Jump to content

Talk:ArtistShare

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Looks like this page is a spam entry.

I added the website link (after a web search) but then noticed that you had removed it previously, as "spam". I think the problem with the article is the complete lack of substance. Not the fact that it has a link. If the article is deemed to be spam, vfd might be the way to go.
--TheParanoidOne 22:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for Deletion

[edit]

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 00:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy awards

[edit]

Copied from article

In 2005, Maria Schneider's Concert in the Garden became the first album in Grammy history to win an award without being available in retail stores.[citation needed] The album was ArtistShare's first fan-funded project. Schneider received four nominations that year for her album and won Best Large Jazz Ensemble Album.

In 2006, ArtistShare artist[citation needed] Billy Childs won a Grammy for Best Instrumental Composition - Lyric

In 2007, ArtistShare artist[citation needed] Brian Lynch won a Grammy for Best Latin Jazz Album for "Simpatico" - a collaboration with Latin Jazz great Eddie Palmieri.

In 2008, ArtistShare artist[citation needed] Maria Schneider won a Grammy for Best Instrumental Composition for "Cerulian Skies" - a piece from her fan-funded recording "Sky Blue".

In 2009, ArtistShare artists[citation needed] The Clayton Brothers, Geoffrey Keezer and Gerald Clayton received Grammy nominations for their ArtistShare fan-funded releases.

In 2010, ArtistShare artists Billy Childs, Patrick Williams, The Clayton Brothers and Gerald Clayton received Grammy nominations for their ArtistShare fan-funded releases

In 2011, ArtistShare artist[citation needed] Billy Childs won a Grammy for Best Instrumental Composition - The Path Among The Trees from his ArtistShare fan-funded release - Autumn - In moving pictures.

It has been suggested that these grammy award winners/nominees are "artist share" artists. I suggest that they can be mentioned in this article IF (and only if) independent reliable sources or statements by the artists themselves attribute at least part of the reason for the success to artist share. GDallimore (Talk) 00:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The suggestion here to "list them one by one and ... put a total then" still does not establish a link to ArtistShare. Independent reliable sources are needed for that. --Edcolins (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is factual data about ArtistShare releases. Although I am sure we could get such a reference we are talking about ArtistShare releases that received Grammy awards. Please show me a reference in Wikipedia where this is how it is done so that I better understand 98.14.149.118 (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already told you what you need to do - you need to support your claim that these are artist share releases with a source independent of artist share. Is that so hard to understand? GDallimore (Talk) 01:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On another topic, I propose that the references to the KickStarter law suit be removed as the sources have been deemed unreliable. There are clearly factually inaccuracies as at no time was founder Brian Camelio a member of Journey or PHISH. Only articles that are unbiased and factually correct from reliable sources should be referenced. A link to the actual complaint document would be appropriate. 98.14.149.118 (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't bothered to study this in detail, but none of the stuff you say is innacurate is mentioned in this article. Further, it seems pretty well established that there is a lawsuit. So, no, it shouldn't be removed, although maybe some of the sources do not need to be or should not be used. Complaint documents are rarely useful sources - just a bunch of lawyers trying to claim the earth. A final judgment might be useful when/if it's issued. GDallimore (Talk) 01:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have confirmed that each of the articles cited with regards to the KickStarter lawsuit against ArtistShare contains factual errors and clearly the appropriate fact checking was not performed. It is clear that the sources have factually incorrect information. I have also confirmed that ArtistShare does not control US patent 7885887 and it was only assigned to ArtistShare for a short period of time, a company called Fan Funded, LLC owns the patent. I do not think that information regarding the patent is relevant to this article and should be removed. It does not add anything to explaining the history of Artistshare and how it works. Otherwise it seems like it is being used as a news story. I assume you will agree that this is the purpose of the wiki entry. Please comment at your earliest convenience so that we can wrap this up 98.14.149.118 (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

BBC News is undeniably a reliable source. The information is therefore verified. But as you say has nothing really to do with artist share so I have moved it to the more relevant article. GDallimore (Talk) 01:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

":I've already told you what you need to do - you need to support your claim that these are artist share releases with a source independent of artist share. Is that so hard to understand?" - this tone of communication is unwelcome. Let's please keep this civil. Are you suggesting that what you say is the way it has to be and that you in fact have the final say on this? Please clarify so that I better understand the protocol. thank you 98.14.149.118 (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you need to support your claim that these are artist share releases with a source independent of artist share -Yes. that is what we are doing. The Grammy awards site is an independent source from ArtistShare. That certainly is not hard to understand. I will make references to their site and that should satisfy this, correct? If not, please point me to an example of another similar situation so I can see how it was handled. 98.14.149.118 (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, it IS hard to understand. Where is there on the grammy site any mention that these are "arist share artists". Where is there any independent source suggesting that artist share has anything to do with their success? GDallimore (Talk) 01:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the Grammy site the release is listed as an ArtistShare release - here is an example http://www.latingrammy.com/en/winners/12-brazilian - look for Yeahwon under Best MPB (Música Popular Brasileira) Album . Clearly references such as this will suffice. Am I correct? Please also let me know about the protocol. Who has the final say on these matters once all wikipedia guidelines are met? I thought wikipedia was a collaborative effort. It seems as if you have more authority than others. Is this true? 98.14.149.118 (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reformatted the Grammy awards to better reference them for what they are - factual list of ArtistShare releases - removing your concerns for artist endorsement. I also added links to the artists websites. I also added an informative reference from LiveMint.com/Wall St. Journal regarding the year of creation and reason for the company's formation. Finally the external links were added as they are helpful for those looking for more information on the company and the artists involved. Thanks for helping to get this article in great shape according to the Wikipedia standards. Please discuss any future edits before making them as none of the content posted now is outside of Wikipedia standards. 98.14.149.118 (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed. I think the external links are relevant and will like to add them back in. Here is the guideline from which I am getting this information. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. All external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. Jamesrand (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus-building

[edit]

I have started here a discussion on the content of a proposed "Patent dispute" section. --Edcolins (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Brian Camelio#RfC: Sections .22Patent dispute.22

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Brian Camelio#RfC: Sections .22Patent dispute.22. Edcolins (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does it work?

[edit]

Are there any good references explaining how ArtistShare works? I looked at the site and there doesn't appear to be any sort of threshold pledge system or funding deadline like Kickstarter. I hesitate to put information in the article, however, based solely on my review of the site.--Nowa (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quote does not reflect pov or main points of reference

[edit]

The quote from Brian Camelio that has been spammed to multiple articles belongs in none. It is self serving and of no encyclopedic value. It does not reflect the pov of the actual reference, nor it's most relevant points, hence it being quoted in the article. --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, please stop vandalizing until this is worked out on the talk page. Wiki 101 as another editor pointed out. It is clearly very relevant and of encyclopedic value as it is a direct quote from one of the parties involved. The POV of the actual reference? I'm at a loss to understand that. Are you saying that the quote "goes against" the POV of the article? Please explain that. I have noticed your other edits as well and there seems to be a COI here. Please do not introduce your personal points of view into the wiki. it is a neutral zone and from what I can everything in this section is taken directly from references. In fact the quote that you have such a problem with is from a reference used here. There is not issue with it and it should stay 64.131.184.113 (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ronz (talk · contribs), per WP:NOTNEWS. Brian Camelio said that he was "stunned and disappointed that Kickstarter has decided to sue our company". Well, this may be verifiable, but "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" (WP:NOTNEWS). --Edcolins (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given what the source actually says, and the ip's inablity to address real policy problems here, let's wrap this up.
While I don't think it proper to add Kickstarter's perspective, that ArtistShare is a patent troll, I'd certainly be willing to change my opinion in the face of more references. However, it would take much more indeed to justify the quote of Camelio. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" (WP:NOTNEWS). Agreed. This entire patent disputes section should probably go then. I will take the liberty of removing it so this is resolved once and for all. 74.71.160.119 (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the entire "Patent dispute" section shouldn't go. But the quote should. In my opinion, it is important, for completeness, to discuss the patent dispute in the article, but what each party stated about the dispute does not seem very useful to me, per WP:NOTNEWS, unless the statements are somehow extraordinary or unusual and reported as such in several reliable sources. --Edcolins (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. A direct quote from the founder of ArtistShare, reacting to Kickstarter's legal action, in an ArtistShare article is perhaps even more relevant than the other things in there. I think it would make more sense putting the quote directly after "KickStarter said it believed it was under threat of a patent infringement lawsuit by ArtistShare. The New York Observer quoted Brian Camelio as saying that he was "stunned and disappointed that Kickstarter has decided to sue our company"." I am confused with your distinction between WP:NOTNEWS for the quote and the rest of the content in this section. I am not convinced and think it needs to go back in or at the very least modify the section to be purely informational without any accused or implied motives from either side. Just the facts. That being said and based on your feeling that for completeness this needs to e discussed without what earch party said, this is what I suggest as an alternative "On September 30, 2011, Kickstarter filed a declaratory judgment suit against ArtistShare[25][26] and Fan Funded which owns U.S. patent US 7885887, "Methods and apparatuses for financing and marketing a creative work"." People can then read the "news" about it elsewhere. I think this is the most reasonable solution. BTW. The quote appears in several reliable sources. 74.71.160.119 (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing almost the entire content of the "Patent dispute" section, just because others think that one statement you want to add is not suitable for inclusion in the article. The existing statements by KickStarter, ArtistShare and Fan Funded help to understand the dispute development, while the statement that Brian Camelio was "stunned and disappointed that Kickstarter has decided to sue our company" does not add anything. If you think we (Ronz (talk · contribs) and me) are both wrong, you may ask for a Wikipedia:Third_opinion, which may be useful, since we clearly disagree. --Edcolins (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, whether to include the "Patent dispute" section was already discussed two years ago here (and in the section "Consensus-building: central discussion on the "patent dispute" sections in Brian Camelio, ArtistShare, and Kickstarter" on the same talk page). --Edcolins (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, Ed. I interpreted your comment "but what each party stated about the dispute does not seem very useful to me" as removing exactly that - what each party stated- so I removed all of the other fluff and tried to adhere to the WP:NOTNEWS standard as you proposed. I see now that this has a very long history which you have been involved in from the get go - looks like Sept/Oct 2011. You are also a wiki admin so I guess what you say goes. The concept of a "consensus" doesn't really make much sense as you propose pulling in folks who agree with you and I would just do the same. It then becomes a numbers game and seems totally against the grain of what Wiki is all about. I still disagree with you preventing the quote as it is absolutely relevant, in sync with the rest of the section and from a verifiable source. I also have not gotten one good, logical reason to exclude it. 74.71.160.119 (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but at this point you just don't agree with the good, logical reasons. You've tried to apply the outcome of the dispute at Talk:Crowdfunding#Patent_disputes to this article, seemingly without understanding why it applied there. Likewise Talk:Kickstarter#Patent_Disputes_section and Talk:Brian_Camelio#Advert_problem_and_linkfarm. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are no good/logical reasons that hold up here. BTW, the comment was directed towards Ed. Ed? 74.71.160.119 (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I am an admin does not make any difference (Wikipedia:Administrator_Code_of_Conduct#Consensus). As I wrote above, you may seek a third opinion if you really want to include the quote by Brian Camelio about being stunned and disappointed. Perhaps, I am misinterpreting WP:NOTNEWS... See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment. --Edcolins (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ArtistShare. 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:

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) 03:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ArtistShare. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 01:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ArtistShare&oldid=1205378165"