Talk:Distractify

FanPOV tag

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: question, how could an article about a news source be a fan point of view? that doesn't make sense. I created an article on this because the source was being used in a large amount of articles, and there was no article on it. I'm just going by what the sources say. versacespace (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hello VersaceSpace. Please be aware that {{ping|username}} doesn't work on Wikipedia. Therefore the reason that I did not respond here is that I did not receive a notification, so I was unaware of your post. Also, could you please WP:AGF and refrain from comments in the edit summaries such as "i pinged you and all so you know it's there, which means you've willfully ignored it"?

  Wikipedia must be vigilant about maintaining an WP:NPOV perspective on all types of articles, including for a social media / pop culture website. Regarding the sources, even though three of the claims have references, I am concerned that the article reads like it is written from a fan's perspective rather than in the overall context of similar websites, hence the tag I added. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

MrsSnoozyTurtle, let's run through this article and see what screams "NPOV" about it.

• Founded by Quinn Hu, Yosef Lerner, and Jake Heffner, Distractify was founded in 2013 as a social media startup for viral content.

This is true, as sourced in [1]. Nothing "NPOV" about the founders of a company

• The site reached 21 million unique visitors in November 2013.

This is also sourced in the same article as the last bullet.

• [the above bullet] was labeled as "impressive" by Business Insider.

I assume this is the part of the article which made you scream "NPOV". This is sourced by the same article that sourced the last two. Everything in the first paragraph is sourced by [1]. I'm simply adding what the source says.

• In 2014, Distractify saw a drop in Facebook traffic after Facebook began to lower reach for meme related posts.

This is sourced as well (by [2]) and I'm also confused because if I was a fan of the publication (as you said before) I would not have included this?

• The site received $7 million in funding that year.

This (like everything else) is sourced, why would it not be?

So what is exactly NPOV about this? versacespace (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi VersaceSpace, could you please indent your replies properly, so that it is easier for others to follow? Also, could you please adopt a less WP:BATTLEGROUND approach?

I agree that those three referenced claims are factually correct, however that is separate to the concern that the article discusses the topic from a neutral perspective placing appropriate weight given the context of similar websites. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: I'm confused by your notes here too. Besides the "described as impressive" line, which I think could safely be removed, I can see neither this article being written from a fans POV, nor a battleground approach in VersaceSpace's responses to you above. Sam Walton (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)