 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changes by Pol098 on 23 April 2012 edit
Many groups moved from Freecycle to Freegle (in late 2009). Freecycle then set up 'competing' groups in the same area, that is the main reason that there are both groups in some areas and not in others.
I was not involved in this but my understanding is that the moderators who were very unhappy with the way they had been, and were being, treated by the Freecycle management in the US moved their entire membership from Freecycle to Freegle. Individuals were, of course, free to go back to Freecycle but, until one was set up, there was not a Freecycle group in their immediate neighborhood.
Before this happened Freecycle coverage of the UK was far from complete. So since then new groups have been set up in various areas so the picture is rather more muddled.
FerdinandFrog (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Point taken. However, it is relevant to the reader that both organisations coexist, and their relative sizes. I have given an example from London NW1; I'm not sure how typical it is, if very atypical I'm sure others will correct. But the information IS relevant. One reason for people using Wikipedia is to answer questions such as "should I join Freegle, Freecycle, or both (twice as much searching if looking for something particular)?". Obviously the information has to be as accurate and unbiased as possible, but it needs to be there. Pol098 (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your earlier edits said that Freegle was set up alongside Freecycle and then individual members (albeit a lot of them) moved to Freegle. That is not the case and so that is why I reverted those edits.
- Saying that both have groups in some areas is fine. However the example you gave and the growth figures count as original research and so are not allowed. FerdinandFrog (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I simply stated published facts, adding that they were published but not independently verified. I only gave a couple of examples, rather than listing all groups and their sizes; as stated, this information was simply read off the Freegle and Freecycle websites, with nothing added, the only comment being a statement of what was not included. If others agree, please discuss or consider reinstating from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freegle&oldid=488827865. (In my experience people rarely make any comment either way.) Pol098 (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Yahoo! Groups edit
On 17 April 2012 I added a new category to Wikipedia named: Category:Yahoo! Groups. This category was modeled after an existing category: Category:Facebook groups. I spent some time adding several dozen Wikipedia articles to this category. However, soon after this cagtegory was created, someone decided to nominate it for deletion. Had I had a chance I would have added this article to this category.
To make a long story short, the Category:Yahoo! Groups was deleted while Category:Facebook groups lives on. Is anyone here interested in finding out more about this situation? if so I will provide more information Ottawahitech (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)