is now visited by 6.8 million US users and 26 million users worldwide each month.

Tagged has been previously criticized for sending deceptive bulk mail and has since adopted privacy reforms and changed its invitation processes. The Office of New York State Attorney General Cuomo has also criticized Tagged for its failure to respond promptly to complaints about inappropriate content.

If we cannot agree, perhaps other editors should suggest an alternate introduction or maybe we could enlist outside editors?

Happy editing! A. Ward (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not insisting that the specific amount being included. The relevant point is that the fines and change in practices were the result of a legal settlement. Ucanlookitup (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't see anything in the existing lead that is in any way redundant--to what are you referring?

The link you provide on the opening paragraph leads to an article, not the relevant manual of style. To quote from the latter: "While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." Can you please explain WHY you think that your version is more appealing to the reader, and address how it fits with this policy? Brettalan (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging my point Anneaholawerd, however, there is NOT a long standing consensus here.

Rather there are a few people who seem to have an agenda and act as if they own this article and continue to remove flags when it is clear there is an active debate on the article in progress. I have once again highlighted the article is under debate – which is consistent with everything else I see on Wikipedia. Why the notices keep being removed by the same few who act as if they control this article is beyond me and I hope they will respect the fact that these notices should stay in place an not be removed during the discussion. I continue to assert that the notability of past controversy is purely subjective on the part of a few editors.

Tagged has indeed had controversy in the past but it is far from the only thing that the site is known for and totally inconsistent with other social and internet site articles leads. Therefore I maintain the lead should not include any of their past controversy. NCSS (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

YOU are the one who is acting as if he owns the article. Yes, you continue to assert that the notability of the controversy is subjective--but you've already had it explained to you, REPEATEDLY, why the controversy is notable, and you haven't responded to that. At all.

What are we supposed to do? We've answered all of your points, and you haven't disputed what we said. You just keep saying that there needs to be a flag on the article because YOU don't like it. That's not good enough.

If you really believe there ought to be a warning on this article, it's up to you to address the explanations that have already been given for why the lead is justified. If you place a warning on this article again without first addressing those points or otherwise providing a good reason for your actions, I *will* report you to administrators for edit warring. I also feel I must ask again whether you have any connection to the company. Do you? Brettalan (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Brettalan – I am surprised you surmise that I am trying to own the article. I disagree. Rather, I am trying to notate that there is a debate going on and consensus is not reached on the lead of the article. Consensus can change over time.

This has nothing to do with me liking or disliking anything. There is a discussion going on and consensus between editors has not been reached. In fact it is not even close. That is a fact and it does not matter if I don’t like it or you don’t like it. What is unclear about this?

You say that you have provided explanations – I contend you have offered only opinions.

Every other article I see on Wikipedia and reading through this discussion, in particular, indicates that this warrants a flag. Your threat to report me is curious as my sense is that if anyone is breaking the rules and policies of Wikipedia it is you by removing the flags even when request are made to keep them in place during the discussion.

You do not seem to understand my explanations and I am happy to state them again.

There is press and reliable sources reporting on Tagged with negative, neutral and positive news. Your subjective decision on which press is more authoritative than others is your opinion. Everyone does not share your opinion.

There is nothing unreasonable about having a flag up during this discourse. As far as relationships with the company – what is yours? Are you a competitor, former employee or have some other issue? You certainly seem to be very hostile on the matter. Why such negativity?

There’s a difference of opinion and I feel it needs to be noted with the article. Although we disagree – I respect you as an editor and I have not put the flag back up – yet - in anticipation of your response. I welcome the input of others as well. NCSS (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all: No, I do not have any business relationship, past or present, with Tagged or any of its competitors. For that matter, I have never had an account on Tagged. Now that I've answered the question, when will you?

You say that there are reliable sources reporting on Tagged with negative, positive, and neutral news. I agree, and that's reflected in the article. The lead is not only aboout the negative; in fact, the more positive aspects come first. If you believe there is something important about Tagged that is not in the lead, by all means add it. But the fact remains that the focus of much of the coverage of the site has been negative. And the point that Ucanlookitup and I have made about the mainstream press coverage is not that that is more authoritative than the tech media--I don't think it is--but that it addresses your concerns about notability. The fact that mainstream news sources such as Time, the New York Times, and the Washingon Post have covered the controversies involved is, in my opinion, strong evidence that those controversies are notable enough to be covered in the lead, particularly since in most cases those sources have not really covered Tagged in any other context, to my knowledge. How else would you propose to determine notability?

As far as I can see, all of the statements in the lead have been properly sourced, and again I think the nature of the coverage is substantial evidence of notability. Furthermore, I again remind you that Wikipedia guidelines explicitly state that notable controversies should be included in the lead. What more do you want to agree that the lead does not need to be flagged? No one has questioned the accuracy of the sources. No one has presented any kind of evidence that the negative coverage has not been substantial. The only real argument we've been given is that a few editors don't like it and don't think it will be enticing to the reader. The first is irrelevant and the latter is unsupported and contrary to Wikipedia policy.

Again: if you think we've missed something important, put it in. If you think you can make a case that the controversies are not notable, make that case. But it appears that your position is that there ought to be a flag on the article until it makes you happy. A flag should indicate that there are concerns that haven't been addressed, or statements that have not been properly sourced, and that doesn't not appear to be the case. Brettalan (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have an account on Tagged and enjoy the site. Reading this article after joining almost made me not want to be on it any longer.

In addition to the disagreement about the notability as a whole, the press reports, particularly the bulk invites, is dated and no longer relevant to how the company seems to operate. This is further reason that these past controversies have no place in the lead.

You are incorrect in stating that I feel a flag should be placed on the article until I am happy with it. Rather, there is disagreement over the lead of the article. It’s not attempting to remove anything from the article – just to have the lead be reflective and consistent with other similar firms as has been previously stated.

You have asked me to make a case again and this is it:

Tagged’s lead should be more consistent with the firms in its group. The news is dated and not relevant to how the company operates today – it is history and should be in the history section and/or controversy section. Also, the introduction does not fit Wiki guidelines as stated before. Others agree with me and as a whole we are trying to establish a consensus among multiple editors. This is an ongoing and active debate that challenges your claim of notability – and that deserves a flag to alert readers of the discussion. NCSS (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Why should Tagged's lead be more consistent with the other firms in its group? I see nothing in Wikipedia guidelines that suggests that. And, again, the only reason that Facebook's article doesn't have controversies in the lead is because you took them out. Again, Wikipedia guidelines, as I've pointed out over and over, explicitly say that notable controversies should be covered in the lead. If you want consistency, put a controversy section back in the Facebook lead--the guidelines support that.

You say that the introduction does not fit Wiki guidelines, but again the guidelines explicitly say that controversies should be included. Removing them would violate the guidelines.

As for the idea that this is all ancient history, the New York Attorney General's accusations were *six months ago*. How is that no longer relevant? Yes, the company has taken steps to change their policies on bulk emails--that's why the lead *says so*. It's still a notable thing about the company. This is an encyclopedia, not a consumer guide; what's important isn't particularly defined by what's current. If you have a source indicating that the AG's accusations have been resolved, add that to the article.

You say that you're challenging the claim of notablity--on what grounds? Have we not provided sources establishing that? We've shown not only that major news outlets have covered Tagged's controversies, but that in fact those controversies have been the primary subject of major-media coverage of Tagged. Do you question that? If not, what more do you want? Brettalan (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)