Talk:Digital Doesn't Matter

COI

In accordance with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, I have chosen to disclose that I have a personal connection to this subject. I will spare details, but my main purpose in writing this article is to benefit Wikipedia and its mission. I believe this list is written from a neutral perspective (the content is pretty non-controversial) and has been constructed from independent, reliable sources. The second link above provides the following summary, which I believe I have followed appropriately:

• Be transparent about your conflict of interest ( Done)
• Subjects require significant coverage in independent reliable sources. ( Done)
• Your role is to inform and reference, not promote or sell. ( Done)
• Be extremely cautious about the risks of editing articles about yourself or your clients ( Done|N/A)
• If writing a draft, write without bias, as if you don't work for the company or personally know the subject. ( Done)
• State facts and statistics, don't be vague or general. ( Done)
• Take time to get sources and policy right. ( Done)
• Get neutral, uninvolved, disinterested editors to review your draft. ( Doing...)
• Work with the community and we'll work with you. ( Done)
• Communicate, communicate, communicate. ( Done)

My goal is to have this article promoted to Good article status, eventually. I understand this will require review and assistance from other members of the community, which is great. I invite all to examine this list carefully to make sure the content is fair and accurate. Feel free to contact me if you have any concerns. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

List of interviewees

The list of interviewees looks far too arbitrary to me. The book includes content from hundreds of transcribed interviews, presumably from a similar number of people, right? If that's the case, then a list of only some of the interviewees, most of whom are not notable and do not even represent notable firms, is arbitrary and seems like it's padding-out the article. It's also acting as promotion for those people. I don't think that every person should be included, and arbitrarily selecting some people to be mentioned but not others is not neutral. If every example mentioned had an article, or at the very least, if every firm they worked for had an article, I wouldn't fight this, but I would still prefer to have an independent source if this kind of thing is going to be included. Otherwise, it reads like a book-jacket, and is just too promotional to both the book and the mentioned people. Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links

The two external link I removed, which were then restored are these:

• Digital Doesn't Matter (and other advertising heresies) out in paperback now. (July 8, 2014), Adland
• Digital Doesn't Matter... or Does It? (October 15, 2015), Heinrich Marketing

I really can't see how these could possibly meet WP:EL guidelines. The first is at least from a notable site, but it's still a conversational mention in a blog by someone featured in the book. It's just a brief promotional blurb. The second is the same, but it's an anonymous corporate blog post from a non-notable firm touting their own VP of Digital Marketing. This would very questionable even as as a primary source. For these reasons, I removed them again. Grayfell (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Digital Doesn't Matter. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150407015521/http://www.adasiaonline.com:80/2014/10/digital-doesnt-matter-and-other-advertising-heresies/ to http://www.adasiaonline.com/2014/10/digital-doesnt-matter-and-other-advertising-heresies/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 01:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)