Jump to content

Talk:The WELL

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kehinton1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dgoydan21. Peer reviewers: Dcha94exi2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lauragribble.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 May 2019 and 12 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Standfirmly.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information

[edit]

I'm considering adding more information to the page regarding other virtual communities. It would be helpful to have a list of virtual communities so people can have a better understanding. Also, I've noticed confusion around virtual communities and social networking sites. Pointing out the similarities and differences of both would help cut down on confusion. Below are a few sources I plan on using. Open to suggestions as well!

https://www.techopedia.com/definition/15504/virtual-community https://www.socialmediatoday.com/content/social-network-vs-online-community-what-difference http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/6632/EXAMPLES-OF-VIRTUAL-COMMUNITIES.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kehinton1 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kehinton1 }}


Some WELL members:

[edit]

well done
(This is just a placeholder - I'll try to work up some content regarding the WELL's history and impact later). --Calton | Talk 06:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"De-church-ladying" - funny. I'm not going to revert it or anything, but I do think "Dipping into the well" is kind of cutesy/promotional in tone. Okay, it quite accurately describes the grating tone of Well promotional efforts in general, but I don't think it's very Wikipedia. But that's just me. Cromis 00:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But that's just me. Yep. --Calton | Talk 02:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for the gracious response there. Cromis 03:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which is to say, I still say "Dipping into the WELL" is not encyclopedic style. It reads like one of the over-earnest ads that the Well used to run in WER or something. It's a section on how to join and read the Well, so you know, the sub-heading should say something about "joining" or "reading" the Well, not talk about "dipping into" anything. It's not actually a well. Or a swimming pool. Or any other body of water. It's a conferencing system. And I will change that sub-header again, but I'd rather come up with something you're not just going to instantly revert. Given that right now I'm guessing we're the only two people trying to improve the entry, a revert fight over such a trivial edit seems ... counterproductive. The parts of the article that you wrote are good. I'd hope to improve them. I'm working on a fairly long section describing the Well user experience that I hope you'd improve if you saw it. Can't We All Just Get Along? Cromis 03:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unreadable paragraph needs rewrite

[edit]

The following paragraph is completely unreadable and needs to be reformatted and rewritten. I dug in and tried, and couldn't make heads or tails out of some parts. I tried to reformat it as a sub-bulletted list, but gave up.

Roy Ascott and Carl Eugene Loeffler, Guest Editors, Connectivity: Art and Interactive Telecommunications, Leonardo 24:2, 1991. Includes documentation of early artworks on ArtCom Electronic Network, a WELL Conference and archive started in 1986 by Carl Loeffler and Fred Truck. Artworks created or published on ACEN on the WELL included John Cage, (The First Meeting of the Satie Society) Judy Malloy, (Uncle Roger, Bad Information, Thirty Minutes in the Late Afternoon) Jim Rosenberg,(Diagram Series) and Sonya Rapoport. (Digital Mudra Online) Connectivity: Art and Interactive Telecomunications includes papers about art on the WELL by Ron Buck, ("Poetry Online") Carl Loeffler, ("Modem Dialing Out") Anna Couey, ("Art Works as Organic Communications Systems") Roger Malina, ("FineArt Forum and F.A.S.T.: Experiments in Electronic Publishing in the Arts) Gil MinaMora, ("Hidden Bearers: An Exquisite Corpse Online") and Judy Malloy, ("Uncle Roger, an Online Narrabase").

MichaelSHoffman (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what that paragraph is about. I suggest deleting it. If the original editors think it's important they can put back a readable version. Alanf777 (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Feel free to rewrite it. Alanf777 (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

[edit]

This page was written by Well members and is little more than a googoo love fest. In fact, the WELL is a highly controversial on-line chat service with a checkered history of rude and borderline criminal behavior. Members of the WELL have reverted several attempts to flesh out its history and explore some of the darker sides of the WELL. A couple of members of the WELL are highly active in Wikipedia User:Calton and User:MCB A reasonable history of the WELL would require at least a little balance.RichardBennett 02:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have specific, actionable objections and/or specific, NPOV remedies (other than your trademark egotistical bitterness), I'm going to remove the chance. Remember again, Richard: No Making Shit Up. --Calton | Talk 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article needs a section on social behavior on the WELL, including hazing of new members, the hooligan behavior of the Flame conference, the posting of financial records of new members, the slander, the bot-wreckage of threads, and the expulsion of members who hold non-doctrinaire political beliefs. To read this entry, one would think that Wellberts are basically decent people, and that's far from the truth. The WELL has long been a great place to observe sociopathy and mob behavior, and it should be commemorated and assigned its proper place in history for all that.RichardBennett 08:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, for the last time, Richard, No Making Shit Up.

The WELL has long been a great place to observe sociopathy. It was -- though not in the way you seem to think.

Since your version of NPOV doesn't seem to be something recognizable as such heer on Planet Earth, off comes the bogus POV tag. --Calton | Talk 09:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, Wellbert Calton, is that any attempt to provide a balanced perspective on the WELL is immediately vandalized by you and Berch. Surely, you're not so clueless about Wikipedia guidelines to think you can get away with that.

I'd like to describe the Fredda Weinberg story. She's Greg Palast's research assistant, and her joining the WELL resulted in you and your friend running a credit check on her and posting her address and phone number on the WELL. I'm sure you remember, and if you don't I can refresh your memory with the text that was posted at the time. You should wish I had to make this shit up. RichardBennett 10:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

its just a website. not the illuminati.

There is no substantive NPOV dispute regarding this article. It has existed for quite a while, edited by many hands, with substantial consensus regarding it contents. One person, RichardBennett, who has a specific POV agenda of criticism of the WELL (from which he was banned for disruption and personal insults), has attempted to create a "controversy" where none, in fact exists. This is not a "love fest" -- divergent views of the WELL are certainly welcome in this article, so long as they are verifiable, and from reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Unencyclopedic material like referring to WELL members as "Wellberts" (an epithet Bennet made up), or personal opinions or anecdotes about the governance of the WELL, clearly do not come up to this standard. --MCB 16:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this article was written by members of the WELL, and is about as neutral as an article about the KKK written by Klansmen. It amounts to an autobiography, and we don't approve of that sort of thing here at Wikipedia.
It's also not the case that Richard Bennett was banned from the WELL for disruption or any other reason. A group of former WELL members pulled a prank on the WELL in 2001 from the login name bubbadude, and I may have been one of them. The bubbadude prank was all about holding up a mirror to the WELL, and Wellberts fell for it. I was a member in 1996 and ended my personal association with the WELL of my own accord.
Perhaps I should post some material from the WELLs flame.ind conference to illuminate the discussion. I have a thread titled "bubbadude is a whiny little PUSSY" that may be of interest to those studying the WELL.
And please, can we try and abide by Wikipedia's No personal attacks guideline? This discussion is quite harsh. RichardBennett 23:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HA HA HA! Oh, that's funny coming from you -- given the sterling track record you've compiled in the very short time you've been here -- trying to hide under the skirts of NPA policy.
Unfortunately, this article was written by members of the WELL, and is about as neutral as an article about the KKK written by Klansmen. It amounts to an autobiography, and we don't approve of that sort of thing here at Wikipedia. An article about a group doesn't in any way, shape, or form, fall under autobiography standards -- and "WE"? Are you royalty, a newspaper editor, or have a tapeworm?
It's also not the case that Richard Bennett was banned from the WELL for disruption or any other reason... Richard, Richard, Richard...what did I say about Not Making Shit Up? Or do you have the slightest evidence for your latest nonsense? Again, voices inside your head don't count. --Calton | Talk 00:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your lack of civility is very troubling, Calton. Please read Wikipedia:Civility and try and remember that you're not on the WELL when you post here. Wikipedia is not a place for nasty, churlish personal attacks about "voices in your head." You also don't have the flame.ind conference covering for you here. I have some interesting material from the WELL and I'll be sharing it here shortly. RichardBennett 03:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, you do have the flame.ind conference covering for you here. Jeffrey McManus 04:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have some interesting material from the WELL And if they are verifiable, and from reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia policy, have at it. Do have a read of those links, just so you'll understand that "Because I said so" is not an acceptable standard around here -- especially given that Wikipedia is not a place for nasty, churlish personal attacks coming from the voices in your head.
And hello, Jeffrey! Please don't hurt him too much. --Calton | Talk 04:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A group of former WELL members pulled a prank on the WELL in 2001 from the login name bubbadude, and I may have been one of them. Considering that the bubbadude persona was quite consistent in style and tone and that said style and tone were a good match for the creepy self-righteous paranoid narcissism expressed here by Richard Bennett, it's a good bet that there was only one voice behind that 'prank'. ChuckKarish 09:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that Richard Bennett would want to leave the subject of the WELL alone. There is still both record and memory of his actions there. Jonl 19:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead?

[edit]

The article currently fails to explain whether the site is still regularly updated; the most recent entries appear to be from several years ago, and the most recent activity mentioned in the article is from 2007. Is the site still regularly updated? Does it have an active user base? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is an active user base.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The WELL is a paid-subscriber bulletin board -- and still very active, I can attest -- that has little publicly accessible free content. The article also notes that the WELL was sold by Salon Media Group this year, so I don't understand where you got the notion that it's been inactive for the last five years. --Calton | Talk 11:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Planned Edits

[edit]

The article needs updating and clean-up, and quite a lot of it needs citations. I'm a well subscriber, but have no involvement in the ownership: nor am I a conference host. Should I make a formal "conflict of interest" declaration before doing any edits? (If there are no objections within a few days I'll go ahead.) Alanf777 (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would not think such a declaration should be needed. I suspect that editors of the Facebook article, LinkedIn article etc, are likely to be "members" and I doubt anyone thinks that requires a disclosure. I realize the Well is not exactly like those places (and proud of it), but I don't think a mere member would have to declare a COI. It might be good to note you are a member, but that is done. While I'm at it, so am I.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems unanimous. Alanf777 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What to call it? "The WELL" is trademarked (not uniquely -- just for conferencing), so I suggest "The WELL[TM]" in bold at the first occurrence, and "The WELL" in plain text everywhere else where "the" is used, or "WELL members" etc. Alanf777 (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed one, and it looks ungrammatical, unless it's bolded/italicised The Well or The Well -- so I think I'll leave it alone for now, or apply it judiciously. Alanf777 (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wherever the corporation is talked about, I used The WELL. In other cases I just italicised WELL -- leaving some the's alone. Looks OK to me now. Alanf777 (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History : How much detail do we want? For instance, the attempted sale by Salon in 2005 is pretty much irrelevant (or could just be a subclause of the actual sale). I think the Katz era needs a bit more, because it included the WeNET ISP service, and the creation of the Engaged Web interface (which spun off into a reasonably successful company). Alanf777 (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I shuffled the Gail Williams para into chronological order (and added community manager from her wiki article) . I'm not sure if this merits a para in history. Alanf777 (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The WELL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa's Peer Review

[edit]

Adding clarification and examples about virtual communities and social networking sites is a great idea. I'm not sure what the differences are.

I'm also curious about the lack of sources. In the first few paragraphs, I noticed at least 5 instances of unsubstantiated claims: line about Gail Ann Williams, being acquired by Salon, Earl Crabbs death, the connection between the founders of the EFF, etc. Is there a reason that you decided not to attack this area? It might be too big for the scope of the class?

Jakes27s (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am revising the WELL page. Since you posted four years ago, Wikipedia has added a lengthy and very detailed page on virtual communities. The virtual community section here does not contain a lot of WELL-specific content, and I propose deleting it due to lack of relevance to this entry. I have already added an internal link to the proper Wikipedia page. Please respond if you want to revise this section instead to make it more WELL-specific. Oldgirlpop (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

dgoydan21 Bibliography

[edit]

Running Bibliography - Possible Sources

Hafner, Katie. The Well: A Story of Love, Death & Real Life in the Seminal Online Community. New York: Carroll & Graf Pub, 2001.

Kirk, Andrew. “Appropriating Technology: The Whole Earth Catalog and Counterculture Environmental Politics.” In Environmental History, 374–94, 2001.

Kirk, Andrew G. Counterculture Green: The Whole Earth Catalog and American Environmentalism. Lawrence, Kan: University Press of Kansas, 2007.

Tierney, John. “Stewart Brand - John Tierney - An Early Environmentalist, Embracing New ‘Heresies.’” The New York Times, February 27, 2007, sec. Environment. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/science/earth/27tier.html.

Turner, Fred. From Counterculture to Cyberculture : Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006. http://proxy.uchicago.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=344001&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the question of whether this was fair use of the logo was resolved on the Wikimedia Commons page. Oldgirlpop (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the quality of this page

[edit]

I've done some research and am able to, at minimum, improve the quantity and sourcing of this page. I also propose to reorganize some of the existing material to make it easier to find specific facts about The WELL, and to add a section called "Cultural Impact" to collect the various projects inspired by or founded by WELL members. On the other hand, the entire student-written section on virtual communities is not specific to The WELL and duplicates a more exhaustive existing Wikipedia page on the topic. In my opinion, it should simply be deleted and/or moved to the Virtual Communities page. I've done minor Wikipedia edits before, but this would be a bigger cleanup, so I've created an account and am owning it. Oldgirlpop (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My COI statement: I am one of the 3,000 members of the WELL. I do not have a financial interest in the WELL. Oldgirlpop (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense to me and I am willing to help. MatisseEnzer (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COI statement: I am also a member/user of the WELL and a former staff member (1991-1994). I do not have a financial interest in The WELL. MatisseEnzer (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reorganized, edited and sourced these sections: Introduction, History, Technology and Structure, Policy and Governance, Cultural Impact, In the News and Publications about The WELL. For sure they could use an editor's eye, especially to be sure everything got cited that needed to be and that transitions make sense where I moved things around. I have not yet deleted the Virtual Community section; giving the previous editor a chance to respond. Oldgirlpop (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find qualified sources for Christian Ruzich and Daryl-Lynn Johnson's tenure as co-general managers; Ruzich doesn't list the WELL on his LinkedIn page, even. I have deleted them for now; will add them back in if we can source them. Oldgirlpop (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded to wikipedia a couple of photographs that i took years ago, of WELL staff, and they are available to use. They are appropriately licensed. MatisseEnzer (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added Howard Rheingold's ID to the caption of the office party photo; please ID anybody else who is mentioned in the article if you can, thanks! I will take another look at Rheingold's book and see if we can use it for the paragraph about how the conferences are structured; it's about the only one remaining that only uses The WELL's website as a source. Oldgirlpop (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think this page has been whipped into shape, so I’ve removed the tags. I still am not in love with the “virtual community” section, which somewhat duplicates the standalone wikipedia page, but in its pared-down state, it is more encyclopedia-compliant and WELL-specific. Oldgirlpop (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fawning hagiography

[edit]

This article massively over-states the importance of an obscure internet community few people know or care about. It's clear the entire article was written by members of that community and zealously pruned of any criticism or unbiased perspective. 5.67.75.180 (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article fairly represents the published material about WELL which is quite positive. If you know about negative accounts published in WP:Reliable sources then please point to them. Binksternet (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_WELL&oldid=1204475395"