Talk:Pinterest
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Qzekrom in topic "Ownership" of user content
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pinterest article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=icon}
Contested deletion
editHasty nomination. I'm a veteran editor and I have zero affiliation with the website. --Marcus Qwertyus 05:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Just because you are a veteran editor does not automatically waive rules. The article is a passing mention, and does not provide any cultural interest, other then to say "Hey! We have been featured in a magazine." Need to try a little harder then that. Phearson (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- What part of "exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" don't you understand? Marcus Qwertyus 05:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Does not have to be overly promotional. But I see that you have added a better source, and thus I retract my request. Phearson (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- This article uses the exact same text as Pinterest's own website. Overly promotional. I dunno if deletion is a good idea, but this thing desperately needs rewriting from an objective POV. I have no idea what "Visual Discovery Tool" is even intended to mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.91.250 (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- The resemblance of this article's text to Pinterest's website is striking and appears excessively promotional. While outright deletion may not be necessary, a thorough rewrite from an unbiased perspective is urgently needed. Moreover, the phrase "Visual Discovery Tool" lacks clarity, leaving readers uncertain about its intended meaning. JacksonPercy 1212 (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- This article uses the exact same text as Pinterest's own website. Overly promotional. I dunno if deletion is a good idea, but this thing desperately needs rewriting from an objective POV. I have no idea what "Visual Discovery Tool" is even intended to mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.91.250 (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
"Ownership" of user content
editI modified the section on § Terms of service to avoid stating in "Wikipedia's voice" that Pinterest "asserted ownership of user content", making it clear that the claim about content ownership is an allegation made by the blogger. The TOS claimed a non-exclusive license to distribute user content, which is not the same thing. However, the allegation that Pinterest asserted the right to sell content is supported by the quote in the article, so I rewrote the section to focus on that.
Other than this, I am keeping the content as is for now. However, I think these sources are not reliable because they assert mistaken interpretations about the Pinterest TOS, and I think that should be addressed later. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 00:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)