Talk:User-generated content/Archives/2012

First article

This is the first article I've submitted. In spite of reading numerous Help sections I have to admit I'm still struggling to get fully to grips with how Wikipedia works. In particular, how to make my article more visible and attract other people's inputs. For example, it doesn't seem to show up in Recent Articles or Recent Changes. It doesn't show up well in Searches - for example on "User Generated". I'm not sure how best to make links - external or internal. Any help or advice from experienced Wiki-writers would be much appreciated. -Uknown

I have categorized the article, this will surely brings more attention, another way is to search for articles which talks about this notion, mainly in social networking sites, and insert User generated content in sentences where it's relevant, but please don't overlink, as this will be considered as internal spamming, add it only where it's stricly relevant. Cheers--Khalid hassani 20:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Khalid, thanks for your help - I've got a much better sense of how it works -Unknown

I added Outloud.TV - this project should get major props b/c these Amsterdam techno hippies pioneerded back in 2003 truely the use of things that are common sense now; such as automatically converting videos to one universal format: Flash Video. Also the idea of allocating timeslots based upon user votes and automatic broadcast of uploaded video's was never done before. This project is basically the Father of Youtube. Being total hippies they never managed to get the 1.6 billion dollars (thats only 1 billion euro's anyway) - but they should at least get the credits that deserve. The project is actually still active and thus relevant I guess212.83.71.69 12:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

The article is titled User generated content yet references in the article are to User-Generated Content. We must decide on what term is proper. If it is indeed the second, this article should be moved there. Otherwised, all instances should be converted to main title. Tyciol 17:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Broadcast, the UK trade newspaper for television and broadcast media, uses the spelling 'User-generated Content' which would support adopting the title spelling throughout. Aarkangel 00:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Paid-For UGC: I propose that this term be included. Perfectiix (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC) _________________________________________ Content is indeed "user generated" but it is also "user received" and to attempt to create a boundary between ordinary folk and professionals is distracting from the central issue. The concept of content production and distribution via digital technology has long been familiar to those who have studied and practiced the art and science of videography. See http://videographyblog.com for substantial historical perspective on this matter. Bobkiger 15:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Bob Kiger, Videography Labs, Oceanside, CA.

Merge 'User Generated Content' article into this one

'User Generated Content' is not the grammatically correct English spelling. The article entitled 'User Generated Content' should be merged into this one - the English needs to be corrected as it has been authored by a non-native speaker and some of the facts - e.g. the claim that the term was coined in Korea need verification Aarkangel 00:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, user created content should be merged & redirected here. Makes no sense to have its own artcile. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge 'Consumer-Generated Content' article into this one

'User Generated Content' is not a broadly used term and seems to be particularly related to marketeers. It would not be appropraite therefore to merge it into this article. Aarkangel 00:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe in the future when this topic is more devloped there will be a need for seperate pages. but for now, as both user-generated, and user-created content (and consumer-generated)all come in opposition to the traditional content based pages, and all spur out of the same idea, they can be linked together under one roof.

Well all those concepts are in flux, so for sure we need to do something in the future, when this settels a bit and the most important concept emerge, but we need at least to put them in see also section to show that they are related--Khalid hassani 16:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that the articles can be merged, but the main user-generated content article needs more examples of leveraging the concept in terms of consumers, for marketing purposes (i.e. the GM car commercial contest)--Frequent Anon. Contributor 16:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I think this is a bold new arena that truly needs its own section. While the content needs significant work; I will do my best to contribute soon. I think you need to also define all terms as well: Costumer-generated content versus consumer-generated content. The first being lame marketing strategies that abuse user-generated content proclivities, the latter being consumers telling their stories about their experiences. I just added links to consumer-generated content that I think shows just a smattering of the history but I believe indicate its bold future. I will try to add more soon, but I think it would be unfortunate to merge this page into User-Generated content. It completely flouts the true spirit of Wikipedia versus the repeated corporate abuse of such a resource. I hope you agree. FYI, I am a noobie and hope this was the appropriate place/way to lodge this opinion. --Wikiwhacki 04:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

This article must cite sources, and reliance on "individual professional experience" is not suitable for an ecyclopedia article. Articles must be verifiable and cite reliable sources, and not rely on original research. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: a single "premium, non-public" source does not satisfy the requirement for articles to be verifiable and not original research. Unsourced tag should remain in place. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ebay inclusion & general definition

(copied from my talk page so others can benefit from the discussion. ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC))

Dear ZimZalaBam In what way is eBay not content? what is the text and pictures people upload to it if not content? I'm afraid I disagree with your amendment to this article. Kind reagrds Arkangel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aarkangel (talk • contribs) .

Ebay is an online auction site where users sell things. Yes, some users upload photos, but ebay is not generally considered a space where users are "generating media content" in the way user-generated content envisions, ie, "content that is produced by users of websites as opposed to traditional media producers such as broadcasters and production companies." --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

All eBay users upload text and almost all photographs. That is users of a website generating media content for consumption by other users. Who says UGC doesn't cover this kind of production? What is your source? By limiting the definition in this way you narrow the thinking.

Although we disagree on this point, thanks for your help improving the article and lay-out.Aarkangel 13:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I quoted the definition provided in the article, which positions UGC against "traditional media producers such as broadcasters and production companies." The item information on ebay is not a replacement of content that would have otherwise been produced by traditional media. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The definition says nothing about replacing content produced by traditional media, only that UGC is created by users rather than professional producers. In the case of eBay, like Friends Reunited, it is new content that would not otherwise be produced.

You are evidently an experienced user of Wikipedia. How do such disagreements usually get resolved? How does Wikipedia protect itself from being dominated by a relatively few 'super-users'? Aarkangel 16:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I was using the page 10 minutes ago to explore related companies offering UGC solutions. I am surprised someone took these links off, this was very useful! —The preceding unsigned c -->

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's external link policy. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

The "Criticism" section seems to be equally divided between non-attributed criticism (weasel words, etc.) and original research (personal arguments from the section's writers, discussions, etc.). This should seriously be rewritten, if not deleted altogether. 83.199.114.87 (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC) 

User-generated confusing articles

There are three articles, Consumer Generated Media, User-generated content, Consumer-generated media. One should survive and others to be redirected. I am not English native, so that I can not do any thing, other than toss up this topic. Thank you.--Namazu-tron (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Agred. I merged Consumer generated media into this one article. It's ridiculous to have more than one. Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. Drcwright (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Player generated content

Merged. --Ciao 90 (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed plagiarized section that wasn't relevant, anyway

Nice try, bub. Someone added the first three paragraphs from http://www.deloitte.co.uk/TMTPredictions/media/Rising-cost-of-free-online-content.cfm to this article. It was about content that is *received* for free by the public, not *produced* for free by the public. --tgeller (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Notable websites based on user generated content

I added Roblox to the Notable websites based on user generated content section. That site is a game, where all the games are built by the users. I believe it qualifies. Any objections, let me know. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)